RE: Truth? Right and wrong?

RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 12:57:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If there is something, this something is truth. Its nature, defining it, is also truth. Things based off this definition of nature are also truth. ......why can't the observer of this 'truth' be flawed? i don't see how you get from something existing to that thing being truth....or even real. 'i think therefore i am' allows and arguably proves that something observes the universe. It doesn't guarantee that that something will have 20/20 vision. The observer is part of this truth. The observer may not be able to comprehend the truth. Indeed, in human instances, we certainly do not appear to be able. Nonetheless, we can tell that the truth exists, even if we do not know it.

Level -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 12:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord There are definately truths. I find very few care for such enough to pursue them very far, though. Why do you think so, CL? Something along the lines of Decarte's, "I think, therefore I am." There's something. I can perceive it- I must be something, even if I am a derived hypothetical of some mishappened creature. If there is something, this something is truth. Its nature, defining it, is also truth. Things based off this definition of nature are also truth. I say few pursue such things in observation of the utterly vulgar nature of common langauge and common thought. PS- I truly love this topic. It is on the nature of beauty, to me. I'd rant on and on, though I fear today's quite a busy one. It's only ADD that has me distracted enough from work to post here at the moment. Hopefully, I'll be able to conduct such rants in a date not too far from now. Absolute truth.. the Truth, proper.. is something so incredibly few care for. Such individuals seem to often be geniuses, though.. ..though I can't seem to reconcile the notion that few others would care for such things just yet. It is my personal hope that most have not been able to experience Truth rather than found such in apathy. Nonetheless, Math and Physics- two of the truthest human arts- seem to earn the contempt of many in mundane complexities that leads to the empirical reinforcement of such morbid observations. I would hope to write on the nature of definition and apothem at some point in time; would such a thing be received in earnest? Only if you supply a dictionary [:D] Kidding aside, I'd be interested in hearing more about the few that perceive truth.

philosophy -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If there is something, this something is truth. Its nature, defining it, is also truth. Things based off this definition of nature are also truth. ......why can't the observer of this 'truth' be flawed? i don't see how you get from something existing to that thing being truth....or even real. 'i think therefore i am' allows and arguably proves that something observes the universe. It doesn't guarantee that that something will have 20/20 vision. The observer is part of this truth. The observer may not be able to comprehend the truth. Indeed, in human instances, we certainly do not appear to be able. Nonetheless, we can tell that the truth exists, even if we do not know it. .....isn't that a leap of faith though? i think therefore i am, may prove the existence of the self-observer, but in so doing it more or less destroys the possibility of objective truth. You're a scientist....how can we tell if truth exists without some standard to test it against?

windchymes -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:11:10 PM)
If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth.

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:12:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Only if you supply a dictionary [:D] Kidding aside, I'd be interested in hearing more about the few that perceive truth. Heh. "Definition" is more arbitary, declariartive to such an argument involving the definition. Instead of English, where definitions are loose and may be interrepted many different ways, such a definition would have to be defined, even in varience is part of such a definition. Perhaps I only fool myself with romanticism when I believe people do. But, people who study logic and philosophy? I hope so. I truly hope such are aware of the nature of truth, the boundary conditions on more of what it must and mustn't be. The form that truth would take, narrowing down levels and understanding things at levels not so vulgar. This is to say, have you ever studied Chemistry? I'm stuck in a few Chem classes this summer, so it's sort of the first example off the top of my head. One area that is vulgar enough to as to be recongized in even lower level courses is the idea of "electron shells". The notion that valience electrons, or electrons attributed to belonging to the hypothetical outtermost elecrtion shell, belong to the parent atom. Early in quantum physics, this is known to be a fair approximation, though students are expected to understand that "resonnance" grants multiple forms in which such a molecule can be understood. That the definition is crude enough as to need multiple instances to shift, as even the definition of process is crude enough to forsake the instant rates of collision, which is also crude enough to be represented as a statical chance with respect to time. Sorry. This would take me a rather long time to actually get to my point, and that's something I sadly lack at the moment. Though you can count on a further interest in the future, should something not dramatically change before then. Still, to give mundane example of truth.. good versus evil. This is a bland, false approximatory concept, as I feel many realize. "Good" actions versus "bad"- then those give away to motivations. Would you believe how many motivations are believed to be unselfish? Pft. Anyhow. Motivations are also a vulgar approximation of the workings of the brain. Then you can go down to pathways and chances there. Which would be an approximation of the chemical model of it. Which is an approximation of the sub-atomic model of it. Which is an approximation of the quantum model of it. Which.. and this goes on. Still, though.. is murder good or bad? Most will say bad, disconcerned with the motivations. Some will likely consider and argue motivations. Sort of stops after that. We, as humans, are currently incapable of using truth. So we adopt vulgar approximations instead of chasing it to its core elements for finer answers. This is, in the immediate sense, far more practical in the utterly vast majority of cases. It's just not the truth.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:17:47 PM)
I'm too lazy to contend with CuriousLord at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum Yeah, thinking is going on. Not much else is certain. And even thinking might be questioned ultimately. "I exist" is just an assertion in the end.

NorthernGent -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Gent, I'd say that truth/right/wrong can be a deadly concept, like a gun can be deadly, but it depends on the use. Just because that danger exists doesn't mean we should avoid the concepts in question. The examples you list, while the perpetrators believed in the rightness of their actions, were wrong. Does that make me as deadly as them, or just correct? They are predatory, they place no store in civil liberties or freedom, they are tyrants, and they will use force to impose their ideas. Ultimately, they are a threat to my value system, but I can't say they're wrong. Pol Pot could persuasively argue that there could never be equality in Cambodia without starting again from year zero, and some on here could persuasively argue that the US need to defend their value system in Iraq and some muslims will have to die for this. These are very dangerous people, in my opinion, but I can't say they are wrong. As far as I'm aware, no one to date has been able to establish absolute truths relating to human behaviour. I don't think it makes you as deadly as them, or correct. We all have ideas, the danger exists where people attempt to impsoe their ideas through violence.

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:19:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If there is something, this something is truth. Its nature, defining it, is also truth. Things based off this definition of nature are also truth. ......why can't the observer of this 'truth' be flawed? i don't see how you get from something existing to that thing being truth....or even real. 'i think therefore i am' allows and arguably proves that something observes the universe. It doesn't guarantee that that something will have 20/20 vision. The observer is part of this truth. The observer may not be able to comprehend the truth. Indeed, in human instances, we certainly do not appear to be able. Nonetheless, we can tell that the truth exists, even if we do not know it. .....isn't that a leap of faith though? i think therefore i am, may prove the existence of the self-observer, but in so doing it more or less destroys the possibility of objective truth. You're a scientist....how can we tell if truth exists without some standard to test it against? One may consider- then ultimately accept- the premise something exists. Say, the universe, hypothetical, is a single ball. Then another appears next to it. Then the first disappears. Then a third appears in the first's spot, only twice as large. Then everything disappears. It was the truth. Should models come to be developed to understand how to predict the truth, they may also be the truth. Say, the universe is a bunch of dots {(-1,-1), (0,0), (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), ... (int x, int x)} for (x=100). Then one might desribe the universe as the the set of all points, (-1,-1) to (100,100), using only integers. This would be the most basic definition. It would also be true, more contrieved, to say that this universe is (int x, int x) for -1 !> x !> 100. Blah. Okay. Enough posting. Hope to catch up with you guys on this later tonight. Edit: Forgot [ i ] was the Italiac markup. Changed 'i' out to 'x'.

philosophy -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If there is something, this something is truth. Its nature, defining it, is also truth. Things based off this definition of nature are also truth. ......why can't the observer of this 'truth' be flawed? i don't see how you get from something existing to that thing being truth....or even real. 'i think therefore i am' allows and arguably proves that something observes the universe. It doesn't guarantee that that something will have 20/20 vision. The observer is part of this truth. The observer may not be able to comprehend the truth. Indeed, in human instances, we certainly do not appear to be able. Nonetheless, we can tell that the truth exists, even if we do not know it. .....isn't that a leap of faith though? i think therefore i am, may prove the existence of the self-observer, but in so doing it more or less destroys the possibility of objective truth. You're a scientist....how can we tell if truth exists without some standard to test it against? One may consider- then ultimately accept- the premise something exists. ......... Should models come to be developed to understand how to predict the truth, they may also be the truth. ......the first part of what you write is as good a definition of a leap of faith as any. The models that would support the conclusions of such a leap are sophistry surely. My point was less to do with how truth may be modelled as what possible thing can they be tested against in order to prove their truth. For myself, in much the same way that quatum mechanics suggested that the universe is intrinsically uncertain from an observers point of view, so we can not know truth. Merely imply or infer it, with the inevitable possibility of being utterly mistaken.

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord One may consider- then ultimately accept- the premise something exists. ......... Should models come to be developed to understand how to predict the truth, they may also be the truth. ......the first part of what you write is as good a definition of a leap of faith as any. The models that would support the conclusions of such a leap are sophistry surely. My point was less to do with how truth may be modelled as what possible thing can they be tested against in order to prove their truth. For myself, in much the same way that quatum mechanics suggested that the universe is intrinsically uncertain from an observers point of view, so we can not know truth. Merely imply or infer it, with the inevitable possibility of being utterly mistaken. Oh, not a leap of faith so much as definition. (My apologies for misunderstanding your previous post.) We define the world in which we live as to exist with respect to us, just in the same manner as which as world that exists to a hypothetical is real to this hypothetical. At some later point, I would like to demonstrate how to minimize uncertainty. (As the time and magnitude of observation approaches infinity, the uncertainty approaches zero.) It's a neat topic that fits in nicely with the idea of constraint with regards to definition, even if only in similarity.

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:34:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I'm too lazy to contend with CuriousLord at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum Yeah, thinking is going on. Not much else is certain. And even thinking might be questioned ultimately. "I exist" is just an assertion in the end. You're so argumentative. :P For once, try to debate things instead of personal attacks. It's really the way to go. I would hope, should you come to observe things in earnest, that there's more than you're able to perceive. Of course, you're free to maintain a pointless ego with bland insults 'n such. Whatever floats your boat. ;)

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:35:15 PM)
Okay, I love this topic, but I'm going to be late for lecture if I stay any longer. Not sure how long it'll be, but I'm relatively sure I'll be back on here tonight, even if it is at the cost of time I should be using to do something else. :P

FullCircle -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 1:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth. Not if you are at a slight angle to the wind. I'm not sure if it counts as peeing into it but the differance would be hard to define. Also you could be using some form of hosepipe extension. Not sure where you would buy one of those from though. Also if the wind was of less force than the velosity of the bladder output. We shall have to draw some vectors. Considering F1 as being the bladder output force, Fg being the force acting on the urine due to gravity (roughly 9.81 x Density of Urine x Area of Urine) and Fw being the wind force. We can then plot something or other I dunno. I think we can take the density of urine as being equal to that of water. I don't care if I'm wrong all that counts is I sound right.

FullCircle -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:12:57 PM)
\|Fg \| \\|/ \F1 \ <------Fw \\| Something like that I dunno.

FullCircle -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:14:02 PM)
Damn what happened to WYSIWYG?

Level -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:32:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth. But, would it be right, or wrong? [sm=banana.gif]

Level -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Damn what happened to WYSIWYG? Wasn't that one of the robots on Star Wars? And thank you for the note [8\|] The suggestion you gave me, I'd hope you'd consider doing the same.

FullCircle -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:46:35 PM)
What you see is what you get is WYSIWYG. Think it's an old MS computing term

windchymes -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth. Not if you are at a slight angle to the wind. I'm not sure if it counts as peeing into it but the differance would be hard to define. Also you could be using some form of hosepipe extension. Not sure where you would buy one of those from though. Also if the wind was of less force than the velosity of the bladder output. We shall have to draw some vectors. Considering F1 as being the bladder output force, Fg being the force acting on the urine due to gravity (roughly 9.81 x Density of Urine x Area of Urine) and Fw being the wind force. We can then plot something or other I dunno. I think we can take the density of urine as being equal to that of water. I don't care if I'm wrong all that counts is I sound right. Geez, ya take something so simple and make it so complicated! If it's WINDY and you pee INTO it, you get wet! That's all there is to it! F the vectors! [:D]

windchymes -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth. But, would it be right, or wrong? [sm=banana.gif] Depends (pun intended!) on who's peeing!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125