NationStates Jolt Archive

Fair enough.
But before you start - is there any objectively verifiable truth to your story ? There are after all millions of them and I cannot listen to all. So I need to be selective.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

All three...

evidence mostly.

Something that is "the truth" does not need to be justified or verified..it is True no matter how objective the observer.

There is a difference between actual truth and scientific truth.

Actual truth is and always will be true...2+2=4 (in pure maths) / there is no god.

Scientific truth can be proved though experiment...all humas will die

Something that is "the truth" does not need to be justified or verified..it is True no matter how objective the observer.

There is a difference between actual truth and scientific truth.

Actual truth is and always will be true...2+2=4 (in pure maths) / there is no god.

Scientific truth can be proved though experiment...all humas will die

how can you prove there is no god?

how can you prove there is no god?

Manta rays.

Manta rays.

QFT

Manta rays.

i beg to understand what that means?

i beg to understand what that means?

Ah, the inquisitive youth, a common archetype in literature.

Some things are best left unexplained. Like Godfish.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

There's no such thing. Have a muffin. *hands you a muffin* :)

Truth can only be discovered by be willing to challenge every contradiction and to oppose any kind of dogmatism.

Which is a vicious unending cyclical circle of conspiracy.

Truth can only be discovered by be willing to challenge every contradiction and to oppose any kind of dogmatism.

To quote Sir Arthur Conan Dolye: "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

how can you prove there is no god?

No. Read it again. Two plus two equals four divided by there is no god.

No. Read it again. Two plus two equals four divided by there is no god.

That is to say, God=0. You cannot divide by zero, though the limit of the expression as x approaches 0 = infinity. :D

Something that is "the truth" does not need to be justified or verified..it is True no matter how objective the observer.

There is a difference between actual truth and scientific truth.

Actual truth is and always will be true...2+2=4 (in pure maths) / there is no god.

Scientific truth can be proved though experiment...all humas will die

The philosopher Carl Popper argues (correctly, I believe) that you cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. A theory is acceptable until it is proven to be false. Examples are Newton's theory of gravity (eventually proven to have limitations) and Darwin's theory of natural selection (not yet proven false).

The theory that all humans will die is accepted because there is no evidence yet to the contrary. However, it may be proven false one day.

i beg to understand what that means?

Like N-rays (from your local cathode ray tube), only different.

Truth can only be discovered by be willing to challenge every contradiction and to oppose any kind of dogmatism.

Yay! A Monty Python impetus!
*doesn't*

I mean .. wait ... isn't staunch opposition a form of dogmatism?
:p

I answer this post because it is the first to be in any way serious. Apologies to any who may have tried later ...

The philosopher Carl Popper argues (correctly, I believe) that you cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. A theory is acceptable until it is proven to be false. Examples are Newton's theory of gravity (eventually proven to have limitations) and Darwin's theory of natural selection (not yet proven false).

But many of us have a conception of truth which is not scientific. That is, we deal in "firm beliefs" not theories.

Popper himself, in "on method" points out that many scientific advances were achieved unscientifically, from sheer pigheaded conviction, if you will.

The theory that all humans will die is accepted because there is no evidence yet to the contrary. However, it may be proven false one day.

You chose a bad example, in that the proof would take infinite time!

how can you prove there is no god?

You cannot. However, you can verify parts of the accompanying story. If your story would contain a claim like "Pi is exactly 3" or "The second moon of earth shone brightly on the third of august 1602" or even "the earth is 6000 years old" (not saying your story does - just examples) it offers something which can be tested, verified and so on.

Since there are millions of religions and accompanying stories and because I have a limited lifespan I would like *you* to present some evidence that your story is not complete nonsense before listening to it so I will not be wasting my time.

Does this not seem fair to you ?

...You chose a bad example, in that the proof would take infinite time!

Point taken.

Nothing is purely objectively verifiable, except from your own consciousness to yourself.

You chose a bad example, in that the proof would take infinite time!

Actually, that makes it a rather GOOD example of a theory that is accepted because it is so hard to disprove.

evidence mostly.

bloody true.

Although, all evidence can be countered by the reasoning of a sophister or more evidence.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

Objectively verifiable truth is very hard to come by. I'd almost venture to say it doesn't exist.

I would say truth is only objectively verifiable to within a certain degree of confidence; there's always the chance, however small, that even the most basic statement may not be true at some point in the future.

The interesting question is where exactly the limit is; if all concepts possess such a probability, then you can't even be sure whether or not the idea that every concept has the probability of being untrue is itself completely true or if there is a probability, however small, that the rule itself will be untrue at some point. It's pretty paradoxical when you get down to it.

I prefer to think of it in terms of there being nothing which is truly impossible, rather than the possibility that everything we know is untrue. It's a bit more optimistic and realistic, to say the least...people like to overcome barriers far more than they like the floor to drop out from underneath them.

You cannot. However, you can verify parts of the accompanying story. If your story would contain a claim like "Pi is exactly 3" or "The second moon of earth shone brightly on the third of august 1602" or even "the earth is 6000 years old" (not saying your story does - just examples) it offers something which can be tested, verified and so on.

Since there are millions of religions and accompanying stories and because I have a limited lifespan I would like *you* to present some evidence that your story is not complete nonsense before listening to it so I will not be wasting my time.

Does this not seem fair to you ?

no it does not seem fair. why cant you (completely subjective) understand that faith (as a theory) can exist as a truth. under no circumstances does "evidence" need to be provided, in which case if such proof was provided, 'you' as a general audience would not believe me anyway.



I would say truth is only objectively verifiable to within a certain degree of confidence; there's always the chance, however small, that even the most basic statement may not be true at some point in the future.

The interesting question is where exactly the limit is; if all concepts possess such a probability, then you can't even be sure whether or not the idea that every concept has the probability of being untrue is itself completely true or if there is a probability, however small, that the rule itself will be untrue at some point. It's pretty paradoxical when you get down to it.

I prefer to think of it in terms of there being nothing which is truly impossible, rather than the possibility that everything we know is untrue. It's a bit more optimistic and realistic, to say the least...people like to overcome barriers far more than they like the floor to drop out from underneath them.

very well said. refer to point above. :)

bloody true.

Although, all evidence can be countered by the reasoning of a sophister or more evidence.

yeah

thats the thing about truth. its only true until its proven to be false.

I would say truth is only objectively verifiable to within a certain degree of confidence; there's always the chance, however small, that even the most basic statement may not be true at some point in the future.

The interesting question is where exactly the limit is; if all concepts possess such a probability, then you can't even be sure whether or not the idea that every concept has the probability of being untrue is itself completely true or if there is a probability, however small, that the rule itself will be untrue at some point. It's pretty paradoxical when you get down to it.

I prefer to think of it in terms of there being nothing which is truly impossible, rather than the possibility that everything we know is untrue. It's a bit more optimistic and realistic, to say the least...people like to overcome barriers far more than they like the floor to drop out from underneath them.

although, there are absolute truths that include: pure math, pure logic, and 'I exist' (Descartes)

Yay! A Monty Python impetus!
*doesn't*

I mean .. wait ... isn't staunch opposition a form of dogmatism?
:p

Heheh!:D

Truth can only be discovered by be willing to challenge every contradiction and to oppose any kind of dogmatism.
Including, say, the contradictions in dialectical materialism and the dogmatism of Leninism/Stalinism?

Objectively verifiable truth is very hard to come by. I’d almost venture to say it doesn’t exist.
Can you prove that objectively? ;)

The philosopher Carl Popper argues (correctly, I believe) that you cannot prove a theory, only disprove it.
Karl Popper.

although, there are absolute truths that include: pure math, pure logic, and ‘I exist’ (Descartes)
It would be unwise to hold that the Cogito is an absolute truth, it has flaws. Perhaps most importantly, in the statement, “I think, therefore I am”, the ‘I’ is assumed to exist (“I think”) before the Cogito supposedly proves it.

A discussion for another thread I feel, but important to note.

The philosopher Carl Popper argues (correctly, I believe) that you cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. A theory is acceptable until it is proven to be false. Examples are Newton's theory of gravity (eventually proven to have limitations) and Darwin's theory of natural selection (not yet proven false).

The theory that all humans will die is accepted because there is no evidence yet to the contrary. However, it may be proven false one day.

That is from a philisophical viewpoint not a scientific one. Thoeries are proved by experiment. Just because someone (Poppers has the "idea" that a much proved scientific theory "might" have cause for concern), does not distract from the fact that it exists and is true.

The theory that all humans will die is accepted because there is no evidence yet to the contrary. However, it may be proven false one day
The statement that all humans will die is accepted because it is true and has been proven through experiment.

how can you prove there is no god?
This is the normal standard statement made by most believers in God during such a debate.
There is absolutly no evidence that proves the existence of God, so why would you wish to try and prove its non-existence.

The idea behind proof is that something is proved...not that something is not true.

Of the same vein:
Fact- I jumped to the middle of the sun this morning....YOU provide the proof that i didnt ....if you cant provide the proof, then i really must have done it!!

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?
All truth is necessarily objective truth, so all verification of truth must therefore be objective verification.

As such, the relevant term there is "verifiable". It's the only thing that makes this different from any other truth.

Objectively verifiable truth is very hard to come by. I'd almost venture to say it doesn't exist.
Conditional statements can be demonstrably true.

You may not know the truth value of "A" or "B", but you might know with certainty that "If A, then B."

Might I recommend some Wittgenstein?

may anyone be so brave as to actually describe truth and objectively verify that that definition is correct?

may anyone be so brave as to actually describe truth and objectively verify that that definition is correct?

I *strongly* suspect it's been attempted.

yeah

thats the thing about truth. its only true until its proven to be false.

Best definition I've seen yet.

may anyone be so brave as to actually describe truth and objectively verify that that definition is correct?

Truth is the stuff that spies attempt to extract from captured spies via serum. *nod*

It would be unwise to hold that the Cogito is an absolute truth, it has flaws. Perhaps most importantly, in the statement, “I think, therefore I am”, the ‘I’ is assumed to exist (“I think”) before the Cogito supposedly proves it.

Agreed. See Mark Epstein's Thoughts Without a Thinker ("Who thinks?").

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

essentially avoidance of pretending to know what is not known.

there is only probability in most contexts, but a relative preponderance of evidence can sometimes be determined.

and probability is in no way ambiguous either.

=^^=
.../\...

The statement that all humans will die is accepted because it is true and has been proven through experiment.

No, it hasn't, not by a long shot. It's accepted, but acceptance does not equate to actually being true. Every human to date has died, and it is reasonable to conclude based upon known evidence that biological organisms have a finite lifespan, but that doesn't mean all humans will die; at some point in the future, it may be completely different and this entire rule will be reversed.

In order to test this statement, you'd have to develop an experiment capable of testing both hypotheses. Given that we currently lack any idea of how to create a falsifiable cause for human death other than in very broad terms let alone possess the kind of technology, resources, or knowledge of a reasonable timeframe in which to observe humans at a point where they might be capable of living indefinitely, it's utterly impossible to make such a statement.

Now, based upon existing observations, it is reasonable to assume this is the case, but it doesn't make it objectively true. There's a huge difference between the two. A similar example is geocentrism; people observed the sun apparently rising and setting for thousands of years, and thereby quite reasonably concluded that the sun revolved around the Earth. However, once astronomical knowledge had advanced to a point where that claim could be critically examined, it turned out the complete opposite was true. Of course, it also makes sense that you shouldn't reject a reasonable conclusion on the basis that it might be false; it's still a stunningly terrible idea to jump off a cliff simply because it's not guaranteed that you'll be killed.

although, there are absolute truths that include: pure math, pure logic, and 'I exist' (Descartes)
Even though I have some sympathy for Descartes' position, actually, the only reason these truths hold is that they appeal to axioms and definitions (Peano for maths, definition of the self for Descartes etc.). These are a part of language protocol, and as such, our statements within this language could be considered true because they are conditional on the correctness of our axioms, but we can never assert that our axioms are themselves verifiably universal and inviolable, because they lie outside of the scope of our systems of reasoning and deduction.

Typically, objective truth is based on (or is) things that we assume are true because otherwise we wouldn't be able to function. For instance, we assume that the world around us is real and not a product of our imaginations.

For instance, we assume that the world around us is real and not a product of our imaginations.
But that's not really objective truth: the suggestion that reality might be imaginary isn't actually refutable, even if we discount it pragmatically, nor does its adherence necessarily mean that one would be unable to function. After all, we know money is a convenient illusion, and yet we use it to great effect.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

There is no such thing, for even in the sciences all of our findings are colored by our own perceptions. We are able to reach some close approximation of the truth with science, but not total and pure truth.

But that's not really objective truth: the suggestion that reality might be imaginary isn't actually refutable, even if we discount it pragmatically,Certainly, which is why I said 'assume'. We assume it isn't imaginary, not that it must not be imaginary.

nor does its adherence necessarily mean that one would be unable to function. After all, we know money is a convenient illusion, and yet we use it to great effect.Certainly, simply because we adhere to an illusion doesn't mean that we couldn't function.
The particular illusion that the world around is imaginary, though, would be all-pervasive.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

Objective truth simply is. The difficulty is in the verifiability. That's pretty much impossible for us at this point. I'll not suggest falsifiability either, though, as I'm not sure that's possible either. Cameroi has it right, IMO, that there is only probability in most contexts. At least for us.

Objectively verifiable truth only exists in Mathematics, and then only in reference to particular axioms. It is perfectly possibly to construct a set of rules that makes 1+1=3, although it wouldn't be particularly useful.

As for science, all you can say is that you haven't yet proved something false. Nothing more. The only way to guarantee truth is to take up mathematics and/or logic.

Of the same vein:
Fact- I jumped to the middle of the sun this morning....YOU provide the proof that i didnt ....if you cant provide the proof, then i really must have done it!!
That's a fallacy, it's like saying:
"did you know ghosts exist. Because no one can disprove their existance. Therefore they must exist."
Following this line of reasoning gets you nowhere fast, if ghosts exist because no one can prove they don't exist, then so could unicorns, invisible elephants standing on top of the empire state building etc..
Also called an argument from ignorance.

although, there are absolute truths that include: pure math, pure logic, and 'I exist' (Descartes)

Well i could dispute that.
By arguing, so what does that tell you "I am i exist", not alot, yes you exist but what about everything else?
As for pure math, yes that can be true.
Of course i could start an argument about what truth is.
As in yes 2+2=4 is true to us, but to a dog that means nothing, therefore is it really objectively true?
As for Logic, is useful but it doesn't prove everything. You can't use logic to understand love, emotions are not logical so many human actions don't follow logic. Love exists but you can't use Mathematics or logic to prove it, some human actions rely on experience.(one Philosopher created a calculation for laugher i believe, but he could have been joking)

I could argue Objective truth does not really exist.
For example there are some things you must accept from news items TV, internet or your friends information, such as the moon landings, they might have happened but to you they haven't so they aren't objectively true. Yes you could provide lots of film footage, evidence, but that could all be a lie, just to keep you in your vat of green gooey liquid.

This area of Philosophy is called Epistemology.
Where there are three known stances.

Empiricism- you learn things through your sense experience.(David Hume)
Rationalism-I am i exist, tries to find things which in themselves must be true, e.g. Descartes "I am i exist". Where knowledge is innate and/or knowledge you work out rationally. (Plato, Descartes).
Scepticism-There is no truth, you can't know anything (Nietzsche) cannot tell the difference between appearence and reality.

trouble is;
Empiricism, collapses into Scepticism.
Rationalism, doesn't tell you much.
Scepticism, there is no absolute truth is self defeating, as that statement could be a lie by it's own criteria.

although, there are absolute truths that include: pure math, pure logic, and 'I exist' (Descartes)

None of those truths is absolute. They are only true within a particular system and/or a limited set of systems. Or in the case of the cogito, true only for a relatively short time.

You cannot. However, you can verify parts of the accompanying story. If your story would contain a claim like "Pi is exactly 3" or "The second moon of earth shone brightly on the third of august 1602" or even "the earth is 6000 years old" (not saying your story does - just examples) it offers something which can be tested, verified and so on.

Since there are millions of religions and accompanying stories and because I have a limited lifespan I would like *you* to present some evidence that your story is not complete nonsense before listening to it so I will not be wasting my time.

Does this not seem fair to you ?

Factual errors in a book only prove that the book is flawed.

A creation myth not being right doesn't disprove the existence of a god or gods. Gods could exist even if humans weren't correct about the details of said beings.

If you said that I built something in such and such a way, and that turned out to be incorrect, it would prove only that you were mistaken in your account. It would not disprove my existence.

Gods may still exist even if every single creation story about them is incorrect. Or they may not exist. It can't be determined from factual errors in a book some humans wrote and then garbled several times over centuries ago.

There is no such thing, for even in the sciences all of our findings are colored by our own perceptions. We are able to reach some close approximation of the truth with science, but not total and pure truth.

I was gonna say somthing along those lines, I see I no longer need to.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

If it's objective AND verifiable it's REALITY, not truth.

how can you prove there is no god?

After he learend the ninth level spell Hadoken and the tenth level spell Ultima, I was able to teach Black Mage the elventh level spell Armagoddon. He only cast it oncve (hoping it would wipe Fighter, Thief, and Red Mage off the face of the earth), but all it did was fulfill its planned usage of slaying all deities. Thus, if there was a god before, there isn't one now!

As in yes 2+2=4 is true to us, but to a dog that means nothing, therefore is it really objectively true?
As for Logic, is useful but it doesn't prove everything. You can't use logic to understand love, emotions are not logical so many human actions don't follow logic. Love exists but you can't use Mathematics or logic to prove it, some human actions rely on experience.(one Philosopher created a calculation for laughter i believe, but he could have been joking)

I could argue Objective truth does not really exist.
For example there are some things you must accept from news items TV, internet or your friends information, such as the moon landings, they might have happened but to you they haven't so they aren't objectively true. Yes you could provide lots of film footage, evidence, but that could all be a lie, just to keep you in your vat of green gooey liquid.


That's my point.

Factual errors in a book only prove that the book is flawed.

A creation myth not being right doesn't disprove the existence of a god or gods. Gods could exist even if humans weren't correct about the details of said beings.

If you said that I built something in such and such a way, and that turned out to be incorrect, it would prove only that you were mistaken in your account. It would not disprove my existence.

Gods may still exist even if every single creation story about them is incorrect. Or they may not exist. It can't be determined from factual errors in a book some humans wrote and then garbled several times over centuries ago.

And the Holy Bible is the closest thing to infalliable truth of the account of Christianity. The KJV of 1611 is the only authorized version, but the aile Biblos (i think), other than the textus receptus is the closest and most accurate account of that sentence of events.

The problem with objective truths, is that humans are only equipped to perceive them through a purely subjective viewpoint.

This thread smells a bit rank. I believe it's time spent in the ground has caused it to decompose some. Perhaps a mod ought to check for a pulse...

This thread smells a bit rank. I believe it's time spent in the ground has caused it to decompose some. Perhaps a mod ought to check for a pulse...
Do Zombies have a pulse? I was always unsure about that one.

http://img45.photobucket.com/albums/v139/fluffycritter/mummra.jpg

ancient spirits of NSG-vil, transform this decayed form into thread-ra, the ever living!

may anyone be so brave as to actually describe truth and objectively verify that that definition is correct?

"Truth" is an attribute of a logical symbol and/or a logical expression. As logic is a concept-system, thus existing in the human mind only, "truth" may not be objective by definition - it can only be consistent either internally, or as describing (an assumed) external reality. In the first case, it is called an analytic truth - and as Wittgenstein puts it, all analytic truths are tautologies. In the latter case it's called synthetic truth and it must be supported as consistent by evidence. However, that is all that truth (synthetic/scientific) can be: consistent; because all the mechanisms in which it operates (and in terms of which it is defined - i.e. language, logic, mathematics, science etc.) are purely subjective.

As to verifiability, it may only occur on the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world.

http://img45.photobucket.com/albums/v139/fluffycritter/mummra.jpg

ancient spirits of NSG-vil, transform this decayed form into thread-ra, the ever living!

Is that elderly Caucasian male with the bandages one of the presidential candidates?

As to verifiability, it may only occur on the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world.

Not so: "There is thinking".

Actual truth is and always will be true...2+2=4 (in pure maths)

My teacher tought us that 3x4=10 today.

My teacher tought us that 3x4=10 today.

You should think about moving school.

Not so: "There is thinking".

Beg pardon?

Beg pardon?

"There is thinking" is a statement which can be verified without the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world, no?

My teacher tought us that 3x4=10 today.You should think about moving school.

All your base 12 are belong to us.

"There is thinking" is a statement which can be verified without the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world, no?

No. It is not a verifiable statement.

To be "verifiable" a statement must have the capacity to be verified either as true, or as false. "There is thinking" cannot be verified as false, because that would be self-contradictory (i.e. stating "there is no thinking" is a thought process) - "There is thinking" is thus a truism/tautology (= true by definition), and an analytical truth, independent of verification.

Furthermore, it is assumed before it is stated. If you suspend thought you do not need it. If you commence thought then you must assume it as an axiom before stating it.

No. It is not a verifiable statement.

To be "verifiable" a statement must have the capacity to be verified either as true, or as false. "There is thinking" cannot be verified as false, because that would be self-contradictory (i.e. stating "there is no thinking" is a thought process) - "There is thinking" is thus a truism/tautology (= true by definition), and an analytical truth, independent of verification.

it is not tautological. in fact, it is quite easy to imagine a possible world without any thinking in it. shit, we do it about this world any time we contemplate the early universe. there is thinking now, but there certainly didn't have to be. it is not contained in the meaning of either 'thinking', 'the universe' or even 'now'.

also: why are statements limited to those propositions that are actually thought by someone? if there was a book in an otherwise empty universe that said 'there is thinking', why wouldn't that proposition have a truth value?

No. It is not a verifiable statement.

To be "verifiable" a statement must have the capacity to be verified either as true, or as false.

Firstly, that itself is an unverifiable statement - the old pitfall that the L-Ps fell into - indeed it can be labelled as meaningless.

Secondly, terminologically, I don't think you can verify things as false. Something is only verified if it is true. You can certainly verify the negation of as statement, and if the law of excluded middle holds, the end result is the same.

"There is thinking" cannot be verified as false, because that would be self-contradictory (i.e. stating "there is no thinking" is a thought process) - "There is thinking" is thus a truism/tautology (= true by definition), and an analytical truth, independent of verification.

Are you claiming that 'there is thinking' is an eternal truism? Surely not.

Furthermore, it is assumed before it is stated. If you suspend thought you do not need it. If you commence thought then you must assume it as an axiom before stating it.

The word 'assume' is unsatisfactory here.

Does one also only assume hunger, pain or an orgasm?

it is not tautological. in fact, it is quite easy to imagine a possible world without any thinking in it. shit, we do it about this world any time we contemplate the early universe. there is thinking now, but there certainly didn't have to be. it is not contained in the meaning of either 'thinking', 'the universe' or even 'now'.

It is easy to imagine a universe without thinking, but to imagine it you need to think.

I have not said that "thinking" must exist. But it must exist if we are to make the observation. Thus "there is no thinking" is necessarily false, thus "there is thinking" is necessarily true if the statement is made - it is tautological.

also: why are statements limited to those propositions that are actually thought by someone? if there was a book in an otherwise empty universe that said 'there is thinking', why wouldn't that proposition have a truth value?

"There is thinking" written in a book has absolutely no meaning. It is only ascribed meaning by the agency of an intelligent observant, who associates the symbols of writing with a meaning.

Firstly, that itself is an unverifiable statement - the old pitfall that the L-Ps fell into - indeed it can be labelled as meaningless.

That is a definition, not a synthetic statement. I was under the impression that for the purpose of this conversation we assume logic and common definitions.

Secondly, terminologically, I don't think you can verify things as false. Something is only verified if it is true. You can certainly verify the negation of as statement, and if the law of excluded middle holds, the end result is the same.

"Verify" might not have been the best choice of word, I will grant that, but I meant it in the wide sense of "establishing value of truth/falsehood".

Are you claiming that 'there is thinking' is an eternal truism? Surely not.

No, I am claiming that "stating 'there is thinking' " is necessarily true at present (any present).

The word 'assume' is unsatisfactory here.

Does one also only assume hunger, pain or an orgasm?

"I am hungry" does not need to be assumed in order for stating "I am hungry" to be true. In order for stating "I am hungry" to be true, what needs to be assumed is "there is thinking". "There is thinking" needs to be assumed in order to state anything, including stating "there is thinking".

I have not said that "thinking" must exist. But it must exist if we are to make the observation. Thus "there is no thinking" is necessarily false, thus "there is thinking" is necessarily true if the statement is made - it is tautological.



"There is thinking" written in a book has absolutely no meaning. It is only ascribed meaning by the agency of an intelligent observant, who associates the symbols of writing with a meaning.

You are assigning meaning to two different agencies here.

In the first quote paragraph you assign meaning only to the agent making the statement.

In the second you assign meaning only to the agent to the observer of the statement.

Which is it?



That is a definition, not a synthetic statement. I was under the impression that for the purpose of this conversation we assume logic and common definitions.

Yeah, certainly, however I'm arguing against the appropriateness of the logical-positivist definition with which you appear to be operating.



"Verify" might not have been the best choice of word, I will grant that, but I meant it in the wide sense of "establishing value of truth/falsehood".

Kewl. Just trying to keep things from getting needlessly opaque.



No, I am claiming that "stating 'there is thinking' " is necessarily true at present (any present).

This doesn't seem to fit with your earlier claim that the statement 't.i.t.' written in a book has no meaning.

It seems to me to you are allowing that the writing of the statement 't.i.t.' in a book has meaning when it is written, but ceases to have meaning after that point if it is not read, but can regain meaning if it is later read by an intelligent agent.

How is this any different from stating aloud 't.i.t.'? Would you assert that it has meaning as it is stated, but ceases to have meaning after it is heard, but can regain meaning if it later heard by an intelligent agent?



"I am hungry" does not need to be assumed in order for stating "I am hungry" to be true. In order for stating "I am hungry" to be true, what needs to be assumed is "there is thinking". "There is thinking" needs to be assumed in order to state anything, including stating "there is thinking".

This, however means that 'I am hungry' is not a verifiable statement, by your earlier position (quoted below), and so is meaningless.

As to verifiability, it may only occur on the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world.


Footnote: ain't had my coffee yet this morning, so this may all appear somewhat scrambled.

You are assigning meaning to two different agencies here.

In the first quote paragraph you assign meaning only to the agent making the statement.

In the second you assign meaning only to the agent to the observer of the statement.

Which is it?

They are one and the same. In the second instance, "the observer of the statement" is the description of common language, but in fact the "observer" is not an observer of meaning - it is a creator of such, as it assigns a certain meaning to what he perceives to be a pattern (in this case of writing). The second agent is one making a statement in much the same way as the first one. The only difference is the motivation for making that statement: in the first instance the motivation is internal, and in the second it is external stimulus.


Yeah, certainly, however I'm arguing against the appropriateness of the logical-positivist definition with which you appear to be operating.

Well this depends entirely on your position on meaning and definition. I presume you would say concepts are defined as are found in nature? I disagree - I am of the opinion that there are no patterns and stable "concepts" in nature, and concepts are defined purely on an intellectual basis as crass simplifications and generalisations of what is the case, and are merely inspired by sensory perception. This is entirely a paradigm matter, and I doubt we can do more than agree to disagree, as both of us, presumably, have reasons to believe things are as we believe they are, which are equipolent.

This doesn't seem to fit with your earlier claim that the statement 't.i.t.' written in a book has no meaning.

It seems to me to you are allowing that the writing of the statement 't.i.t.' in a book has meaning when it is written, but ceases to have meaning after that point if it is not read, but can regain meaning if it is later read by an intelligent agent.

How is this any different from stating aloud 't.i.t.'? Would you assert that it has meaning as it is stated, but ceases to have meaning after it is heard, but can regain meaning if it later heard by an intelligent agent?

There is no discrepancy here. Meaning can only occur within an intelligent agent. Thus it cannot be found in a book. An agent that writes a book intends a meaning, and one that reads a book may assign/recreate/improvise a meaning, but the book itself is devoid of any intrinsic meaning when removed from an agent that can attribute such to it. For example if I were to look at the Koran in Arabic, it would have no meaning to me, because I can assign no meaning to the symbols it is written with - now I may presume it does have a meaning for someone who is familiar with the patterns with which the author sought to convey his meaning, but that meaning is created in the agent who reads it, not in the book itself.

Thus the action of stating, is equivalent with the action of writing, in that it is the manifestation of an intended meaning by its author, but as writing persists, it is devoid of meaning in and of itself.

In the case of "there is thinking" (thinking, stating or writing) thought necessarily occurs in the process, thus the statement is necessarily true. But if "there is thinking" lies written in a book, it means nothing and it cannot have a value of truth, until a meaning is ascribed to the pattern by an intelligent agent, at which point thinking occurs, thus the statement has a value of truth, and it is of necessity "true".

This, however means that 'I am hungry' is not a verifiable statement, by your earlier position (quoted below), and so is meaningless.

Quite the contrary - since we have assumed that sense perception is accurate (this is taken as a given, and it would be a whole different debate to go into), "I am hungry" can have both the value of "true", or of "false", and all you need to ascertain it, is verification through perception.


Footnote: ain't had my coffee yet this morning, so this may all appear somewhat scrambled.

Coffee good:p

Meaning can only occur within an intelligent agent. Thus it cannot be found in a book. An agent that writes a book intends a meaning, and one that reads a book may assign/recreate/improvise a meaning, but the book itself is devoid of any intrinsic meaning when removed from an agent that can attribute such to it. For example if I were to look at the Koran in Arabic, it would have no meaning to me, because I can assign no meaning to the symbols it is written with - now I may presume it does have a meaning for someone who is familiar with the patterns with which the author sought to convey his meaning, but that meaning is created in the agent who reads it, not in the book itself.
Yet surely that meaning is conveyed through said book, making it a 'communicator' of meaning (for want of a better phrase). As you say above, you might not be able to understand that meaning, or even assign your own radically different meaning to the text, but the book, without the author-agent, can convey the meaning the author-agent intended.

Thus meaning can be found in a book.

Sure, there needs to be an author for the meaning to relate to, yet the book initiates the 'meaning-process'. Your position seems to diminish far too greatly the importance of the book itself.

All your base 12 are belong to us.

Yay! :D

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?


He means facts... Truth is a philisophical idea.

Yet surely that meaning is conveyed through said book, making it a 'communicator' of meaning (for want of a better phrase). As you say above, you might not be able to understand that meaning, or even assign your own radically different meaning to the text, but the book, without the author-agent, can convey the meaning the author-agent intended.

Thus meaning can be found in a book.

Sure, there needs to be an author for the meaning to relate to, yet the book initiates the 'meaning-process'. Your position seems to diminish far too greatly the importance of the book itself.

The book itself can convey meaning, provided the author and the reader have agreed upon a symbol convention. What I have said does not dispute nor does it come in contradiction with this. But the book itself, as a non-agent entity has no meaning. For an analogy, think of the night sky. It has no meaning. But if an agent started "drawing" constellations, and furthermore derived meaning from the movement of those constellations, he could share meaning with another agent if he shared the "code" (=pattern interpretation) with him. The night sky has no inherent meaning, just like the book. Meaning lies solely in how an agent interprets the patterns - the fact that the patterns were initially made to convey a certain meaning according to a "code" does not give those patterns intrinsic meaning, as the meaning lies solely in the "reader" who ascribes a certain meaning to the pattern, according to a code. Provided that the code used in creating the pattern, and the code used to interpret the pattern is identical, then the meaning thus conveyed will coincide, but more importantly, if the code varies, then the meaning will not be the same (think about reading the Ancients, and the amount of speculation there is regarding precise translation, or even more relevantly, the amount of debate and interpretation in Literature). Thus the meaning does not lie in the writing itself, but in how the patterns are interpreted.

For an analogy, think of the night sky. It has no meaning. But if an agent started "drawing" constellations, and furthermore derived meaning from the movement of those constellations, he could share meaning with another agent if he shared the "code" (=pattern interpretation) with him. The night sky has no inherent meaning, just like the book.
That's a poor analogy, for the book has an inherent meaning that the author intended, while the sky has no inherent meaning and (I would maintain) no author of intelligence.

To say that a book has no no inherent meaning is, if you'll excuse me, nonsense. Of course it has meaning, for that is why it was written. You and I may not be able to understand the meaning, or we may have to know the 'symbol convention' (language) it was written in, and/or the background of the author, but to discard any notion of meaning because one can interpret it differently is unfounded.

The author has written the book for a purpose; to entertain, perhaps, or to educate. But is is written for a purpose, and with meaning. Not that this meaning is available to all of us, but we can go back to the author and ask, "what is the meaning of this book?".

Meaning lies solely in how an agent interprets the patterns - the fact that the patterns were initially made to convey a certain meaning according to a "code" does not give those patterns intrinsic meaning, as the meaning lies solely in the "reader" who ascribes a certain meaning to the pattern, according to a code.
Perhaps this is where our argument lies.

I am not contending that the book has meaning that can be gleaned by all, simply that the book has an intended meaning inherent to it; intended by the author.

You seem to be saying that, as the meaning can be interpreted by others differently, thus the book has no meaning. Is this a fair appraisal?

Provided that the code used in creating the pattern, and the code used to interpret the pattern is identical, then the meaning thus conveyed will coincide, but more importantly, if the code varies, then the meaning will not be the same (think about reading the Ancients, and the amount of speculation there is regarding precise translation, or even more relevantly, the amount of debate and interpretation in Literature). Thus the meaning does not lie in the writing itself, but in how the patterns are interpreted.
I think your discussing meaning relative to the reader as opposed to meaning of the book itself. Sure, when we read Nicomachean Ethics we can debate over what Aristotle meant, what the treatise means, but Aristotle surely meant some thing, and the Ethics are intended to mean some thing.

That is why we can discuss the meaning of the book. We are not discussing (at least, not usually) what Aristotle, and the Ethics, means to us, but what he meant and what the book means.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

Truth is truth is truth.

Truth, though, belongs to the realm of logics, which is a part of human thought. If at least two people don't agree beforehand about the logics they're going to accept as valid, objectivity cannot be reached, not even in thought.

Verifiable, from latin "verificare", meaning "proving as true". Verified = true, falsified = false. Verifiable = can be either true or false, but not both.

"This sentence is true" only means "this sentence is consistent with the chosen hypothesis within the chosen logical system". "Real" (from latin "res", thing) on the other hand is something that must be objective (agreeable by all subjects investigating the object) and verifiable within any logical system requiring coherence with aesthetics (senses).

It is easy to imagine a universe without thinking, but to imagine it you need to think.

I have not said that "thinking" must exist. But it must exist if we are to make the observation. Thus "there is no thinking" is necessarily false, thus "there is thinking" is necessarily true if the statement is made - it is tautological.

so change it from 'statement' to 'proposition', since you seem tied to the idea of statements being inherently bound to state-ers. propositions have no such tie to actually being said by someone. the proposition 't.i.t.' is verifiable without the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world, and there are lots of possible worlds where it is false.

in any case, i'm not buying the claim that tautologies are not verifiable. what are people doing with all those math and logic proofs?

That's a poor analogy, for the book has an inherent meaning that the author intended, while the sky has no inherent meaning and (I would maintain) no author of intelligence.

To say that a book has no no inherent meaning is, if you'll excuse me, nonsense. Of course it has meaning, for that is why it was written. You and I may not be able to understand the meaning, or we may have to know the 'symbol convention' (language) it was written in, and/or the background of the author, but to discard any notion of meaning because one can interpret it differently is unfounded.

The author has written the book for a purpose; to entertain, perhaps, or to educate. But is is written for a purpose, and with meaning. Not that this meaning is available to all of us, but we can go back to the author and ask, "what is the meaning of this book?".


Perhaps this is where our argument lies.

I am not contending that the book has meaning that can be gleaned by all, simply that the book has an intended meaning inherent to it; intended by the author.

You seem to be saying that, as the meaning can be interpreted by others differently, thus the book has no meaning. Is this a fair appraisal?


I think your discussing meaning relative to the reader as opposed to meaning of the book itself. Sure, when we read Nicomachean Ethics we can debate over what Aristotle meant, what the treatise means, but Aristotle surely meant some thing, and the Ethics are intended to mean some thing.

That is why we can discuss the meaning of the book. We are not discussing (at least, not usually) what Aristotle, and the Ethics, means to us, but what he meant and what the book means.

My basic argument is that meaning can only occur in an intelligent agent. Do my examples make sense now?

It does not matter that something to which an agent ascribes meaning was intended by an initial author to convey a certain meaning (like a book), or there is no perceivable author (like the sky). The channel of any presupposed communication (actual in the book example, and imaginary in the sky example), and its form (language, writing, sign language etc.) have no inherent meaning - they only have meaning at the emitter end (the author) and at the receiver end (the listener/reader etc.), which may or may not coincide. I did not provide the examples as an argument for why this is (that would have been an affirming the posterior fallacy), but rather as an illustration. The argument was presented beforehand.

so change it from 'statement' to 'proposition', since you seem tied to the idea of statements being inherently bound to state-ers. propositions have no such tie to actually being said by someone. the proposition 't.i.t.' is verifiable without the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world, and there are lots of possible worlds where it is false.

This ties in with my conception that meaning can only occur within intelligent agents, thus a statement (which has meaning) must of necessity belong to a state-er.

in any case, i'm not buying the claim that tautologies are not verifiable. what are people doing with all those math and logic proofs?

Tautologies are not verifiable, because they do not require verification - they are true by definition (i.e. "all lesbians are women"). The opposite of a tautology is an absurdity (i.e. "all lesbians are men" - no island of Lesbos pedantry please).

My basic argument is that meaning can only occur in an intelligent agent. Do my examples make sense now?
Partially.

I agree that (rather obviously) something can only mean something to an intelligent agent. Inanimate objects cannot appreciate meaning. Furthermore, what a text (or piece of art, etc.) means to one person can be totally different from what it means to another.

Perhaps I'm getting muddled in the language, but you seem to be saying something more than this. You agree that a book can convey meaning, but object that meaning cannot 'occur' in the book. This is what's confusing me.

Are you simply saying that a book cannot appreciate meaning?

Well it is clear that it cannot appreciate meaning. My point is that it does not have a meaning, while one is not at present being attributed to, or if you prefer derived from, by an intelligent agent that can derive meaning from it.

So, for example you find some scratches on the wall of a cave - no meaning. Your friend comes along and thinks that they represent a sequence of prime numbers - meaning. Once he has communicated that meaning to you, you share with your friend the interpretation of the wall cave as having a meaning. But that is all. All derived meaning from any sort of communication (again real or imaginary; actual or presumed) is interpretation of patterns. Said patterns have no intrinsic meaning, only that which the interlocutor can derive from them (regardless of the number of interlocutors who derive the same or similar meaning) at present time.

Ad Nihilo, how exactly would you define meaning?

This ties in with my conception that meaning can only occur within intelligent agents, thus a statement (which has meaning) must of necessity belong to a state-er.

there are still true propositions in a universe with no intelligent agents. there just isn't anyone to say or appreciate them. neither the propositions nor their truth values are contingent on the existence of agents.

Ad Nihilo, how exactly would you define meaning?

Ouch :p

Meaning would be the relationship between concepts and reality - i.e. how concepts, as symbols, represent sensory perception.

EDIT: Further clarification: Communication, regardless of form, is a set of patterns (e.g. visual in writing) we associate with concepts, which we in turn associate with sensory perception - so communication would be twice removed from sensory perception, but still a representation (or abstraction) of that. However, since the association of pattern and concept may be systematised in different ways (i.e. patterns may be taken to represent other concepts) the patterns themselves have no bearing on the concepts, and the associations are arbitrary convention.

there are still true propositions in a universe with no intelligent agents. there just isn't anyone to say or appreciate them. neither the propositions nor their truth values are contingent on the existence of agents.

Propositions are mental processes, thus they operate in the intellect and the intellect only. No intelligent agents -> no propositions.

Meaning would be the relationship between concepts and reality - i.e. how concepts, as symbols, represent sensory perception.


Right so meaning is not the reality the symbols or patterns represent, but rather the process of how intelligent beings interpret these patterns?

Right so meaning is not the reality the symbols or patterns represent, but rather the process of how intelligent beings interpret these patterns?

Patterns in the mind and objects in reality are independent. They can only be associated in the mind. So yes.

Propositions are mental processes

nope, not granting you that.

propositions are not tokens - thoughts, utterances, whatever - they are what those tokens refer to and partake in. propositions are abstract, mind-independent entities. you are conflating two clearly separate things; what is believed and the believing of it. the what is the proposition, not the act.

a proposition, there are rocks, in absolutely no sense entails that there are intelligent beings to utter the words 'there are rocks'. it is not a logical consequence of the proposition in any sense. you cannot create a proof from 'there are rocks' to 'there are people'. it just won't work.

so to bring it back around, <there is thinking> is the proposition, and it exists independently of any mind. the token act of thinking 'there is thinking' merely verifies the truth of the proposition.

Patterns in the mind and objects in reality are independent. They can only be associated in the mind. So yes.

Well I'm not sure if your definition of meaning is particularly standard. Yes meaning is a human creation, or rather created only by those with intelligence. However, with objects, I define meaning as the intended specific reality the person creating that pattern set. Thus it's not nonsensical to describe a written sentence as having a meaning (this is obvious in an intuitive sense), although the meaning is not universal, it still holds its own meaning for certain people.

nope, not granting you that.

propositions are not tokens - thoughts, utterances, whatever - they are what those tokens refer to and partake in. propositions are abstract, mind-independent entities. you are conflating two clearly separate things; what is believed and the believing of it. the what is the proposition, not the act.

a proposition, there are rocks, in absolutely no sense entails that there are intelligent beings to utter the words 'there are rocks'. it is not a logical consequence of the proposition in any sense. you cannot create a proof from 'there are rocks' to 'there are people'. it just won't work.

so to bring it back around, <there is thinking> is the proposition, and it exists independently of any mind. the token act of thinking 'there is thinking' merely verifies the truth of the proposition.

Ah, but I do not grant that abstracts can exist mind-independent.

Well I'm not sure if your definition of meaning is particularly standard. Yes meaning is a human creation, or rather created only by those with intelligence. However, with objects, I define meaning as the intended specific reality the person creating that pattern set. Thus it's not nonsensical to describe a written sentence as having a meaning (this is obvious in an intuitive sense), although the meaning is not universal, it still holds its own meaning for certain people.

If the meaning is not universal, it is not objective (even though you have conceded meaning is not itself universal, by definition), and if it is not objective, it is not proper to the object, but rather the subject.

Ah, but I do not grant that abstracts can exist mind-independent.

on what grounds do you deny it?

does 2+2 equal 4 when no one is thinking it? when there is no one to think it?

if it is not objective, it is not proper to the object

It is in the way we define our universe, and I don't see that as a problem. Meaning has always been subjective. For an object to have a meaning, all that is required is for someone to associate a meaning for it. Once we use these assumptions (assumptions like the shape of 'a' means a), then objects have a meaning based on this assumption. So 'the object x has meaning' can be true as a conditional statement, and I don't see the problem with that.

on what grounds do you deny it?

does 2+2 equal 4 when no one is thinking it? when there is no one to think it?

Of course not. There is no such thing as 2. The real world is a world of particulars, or even the first axiom of logic - identity. There is no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2, unless we have classes. And classes are - yes, mental concept. If we remove them, 1 + 1 is inappropriate, because 1 is left as one symbol representing different particulars.

It is in the way we define our universe, and I don't see that as a problem. Meaning has always been subjective. For an object to have a meaning, all that is required is for someone to associate a meaning for it. Once we use these assumptions (assumptions like the shape of 'a' means a), then objects have a meaning based on this assumption. So 'the object x has meaning' can be true as a conditional statement, and I don't see the problem with that.

I do not dispute that. In the context of culture, that sort of statement is acceptable, but strictly and unqualified it is not true.

Ad Nihilo - are you arguing a sort of strict interpretation of Kant's theory of mind? It sounds like it.

on what grounds do you deny it?

does 2+2 equal 4 when no one is thinking it? when there is no one to think it?

The universe 'exists' according to our perceptions. Another radically different mode of perception might not hold that.

Without any perception of anything, how is anything given any ontological status?

It is in the way we define our universe, and I don't see that as a problem. Meaning has always been subjective. For an object to have a meaning, all that is required is for someone to associate a meaning for it. Once we use these assumptions (assumptions like the shape of 'a' means a), then objects have a meaning based on this assumption. So 'the object x has meaning' can be true as a conditional statement, and I don't see the problem with that.

I think the point is that one of the conditions, is that there must be an agent to make the connection, and is therefore is contingent upon a point of view for its existence let alone content.

I do not dispute that. In the context of culture, that sort of statement is acceptable, but strictly and unqualified it is not true.

Well again, define truth. ;)

If we have no axioms to use, then any object or proposition is neither true nor false, it is meaningless. Distinguishing truth from falsehood is dependent on the axioms we use.

Well again, define truth. ;)


Watch out - you're in danger of getting the thread back on topic!

Of course not. There is no such thing as 2. The real world is a world of particulars, or even the first axiom of logic - identity. There is no such thing as 1 + 1 = 2, unless we have classes. And classes are - yes, mental concept. If we remove them, 1 + 1 is inappropriate, because 1 is left as one symbol representing different particulars.

you don't get b=b, that's even more abstract than numbers

on what grounds can you claim that abstract classes like, for example, hydrogen only exist because we say they do? why is that more plausible than the claim that the abstract class actually exists and we merely recognize it?

Ad Nihilo - are you arguing a sort of strict interpretation of Kant's theory of mind? It sounds like it.


No, I think he's coming from an anti realist Wittgenstein angle.


I think the point is that one of the conditions, is that there must be an agent to make the connection, and is therefore is contingent upon a point of view for its existence let alone content.

An objects meaning is contingent on an agent creating its meaning yes, but all I'm saying is that I don't see that as a problem, and that just because a meaning is conditional does not then mean you can claim something to have no meaning at all.

An objects meaning is contingent on an agent creating its meaning yes, but all I'm saying is that I don't see that as a problem, and that just because a meaning is conditional does not then mean you can claim something to have no meaning at all.

Does where the meaning resides make any difference? If I confer meaning upon a set of marks, the meaning exists in me, in relation to the object. If it is contingent on me, then the object does not have any meaning without me. The object has no inherent meaning, as just because the meaning exists in my mind it does not mean it magically transfers into the object.

That's what it means to say some thing has no meaning.

Does where the meaning resides make any difference? If I confer meaning upon a set of marks, the meaning exists in me, in relation to the object. If it is contingent on me, then the object does not have any meaning without me. The object has no inherent meaning, as just because the meaning exists in my mind it does not mean it magically transfers into the object.

That's what it means to say some thing has no meaning.

Well I think it's nonsensical to talk of meaning as 'existing' in the sense that it actually has a location. I don't think "some thing has no meaning" means that it has no inherent meaning not created by agents, I take that to mean that no agent has created a meaning for the object. To say an object has no objective or universal meaning is perfectly valid. But to say an object has no meaning altogether is nonsensical.

The universe 'exists' according to our perceptions.

these magic mushrooms say otherwise

these magic mushrooms say otherwise

As does quantum physics

Well again, define truth. ;)

If we have no axioms to use, then any object or proposition is neither true nor false, it is meaningless. Distinguishing truth from falsehood is dependent on the axioms we use.

Of course. And I fully agree. My beef is axioms are equipollent, so I am a sceptic. But I still have this argument fetish :p

Of course. And I fully agree. My beef is axioms are equipollent, so I am a sceptic.

Oooh that's a fancy word. Even if they are equipollent, that probably shouldn't bother you because it's pointless to assume that nothing you see exists etc... but much more easier and pragmatic to assume that what you are perceiving does exist, so you may as well assume the latter.

you don't get b=b, that's even more abstract than numbers

on what grounds can you claim that abstract classes like, for example, hydrogen only exist because we say they do? why is that more plausible than the claim that the abstract class actually exists and we merely recognize it?

Class is an arbitrary grouping of particulars. Arbitrary in the sense that the criterion is solely at the discretion of the observer. Regardless of the actual similarities between particulars, they are observably always different and individual, and to associate based on a number of similarities, in spite of the differences is arbitrary. Classes do no exist intrinsically in nature - they are mere oversimplifications and crass generalisations.

Ad Nihilo - are you arguing a sort of strict interpretation of Kant's theory of mind? It sounds like it.

Haven't gotten round to Kant yet, but he is waiting for me on the bookshelf :tongue:

No, I think he's coming from an anti realist Wittgenstein angle.

Quite :P

An objects meaning is contingent on an agent creating its meaning yes, but all I'm saying is that I don't see that as a problem, and that just because a meaning is conditional does not then mean you can claim something to have no meaning at all.

As long as the condition is refutable, which it invariably is... ;)

Oooh that's a fancy word. Even if they are equipollent, that probably shouldn't bother you because it's pointless to assume that nothing you see exists etc... but much more easier and pragmatic to assume that what you are perceiving does exist, so you may as well assume the latter.

You may, but that pretty much precludes certainty, which sort of does away with pretensions to truth :$

You may, but that pretty much precludes certainty, which sort of does away with pretensions to truth :$

Well, there is tautological certainty, which you concede. So why don't you study maths? Perhaps it's universal nature will put you at ease. :tongue:

Well, there is tautological certainty, which you concede.

Assuming logic :p (sorry, had to be done)

So why don't you study maths? Perhaps it's universal nature will put you at ease. :tongue:

Two reasons - maths bores the shit out of me (it was my strongest subject till I got out of secondary school, but just then I lost interest and I didn't even take it at A-Level); and secondly I like chaos, uncertainty and ignorance :p

Two reasons - maths bores the shit out of me (it was my strongest subject till I got out of secondary school, but just then I lost interest and I didn't even take it at A-Level); and secondly I like chaos, uncertainty and ignorance :p

Study economics then. :tongue:

Study economics then. :tongue:

Touché :tongue:

Actually I'm doing International Relations with a quarter Economics (I think that is quite adequate as well :p)

Class is an arbitrary grouping of particulars. Arbitrary in the sense that the criterion is solely at the discretion of the observer. Regardless of the actual similarities between particulars, they are observably always different and individual, and to associate based on a number of similarities, in spite of the differences is arbitrary. Classes do no exist intrinsically in nature - they are mere oversimplifications and crass generalisations.

yeah, the universe says you are wrong. the grouping is not arbitrary. in fact, it is the completely the opposite, about as non-arbitrary as we can imagine. you haven't even motivated an argument to the contrary.

Touché :tongue:

Actually I'm doing International Relations with a quarter Economics (I think that is quite adequate as well :p)

Cool, I'll be studying economics in London in a weeks time too! Although, there is that thorough mathematical element, so actually when I think about it you may not enjoy it.

yeah, the universe says you are wrong. the grouping is not arbitrary. in fact, it is the completely the opposite, about as non-arbitrary as we can imagine. you haven't even motivated an argument to the contrary.

Nor have you. Observation indicates there are no two identical entities in the universe. So any association ignores real differences. The reasons why we choose to designate a group of entities dogs, and why we choose a subgroup of those to name terriers, and more restricted or larger classes (you can go in either direction indefinitely) are entirely subject to us as intelligent agents making the classification, and are arbitrary, as I have said above.

Cool, I'll be studying economics in London in a weeks time too! Although, there is that thorough mathematical element, so actually when I think about it you may not enjoy it.

LSE by any chance?

LSE by any chance?

Well it's one of the top 4 in London but I don't like giving that info away on the web. :tongue:

Well it's one of the top 4 in London but I don't like giving that info away on the web. :tongue:

Which means LSE, UCL, King's or? (I don't think Imperial does such trivial subjects like Economics :rolleyes:)

Guess as much as you like, I aint saying nothing. :)

Nor have you. Observation indicates there are no two identical entities in the universe. So any association ignores real differences. The reasons why we choose to designate a group of entities dogs, and why we choose a subgroup of those to name terriers, and more restricted or larger classes (you can go in either direction indefinitely) are entirely subject to us as intelligent agents making the classification, and are arbitrary, as I have said above.

and why should we believe that identity is the only real grouping? there are necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing being hydrogen, and being hydrogen necessarily results in that thing having certain properties. and this holds for everything in the universe. of anything in the universe, if it meets those conditions, it has those properties.

and why should we believe that identity is the only real grouping? there are necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing being hydrogen, and being hydrogen necessarily results in that thing having certain properties. and this holds for everything in the universe. of anything in the universe, if it meets those conditions, it has those properties.

Sure. But how does that make the constituent parts any less individual? And if you really, sincerely want to argue this at atomic level, then you're in a deep hole indeed, as along comes quantum mechanics.

And when you talk about necessary and sufficient conditions for a particular to fit in a certain class, don't you feel you sort of impose that class upon nature, from yourself?

Guess as much as you like, I aint saying nothing. :)

Pfft. Intranet-prude :p

Sure. But how does that make the constituent parts any less individual?

why would i have wanted to show that? both individual tokens and the abstract class those individuals partake in are real things in the universe, independent of any observers.

And if you really, sincerely want to argue this at atomic level, then you're in a deep hole indeed, as along comes quantum mechanics.

and does nothing. the mere fact that the natural kinds behave in a way that we'd call weird affects their existence as real things not at all.

And when you talk about necessary and sufficient conditions for a particular to fit in a certain class, don't you feel you sort of impose that class upon nature, from yourself?

nope. the conditions just are. hydrogen is hydrogen and it is not helium - and this makes a difference in the world. one bit of hydrogen behaves like another, and helium behaves differently. we are not involved other than talking amongst ourselves.

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

All three components are needed. It's the verifiability that gives epistemologists fits. There aren't too many people outside the English Lit department that really go in for questioning the idea of objectivity, only whether or not we'd know it when we see it.

why would i have wanted to show that? both individual tokens and the abstract class those individuals partake in are real things in the universe, independent of any observers.

Similar random particles interacting in a specific way does not make abstracts real. Neither particles nor forces exist in classes outside the human mind. This difference of paradigm between the two of us is akin to the difference between Platonic Forms, and Aristotelian forms, but essentially if any number of particles or forces share a number of attributes, which has certain set implications, it does not mean that the individual particles or forces are naturally belonging to an abstract existing in nature, because you think they do. You keep touting Hydrogen. Well not all Hydrogen particles are the same and have the same attributes - yr 6 Chemistry teaches you that there are 3 Hydrogen isotopes, and they have different atomic mass, and interact differently. The only thing "all" Hydrogen have in common is having one proton in the nucleus. If that isn't an arbitrary criterion of class then I don't know what is.

nope. the conditions just are. hydrogen is hydrogen and it is not helium - and this makes a difference in the world. one bit of hydrogen behaves like another, and helium behaves differently. we are not involved other than talking amongst ourselves.

As I said above, the fact that a certain amount of shared attributes has certain implications in real world interactions, does not mean the classes we use to describe that specific set of attributes (the list of sufficient and necessary things a particle must fulfil in order to be classed as Hydrogen) are independent existing abstracts.

Well it is clear that it cannot appreciate meaning. My point is that it does not have a meaning, while one is not at present being attributed to, or if you prefer derived from, by an intelligent agent that can derive meaning from it.
Would you not concede, though, that it has intended meaning; that an author intended the object to have a certain meaning?

I'm sympathetic to your view, but I think your pushing the point a tad too far. Let's take your example below:

So, for example you find some scratches on the wall of a cave - no meaning.
No meaning to me. Though surely I can surmise that (if I judge correctly the marks were put there with intent), that the author of these marks has invested meaning to them. From my point of view, your position seems to ignore the fact that the marks had an author. Your essentially saying that if no intelligence existed, there would be nothing capable of assigning or deriving meaning from the marks, and thus they have no meaning. This seems rather arbitrary.

Would it not be more sensible to say that, because I can never fully appreciate the content of another agent's mind, I can never be 100% sure of the intended meaning behind the marks, and it's very possible that I am discerning a totally different meaning from what the author intended, but the marks have an intended meaning, even if I will never appreciate it?

My problem is with your jump from 'no intrinsic meaning' to 'no meaning whatsoever'. It sounds to me like an unfounded logical leap.



these magic mushrooms say otherwise
GTFO, Terrence McKenna. :p

Similar random particles interacting in a specific way does not make abstracts real. Neither particles nor forces exist in classes outside the human mind. This difference of paradigm between the two of us is akin to the difference between Platonic Forms, and Aristotelian forms, but essentially if any number of particles or forces share a number of attributes, which has certain set implications, it does not mean that the individual particles or forces are naturally belonging to an abstract existing in nature, because you think they do.

my theory can explain why they are similar and why they behave in certain ways. yours can't - yours throws up its hands and thinks it all inscrutable. it is just something that happens and you have no reason to think it should or that it stays that way through space and time. yours has no reason to expect discrete properties at all.

You keep touting Hydrogen. Well not all Hydrogen particles are the same and have the same attributes - yr 6 Chemistry teaches you that there are 3 Hydrogen isotopes, and they have different atomic mass, and interact differently. The only thing "all" Hydrogen have in common is having one proton in the nucleus. If that isn't an arbitrary criterion of class then I don't know what is.

of course, all you have done then is increased the number of natural kinds out there, such that there is the abstract class of hydrogen, which is further made up of the subclasses of plain old H, deuterium, and tritium in the wild, and any exotics we happen to make while colliding large hardons - these differences caused by the interactions of members of a further natural kind, neutrons.

we can take this down to fundamental particles, if you like.

My problem is with your jump from 'no intrinsic meaning' to 'no meaning whatsoever'. It sounds to me like an unfounded logical leap.

Uhm, no. I did concede that it can convey meaning, but it, of itself does not have meaning, in the sense that it does not have "intrinsic meaning". I hope I haven't been too misunderstood.

Also the observation that meaning can be interpreted differently would support that meaning belongs to the subject. If it belonged to the object then any and all interpretation would have a universal outcome.

No meaning to me. Though surely I can surmise that (if I judge correctly the marks were put there with intent), that the author of these marks has invested meaning to them. From my point of view, your position seems to ignore the fact that the marks had an author. Your essentially saying that if no intelligence existed, there would be nothing capable of assigning or deriving meaning from the marks, and thus they have no meaning. This seems rather arbitrary.

even weirder, because the original meaning for a set of marks can apparently spontaneously pop back into existence when we learn how to read the marks.

take an example like ancient egyptian hieroglyphics. they had meaning until the language was lost. and then people spent a long time looking at those pictures and wondering what they meant - but those people were being stupid, because they obviously didn't mean anything at all. they literally had no meaning. and now we can read them again, so their meaning has returned.

my theory can explain why they are similar and why they behave in certain ways. yours can't - yours throws up its hands and thinks it all inscrutable. it is just something that happens and you have no reason to think it should or that it stays that way through space and time.

In case you weren't reading: the number of the attributes they share (i.e. the class definition, or the diferentia) has certain implications in how the particulars interact; the attributes idividual in each particular also have an influence, but a smaller one. Is that so incomprehensible?

The class definition, i.e what all particulars in a class have in common, is a highest common denominator, but never equals any of the particulars. To define class is to arbitrarily choose a set of attributes and lump together all those particulars which fit the definition. Implicitly those attributes will dictate interactions, but the fact that those particles interact in certain ways does not imply that all particulars concerned are "the same", more than to a certain degree - i.e. the class definition.

Thus defining any arbitrary class, and observing that its contents interact in certain ways does not imply that the class, as an abstract, exists in objective reality. In fact, since defining is a subjective process, it simply cannot describe objective reality.

of course, all you have done then is increased the number of natural kinds out there, such that there is the abstract class of hydrogen, which is further made up of the subclasses of plain old H, deuterium, and tritium in the wild, and any exotics we happen to make while colliding large hardons - these differences caused by the interactions of members of a further natural kind, neutrons.

You can make sub-classes and supra-classes at your discretion. The lowest sub-class is the individual. The highest supra-class is everything. It all depends on the amount of attributes you include in the class-definition. But that itself is a subjective and arbitrary process and has no impact on how things really are objectively.

we can take this down to fundamental particles, if you like.

But the conclusions would be the same.

even weirder, because the original meaning for a set of marks can apparently spontaneously pop back into existence when we learn how to read the marks.

take an example like ancient egyptian hieroglyphics. they had meaning until the language was lost. and then people spent a long time looking at those pictures and wondering what they meant - but those people were being stupid, because they obviously didn't mean anything at all. they literally had no meaning. and now we can read them again, so their meaning has returned.

Assumptions and prejudices. There is no way to know that this "returned meaning" is the same with the original intended meaning. Absolutely none. And the fact that we have managed to ascribe a new set of meanings (thinking of it in terms of discovering/reconstituting is the misleading part) to this set of patterns merely supports my argument.

the number of the attributes they share (i.e. the class definition, or the diferentia) has certain implications in how the particulars interact

why?

Assumptions and prejudices. There is no way to know that this "returned meaning" is the same with the original intended meaning. Absolutely none. And the fact that we have managed to ascribe a new set of meanings (thinking of it in terms of discovering/reconstituting is the misleading part) to this set of patterns merely supports my argument.

ok, so your basic problem with the concept of propositions is that you think translation is impossible?

why?

Because it has been observed? Haven't you supported this yourself?

Besides, how does abstract classes existing in nature necessitate said interactions? Apply the same standard of inquiry to your theory as well s.v.p.

ok, so your basic problem with the concept of propositions is that you think translation is impossible?

There is no translation, only interpretation and varying on degree of presumed accuracy, it may be called translation in the loose sense of the word.

Because it has been observed? Haven't you supported this yourself?

Besides, how does abstract classes existing in nature necessitate said interactions? Apply the same standard of inquiry to your theory as well s.v.p.

we both observe the regularities. but i get to say those regularities exist for a reason - because the entities they occur in they are of the same stuff and it is the nature of that stuff as a class that determines regularities for the particulars. you've only granted individual entities any real existence, therefore the regularities must be just some weird bare fact about the universe with no deeper explanation possible. and, i mean, that works as far as it goes, but i get an extra bit of explanatory power out of mine while fitting the same facts.

we both observe the regularities. but i get to say those regularities exist for a reason - because the entities they occur in they are of the same stuff and it is the nature of that stuff as a class that determines regularities for the particulars. you've only granted individual entities any real existence, therefore the regularities must be just some weird bare fact about the universe with no deeper explanation possible. and, i mean, that works as far as it goes, but i get an extra bit of explanatory power out of mine while fitting the same facts.

Well, I would beg to differ, since the differences in particulars or sub-classes do impact reality, even if to a lesser extent, than the class-definition attributes (like in the case of atomic mass, and then further down at quantum randomness level).

My problem with your theory is that it proposes certain entities, i.e. abstracts, as existing in nature. The first part is that since you are wishing entities into existence, the burden of proof lies with you. The second part is that being immaterial, these entities are not observable/subject to empirical investigation. And thirdly it is a very intuitive idea, and it does sound like common sense, and when this happens you have to ask yourself what are the presuppositions/assumptions, because common sense is the easiest way to accept unproven premises. And these entities themselves are assumed by common sense, but with no apparent empirical basis, but rather due to the way we think - in classes.

Basically we know for a fact that classes are mental concepts at least, and there is no way we could verify that they are objective abstracts in real world. Thus the only valid conclusion is that we treat the real world as having these abstracts because we think in abstract concepts/classes, and we cannot help but impress them on our perception of the world, even if by doing so we oversimplify, generalise and misrepresent our very perception.

Well, I would beg to differ, since the differences in particulars or sub-classes do impact reality, even if to a lesser extent, than the class-definition attributes (like in the case of atomic mass, and then further down at quantum randomness level).

except that they still form distinct groupings with discrete properties; they don't just completely blur from one to the next. this is fundamentally different from something like, say, mass. mass has real effects in the world, and objects that share mass do share some other properties. but except at the level of the smallest amounts of mass that can be added or subtracted from something by virtue of the fundamental unit of mass or where other forces take hold (which are themselves discrete points), the shared properties of mass are blurry and smoothly continuous as a given mass varies.

...

bwo is right, your verificationism falls to the same problem such a stance always does - its own unverifiability. until we get past that, it doesn't seem to me that anything i say (for example, that my abstracts actually are empirical, in exactly the same way gravity is) can lead us anywhere

bwo is right, your verificationism falls to the same problem such a stance always does - its own unverifiability.

As a primary principle (axiom) from which I argue, it cannot be proven. Axioms are never ever verifiable. We may disagree on it, but then we must state it as such.

until we get past that, it doesn't seem to me that anything i say (for example, that my abstracts actually are empirical, in exactly the same way gravity is) can lead us anywhere

Well assuming verifiability (I have understood that you have granted this - apologies if I was mistaken), then your abstracts fall short of the standard.

Well assuming verifiability (I have understood that you have granted this - apologies if I was mistaken), then your abstracts fall short of the standard.

but only because so does gravity. i hadn't noticed that you actually already stated this, but that's just fundamental disagreement on what the relevant standard actually is.

That is invariably the case. And since in both our cases the axioms we use imply our respective standards, and axioms are as they are (non-disputable), all we can do is agree to disagree.

That said, it is quite refreshing that I have managed to hold such a debate with two or three people in one single thread and no incidence degenerated.

Sort of explains the "Hotel California" effect NSG has on me :p

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

For most people, whatever reinforces their pre-conceived beliefs.

For most people, whatever reinforces their pre-conceived beliefs.

though, of course, those people are wrong

though, of course, those people are wrong

Not in their own minds, which is all they care about.

Not in their own minds, which is all they care about.

until reality smacks them over it, at least

until reality smacks them over it, at least

I think you'll find that the strongest of wills are impervious to reality :p

That is invariably the case. And since in both our cases the axioms we use imply our respective standards, and axioms are as they are (non-disputable), all we can do is agree to disagree.

That said, it is quite refreshing that I have managed to hold such a debate with two or three people in one single thread and no incidence degenerated.

Sort of explains the "Hotel California" effect NSG has on me :p

Indeed. It's been a very good debate to read, although some of it has gone way over my head.

Give me some months to brush up on my Philosophy of Mathematics, and I'll come back and argue for Platonism.

Would you not concede, though, that it has intended meaning; that an author intended the object to have a certain meaning?

......

Would it not be more sensible to say that, because I can never fully appreciate the content of another agent's mind, I can never be 100% sure of the intended meaning behind the marks, and it's very possible that I am discerning a totally different meaning from what the author intended, but the marks have an intended meaning, even if I will never appreciate it?


But why would this make a difference? Someone could arrange stones on a beach to say "hello", God could arrange a tortilla to look like his face, an author invests himself in a book.... Or they could just be random patterns, or monkeys with a typewriter. Why this privileged status? It doesn't seem necessary.

We used to believe that if a billion monkeys typed on a billion typewriters, Shakespeare would be produced, but now, thanks to the Internet, we know that this is not true.

"I am hungry" does not need to be assumed in order for stating "I am hungry" to be true.

Question: is "I am hungry" verifiable?

Question: is "I am hungry" verifiable?

In the sense that it can be true or false, and you can determine which of the two, yes.

In the sense that it can be true or false, and you can determine which of the two, yes.

As to verifiability, it may only occur on the assumption that our senses provide a consistent interpretation of the assumed external world.

What is the thing in the external world that would allow us to determine if 'I am hungry' is true or false?

what makes objectively verifiable truth: objective?, verifiable?, or even truth?

We do!

(By the way, great subject line.)

until reality smacks them over it, at least

And for many people, not even then.

What is the thing in the external world that would allow us to determine if 'I am hungry' is true or false?

There isn't one!

Isn't that great?'

That doesn't make it non-objective, though.

may anyone be so brave as to actually describe truth and objectively verify that that definition is correct?

Everyone does that with every breath they take, and every word they utter. "Definition" to each of us is the objectively verified truth.

Everyone does that with every breath they take, and every word they utter. "Definition" to each of us is the objectively verified truth.

and there we have it. Objectively verifiable truth is 'Definition'. I move that this is the answer. do i have a second?

and there we have it. Objectively verifiable truth is 'Definition'. I move that this is the answer. do i have a second?

Consens of common sense.

If you put 2 apples in front of anybody, and add another two, it is agreed by the vast majority of mankind that there then are 4 apples in front of that person. They base this on what their common sense tells them.

Same goes for more complex issues. It's only when the issues become highly complex, and a good deal of knowledge is needed for your common sense to be able to work, that this consens of what it true and what isn't breaks down.

Consens of common sense.

If you put 2 apples in front of anybody, and add another two, it is agreed by the vast majority of mankind that there then are 4 apples in front of that person. They base this on what their common sense tells them.

Same goes for more complex issues. It's only when the issues become highly complex, and a good deal of knowledge is needed for your common sense to be able to work, that this consens of what it true and what isn't breaks down.

Not quite right I'm afraid, and call it nitpicking if you must, but surly your example is only aplicable to those who speak English.

We used to believe that if a billion monkeys typed on a billion typewriters, Shakespeare would be produced, but now, thanks to the Internet, we know that this is not true.

Some fanfics, reportedly, are quite good.

Not quite right I'm afraid, and call it nitpicking if you must, but surly your example is only aplicable to those who speak English.

Numbers translate into almost all languages, I think.
Apples mightn't, though, so feel free to substitute "apple" for any form of local agricultural product.

I would propose that while everything and all things can and will be taken in and out of context, that any preconcievable or inconcievable answer may or my not be entirely or not entirely true and/or false and/or inconclusive.

I would propose that while everything and all things can and will be taken in and out of context, that any preconcievable or inconcievable answer may or my not be entirely or not entirely true and/or false and/or inconclusive.

I consider it true that this is a gravedig ;)

I consider it true that this is a gravedig ;)

Its like an 'infinite symbol' no beginning and no end. Because as I posed the question, inspired by you, i have not gotten an answer that defies explination. There is an insurmountable amount of give and take over issues with which this topic has no derivitory context. The quetions was, and still is the same. What, however is the Gosh-Dang Answer.....