Destroying Skepticism

[snapshot]

Why don't you tell me what "truth" means to you?

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

I can only come to a conclusion about what is objectively true by using a methodology which is in accordance with reality itself.

Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The scientific method is derived from reality, and no matter how much we believe we will get the results that we want, we will always get the results that reality has prepared for us (no personification intended).

since you do not know the true nature of reality, this is a belief system and therefore as valid as me saying a purple dinosaur makes the results of science come out the way we want it to.

The scientific method is not a plant or a star. The scientific method is a system derived by subjective beings to figure out stuff. I'd love to hear how you think a subjective consciousness can create a method that magically achieves objectivism. Anything from a subjective point is at least in part always subjective.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The fact that we can even use the word "true" means that we have some means (a methodology) for coming to a conclusion.

The word "true" does not require collaboration. Truth does not require "we".

It is true that I am thinking about kidneys right now. And the methodology for coming to this conclusion is subjective experience.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The only thing I really have a problem with is that you're unable to live by your own philosophy.

Already addressed this.

Originally Posted by snapshot

How did you come to the conclusion in the second quotation that I stated? If you did not use logic or empiricism, then you must have some other methodology by which you came to the conclusion, but no one has told me what this methodology is with which I can come to the same conclusion.

Any methodology other than the one you have determined to be true will not be logical to you. That's the trap of belief in objective truth. You believe that what you have proven to yourself through your belief systems (logic, empirical evidence) is not only true to you, but true regardless. Which is a ridiculous argument, as it requires you to believe in it as objective truth for it to be objective truth.

In effect, this conversation has now officially become "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" with you saying "yes it does, as it is an objective truth that when a tree falls, it makes a sound" and me saying "you did not hear this tree fall, so while you can make an educated guess of it making a sound, you do not know, and are therefore not speaking of an objective truth."

[Waves]

Originally Posted by snapshot

It doesn't matter. I'd like to know your method for determining truth from falsehood.

This is sort of important since my whole post hinges on a different definition of truth than most people use. My belief is that truth is relative, like everything else. Every person has their own set of truths that form their beliefs, which dictates their thoughts and behavior. I dont like to talk about truth in terms of objective accuracy or "what really happens" because i believe to humans, "what really happens" is irrelevant, we act on our desires and those are rooted in subjective motives which are not always based in logic. What is your desire for seeking truth for instance? Is it simply because you want to be accurate? Why is it that you can have a desire to seek truth and be accurate and i can have a desire to be a lunatic and totally disregard what most people consider to be true? What is your desire for seeking women? For conversing on a message board? Everyone has different motivations and reasons and these are the subjective actions, or attractions, that rule our behavior.

For me, truth is my beliefs, its my perception, and it has nothing to do with objectivity. So it might be hard to debate some of this stuff. But im definitly willing to go there. truth to me are the beliefs that we hold which set the foundation for our experience. They are the ones that we dont question, that we simply believe to be true because that is what we have been taught OR that is what we have experience through our senses. Our mental truths.

For instance, you could put forth a lot of opinions, but the implication of opinion is that you have no real reason for putting it forth other than it's just kind of a feeling that you have.

As i stated before, i believe true debate should be much more akin to an exploration of ideas and a sharing of ideas, not a comparison or an argument. I believe in variety, i believe if we all held the same beliefs and believed the same stuff to be true and held the same desires we would end up like clones. To further the variety in experience that we can explore, variety in beliefs is key, because our subjective motivations are very much linked to our objective beliefs.

So to me the implication of opinion is just sharing. Having fun, discussing, and exploring mental concepts. If you agree, great. If you dont, thats fine too.

Like, I could have a feeling that objective reality doesn't exist, but I'd have to accept that it did exist in order to be able to prove that it didn't, so that would contradict. I could have a feeling that the Orioles were going to lose tonight and say "The Orioles are going to lose tonight," but that's just an opinion with no reasoning behind it whatsoever--it's a baseless assertion, but I'm not making a contradiction.

Well then we would discuss your feelings and we would eventually get to the fact that you are making baseless assertations. After exploring your beliefs we would eventually get to this fact and i would go "great- but i dont agree with your baseless assertations" and that would be that. Its not that i dont think we cant come to conclusions and concern falsity from truth, its just that i believe truth is relative from person to person and thus the conclusions are going to be different from person to person. which in reality is how it should be, imo.

There are certain words that I don't think you should (or even could) use if you don't accept objective standards, if you don't accept that you can discover truths outside of yourself.

I do believe you can discover truth outside of yourself. Its just that its not anyone else's job to tell you what belief is right for you. I think all beliefs are equally valid and can be validated by a persons perception because thats what beliefs are designed to do, regardless of the fact that they are not rooted in objective truth and logic. i do not believe reality to be rooted in objective truth or logic as i explained above, and that includes our human realities. and when i say this i am talking about beliefs as real, objective things. beliefs are real, and you can see that reality in extremes in places like the middle east. people are not killing themselves for things they believe to be false. thats the nature of beliefs and human perception.

Words like "truth" are overtaken by words like "opinion." To me there is a difference between a truth and To say something is "true for you" is to say that it's your opinion, and negating the value of the word "truth." We don't need a word like truth since its very existence implies objectivity. Without objectivity, the word "truth" would never even have come into existence. But people do believe and act as though we can come to objective conclusions about the nature of reality--they use the word "truth" and they make positive claims about reality. Yes, we have subjective experience, but those subjective experiences are able to come to objective conclusions that, no matter how much our beliefs differ, won't change the fabric of reality (which we can test using the scientific method).

The fabric of reality is irrelevant to humans. What is relevant to us is ourselves and our perception of reality. And how we view reality is our reality and its real to us. So our beliefs are our reality. They might not be THE reality, they might not be TRUE, but they are our reality. I agree we can come to objective conclusions but these objective conclusions are subjective in nature given that they are done with subjective perceptions. For all we know there might be an infinity number of different universes all with their own laws of physics and reality. That would mean that our reality is just one configuration of energy, one result among an infinity and our objective conclusions only apply to us and our perceptions and our universe.

Im getting hypothetical i know, but my point is that its useless to try to make objective conclusions about reality in any kind of concrete way. All you can do is draw similarities just like two scientists can never make the same measurement twice. We live in a similar reality. We see things similarly. We do things similarly. But not the exact same. Its the variety in subjective motivation that makes humans what we are, and whether or not that subjective motivation is rooted in any kind of objective truth or logic is irrelevant.

/endrant

So, what I'd like to see from everyone who is skeptical about making claims about objective truths is for none of them to use words like "truth" and not make any positive claims except about themselves or their perceptions.

Which is all any human can do, EVER.

If you ever make a claim to which the question "Is that true for me as well as you?" with an affirmative answer, then you're making a positive claim about the nature of reality, which contradicts the philosophy being put forth when it's claimed that no objective truths can be reached.

I agree. Doesnt mean we arent free to explore and share together.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

As long as you stop pretending like you're actually doing real philosophy, I have no problem with this at all.

oh please. I'm not doing what you believe is real philosophy. So if you're willing to admit that "real philosophy" is a subjective opinion, then I will be more than happy to admit that what I am speaking about is not in line with your beliefs about what constitutes "real" philosophy.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I am not objective. My methodology is objective. The reason I need an objective methodology to verify my claims is because I am not.

your methodology is a subjective creation.

Originally Posted by snapshot

So I have no reason to believe that anything you say is true.

no more than anyone else...including those guys who developed your scientific method.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you certain that you are a subjective mind making this statements?

I'm certain I'm not certain.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

since you do not know the true nature of reality

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

this is a belief system and therefore as valid as me saying a purple dinosaur makes the results of science come out the way we want it to.

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

The scientific method is not a plant or a star. The scientific method is a system derived by subjective beings to figure out stuff. I'd love to hear how you think a subjective consciousness can create a method that magically achieves objectivism. Anything from a subjective point is at least in part always subjective.

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

The word "true" does not require collaboration. Truth does not require "we".

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

It is true that I am thinking about kidneys right now. And the methodology for coming to this conclusion is subjective experience.

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

Already addressed this.

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.
I could go on. I could answer any of your assertions with either this question or statement and we will get nowhere. You admit that we can get nowhere, and then you try to get somewhere. You continue to make claims about reality, claim uncertainty is not possible, yet continue to act as though you are. You are unable to live the philosophy you espouse since you're unable to say that you can't make objective claims about reality without that very claim being a claim about reality. Your position is philosophically untenable.

So long as you don't call whatever you call what you're doing "philosophy," "science," or some other type of word which would falsely lend your arguments credibility, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. My main goal is to maintain the integrity of science and philosophy.

[Waves]

Originally Posted by verk

well, we just might start supporting each other's preferences instead of callously debating about our own. i would say that logic makes art "art," but something beyond logic makes it beautiful.

yeah and that is really what im interested in. snap says hes a crusader for science and philosophy. thats cool. im a crusader for personal expression. and that requires no logic at all.

its not that i dont like science and philosophy, btw. my above post might paint them in a sort of negative light. on the contrary i think they are the greatest thing to come along to the human race since we started drawing pictures on caves. it allows our shared experience to become much more efficient. it gave me my car, most of the shit in my house, this computer im on. allows us to connect. (it also gives us satellite guided missles but everything has its pros and cons eh) but we also cant forget our spirituality and our beauty and creativity and passion. logic and science are a choice, as are spirituality and religion, and they DO NOT have to be opposite ends of a spectrum. they can peacefully co-exist. i wish both camps could reconcile their differences and come together, ya know?

[snapshot]

I'm certain I'm not certain.

You've done it before, now I'm going to do it. I'm out of this debate with you.

[v3d4]

sometimes i dont post in these threads because there are so many things that come out of what i am reading, (and from what i have already read elsewhere) and already grappled with that it is too big to even start to comment because a. i dont have time/energy/motivation to lay out a whole argument for why i think a particular way and b. because i often find a lot of stuff i think applies to a particular discussion has already been worked out and written down a long time ago, and why put effort into reinventing the wheel over and over?

so this is one of those discussions, but i do want to lay down some thoughts on what i see so far about skepticism, objective reality and epistemology:

we can test for objective reality that is independent from our thoughts and perceptions and consciousness, but the skeptic's angle is that a logically consistent alternative explanation can always be made up to account for evidence of any objectivity.
i didnt listen to the whole recorded phone discussion at the beginning of the thread but i wonder what is the answer to this?

the problem with saying that reality is logic and logic is reality is that there is a recursive element not only to logical constructions that can be taken advantage of to come to crazy conclusions but also the issue of things which are logically and scientifically unknowable according to both logical and empirical methods. theres just some objective reality things that cant be found out by either method. (for example i might mention the two slit experiment in which an electron traveling down an unknown path get to where its going without existing in any objective time or place during its unknowable journey)

so these are the 2 problems of epistemology which is the study of the nature of knowing. epistemology has 2 parts: empiricism and rationalism.
empiricism says that we can know something by the senses, but the skeptic always has an answer to this for which there isnt any sensible answer : your senses are not reality, you senses can be fooled

rationalism on the other hand says that formal logical and math are the way to find out what is true by their consistency in always giving the same or right answer by mechanical means (here i am using mechanical as a kind of metaphor, except that the first computers really were made with mechanical gears and cogs to get the right answers to math problems independent of human thoughts or opinions).

the problem with rationalism is that you can say things that are internally and logically consistent, but dont make any sense or are impossible or otherwise dont conform to what we think of as objective reality.
Gödel showed that in certain internally consistent mathematical systems there are true statements that cant be proven in that system.
this is the problem of recursion in logical systems where you can follow sensible rules to say senseless things, because logic is not reality but a symbolic abstraction. a subset of the set of reaity you might say.
to say that objective truth cant be known seems bogus to me because if it is absolutely true for everybody, then it is an objective truth. sort of like "this statement is a lie" which is what made me think of Gödel

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

I'm certain I don't know. I, of course, cannot be certain what you know, since I am a subjective consciousness. You could very well be omniscient. Are you omniscient?

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

I'm certain I don't know. I, of course, cannot be certain what you know, since I am a subjective consciousness. You could very well be omniscient. Are you omniscient? Do you know the true nature of reality?

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

I'm certain I don't know. I, of course, cannot be certain what you know, since I am a subjective consciousness. You could very well be omniscient. Are you omniscient? Are the inventors of the scientific method omniscient? Can non-omniscient people create something omniscient?

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

I'm certain I don't know. I, of course, cannot be certain what you know, since I am a subjective consciousness. You could very well be omniscient. Are you omniscient?

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you certain?/Which is your subjective belief about what is or is not objectively true.

I'm certain I don't know. I, of course, cannot be certain what you know, since I am a subjective consciousness. You could very well be omniscient. Are you omniscient?

Originally Posted by snapshot

I could go on. I could answer any of your assertions with either this question or statement and we will get nowhere.

agreed.

Originally Posted by snapshot

You admit that we can get nowhere, and then you try to get somewhere. You continue to make claims about reality, claim uncertainty is not possible, yet continue to act as though you are.

I can only assume this was a typo, as I claim CERTAINTY is not possible, outside of the certainty of being uncertain, since I am neither omniscient or objective.

Originally Posted by snapshot

You are unable to live the philosophy you espouse since you're unable to say that you can't make objective claims about reality without that very claim being a claim about reality. Your position is philosophically untenable.

"I can't make objective claims about reality." I have indeed just made a claim about reality. This claim however, is a subjective one.

This position is completely philosophically tenable to my subjective mind. Your subjective mind, however, does not agree. OBJECTIVELY, you have no right to claim whether it does or does not, unless again:

I'm certain I don't know. I, of course, cannot be certain what you know, since I am a subjective consciousness. You could very well be omniscient. Are you omniscient?

Originally Posted by snapshot

So long as you don't call whatever you call what you're doing "philosophy," "science," or some other type of word which would falsely lend your arguments credibility, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. My main goal is to maintain the integrity of science and philosophy.

I'll call it whatever I want. And you have every right to use your subjective mind to disagree with me. Science and philosophy (in quotations) doesn't lend any credibility to anything unless your subjective mind believes that science and philosophy lends credibility to something.

I have no problem with you believing anything you want either. The difference here, is that I'm admitting that what I believe is "what I believe" whereas you are claiming that what you believe is "objective truth."

Your goal is to maintain what you have decided makes up the integrity of science and philosophy.

In the course of this thread, you have claimed dibs on: the word truth, "real philosophy", integrity of science, and credibility.

you're actually quite aggressive. To my subjective mind, of course.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by Waves

This is sort of important since my whole post hinges on a different definition of truth than most people use.

If we don't have the same definition of truth, then we're not talking about the same thing. It doesn't matter what word we use, technically, but it does matter what we're actually talking about. Beyond that, it matters if we can actually understand what we're talking about, otherwise, our motives are completely misguided.

My belief is that truth is relative, like everything else.

If you say that truth is relative, you're really just saying that there is no such thing as truth. Because...

Every person has their own set of truths that form their beliefs, which dictates their thoughts and behavior.

Wouldn't, instead of "truth," the more appropriate word be "opinion?" You don't believe that the definition of "opinion" is different for everybody, do you?

I dont like to talk about truth in terms of objective accuracy or "what really happens" because i believe to humans, "what really happens" is irrelevant, we act on our desires and those are rooted in subjective motives which are not always based in logic.

I would say that's a bad thing, but I wouldn't say you're wrong. But I don't quite see why this is relevant.

What is your desire for seeking truth for instance?

My opinion is true for me and no one else. I'm only concerned about statements being made which attempt to say what is true for everyone.

For me, truth is my beliefs, its my perception, and it has nothing to do with objectivity.

Then why use the word truth? What do you think about my definition of "truth."

So to me the implication of opinion is just sharing. Having fun, discussing, and exploring mental concepts. If you agree, great. If you dont, thats fine too.

I'm the same way. Someone's opinion doesn't tell me what to think, but I do think science does tell you what to think. You don't have to accept empiricism, but denying empiricism is radical skepticism, which is untenable as I've hopefully, successfully fleshed out. (See how I go right back to defending my position when you bring up a new position? That is a character flaw.)

Well then we would discuss your feelings and we would eventually get to the fact that you are making baseless assertations. After exploring your beliefs we would eventually get to this fact and i would go "great- but i dont agree with your baseless assertations" and that would be that. Its not that i dont think we cant come to conclusions and concern falsity from truth, its just that i believe truth is relative from person to person and thus the conclusions are going to be different from person to person. which in reality is how it should be, imo.

Do you believe that there are certain things that are definitely true for everyone, such as the strength of the gravitational force? Are there not something things that we can definitively say are true for everyone, no matter how seemingly pointless or irrelevant?

I do believe you can discover truth outside of yourself. Its just that its not anyone else's job to tell you what belief is right for you.

Completely agree. But I also think that it's OK to point out contradictions in people's own personal logic.

I think all beliefs are equally valid and can be validated by a persons perception because thats what beliefs are designed to do, regardless of the fact that they are not rooted in objective truth and logic. i do not believe reality to be rooted in objective truth or logic as i explained above, and that includes our human realities. and when i say this i am talking about beliefs as real, objective things. beliefs are real, and you can see that reality in extremes in places like the middle east. people are not killing themselves for things they believe to be false. thats the nature of beliefs and human perception.

Wouldn't killing people in the name of religion (say) be a result of false reasoning, false assumptions, etc? It sounds like you're saying certainty is the problem, while I think certainty while being WRONG is the problem.

It seems like a lot of people have a problem with being certain because so many people who are obviously wrong are certain, and instead of having an aversion to being wrong, people have an aversion to uncertainty. (I think you would agree that if someone attempted to make the claim that objects fall at 99999.8m/s/s on Earth, you could call them wrong--just so we can both agree that it is possible for someone to be incorrect in their own reasoning (assuming they already agree to every other standard).

The fabric of reality is irrelevant to humans. What is relevant to us is ourselves and our perception of reality. And how we view reality is our reality and its real to us. So our beliefs are our reality. They might not be THE reality, they might not be TRUE, but they are our reality. I agree we can come to objective conclusions but these objective conclusions are subjective in nature given that they are done with subjective perceptions. For all we know there might be an infinity number of different universes all with their own laws of physics and reality. That would mean that our reality is just one configuration of energy, one result among an infinity and our objective conclusions only apply to us and our perceptions and our universe.

It seems to me like I'm ignoring the entire first part of your paragraph just to nip at the heels of the second, but whether there is an infinite number of universes or not wouldn't have an effect on what is true in this universe. No one is making claims about those other universes. And, going back to the first part of your paragraph, what is your definition of "truth"?

Im getting hypothetical i know, but my point is that its useless to try to make objective conclusions about reality in any kind of concrete way. All you can do is draw similarities just like two scientists can never make the same measurement twice.

Well, it's inductive reasoning. But how can you make the emboldened claim you just made without using inductive reasoning. I'm not denying the inability of inductive reasoning to make certain claims. It's just that people that hold similar positions to you and JcP (though I think you're more fun to talk to, and I'm not saying you hold the same positions) is that you can't make such a claim without also accepting that inductive reasoning is valid.

I agree. Doesnt mean we arent free to explore and share together.

Straaaaaight.

[Praise Jah]

You guys gotta quit smoking the reefer.