Even though I have grown fairly weary of this discussion, I have to interject that I dislike having my words turned around on me:
Rick S said >>> I cannot give a short pat answer. As for me trying to prove some subjective proof to you through objective means, I doubt that I could. They are different versions of reality that exist simultaneously. <<< In other words, FAITH? If I had meant faith I would've said faith. Rick S On Oct 28, 12:44 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rick S said >>> I cannot give a short, > pat answer. As for me trying to prove some subjective proof to you > through objective means, I doubt that I could. They are different > versions of reality that exist simultaneously. <<< > > In other words, FAITH? > > Humanist said >>> The lord invented the oscilloscope so that the > color > blind can know the color red in a mathematical way. <<< > > OK. We are getting somewhere. However, the name RED is just what you > give that "mathematical way". That still does not TELL me what RED > is. It only tells me what I would expect to find in the properties of > RED. Not what RED is. Would you not have to show me, too? > > Is what you mean by the "mathematical way" like the Tao? :-) I am > thinking of the blind here I guess.... :-) > > stemcell > > On Oct 28, 12:20 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Orn said >>> Convention. Agreed upon. > > ‘truth’...<<< > > > That still does not tell me what "truth" is other than what someone > > says it is. A majority might DISbelieve evolution but that does not > > make it false. > > > Orn said >>> By know, I mean have direct experience rather than a > > shared > > notion of what a word means. <<< > > > Define truth? What do you mean "direct experience"? How do I judge > > that? If it is not some "absolute" , no gradations or variations, > > then it is meaningless. This is my point. If one is to say that > > someting is true, then one needs to provide an objective standard that > > EVERYBODY can agree upon, independent of how they FEEL. For > > instance. I can measure the room temp, which is cold by the way, an > > find that it is 39 degrees. If I do this over and over (and that said > > room is constant) then even if I say that I think the room is 100 > > degrees then I am mistaken. But if I say that it is 39 degrees, then > > I am making a truth statement. There is no subjectivity in there. > > > Orn. Thank you for the conversation. I hope it continues. :-) > > > Humanist said >>> Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, > > measurable, observable, > > testable with instrumentation.<<< > > > How so? Is your BLACK my BLACK? Is your RED my BLACK? Tell me how > > you can measure a subjective claim like that? > > > stemcell > > > On Oct 27, 11:15 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “…it seems to me it still will be "subjective". For instance, what do > > > you mean by RED? It seems meaningless unless you provide a consistent > > > standard of what IS RED.” – Stem > > > > Yes stem, all concepts are subjective. This includes the notion of > > > color and other sense organ things. We have a convention about what in > > > these realms is ‘true’ (small ‘t’) and what is not true. Example: a > > > stop light is red, the go light is green. Convention. Agreed upon > > > ‘truth’. Nothing objective in an ultimate sense yet though. Someone > > > who is red/green blind comes to mind here to show yet another reason > > > why it is relative/subjective too. > > > > “Kind of like the meaningless statements when one talks about > > > "collective consciousness" or "god/God".” – Stem > > > > Well, these things are ‘meaningless’ if one does not know what they > > > are. By know, I mean have direct experience rather than a shared > > > notion of what a word means. Always has been that way. This is one > > > fairly good example of why negative theology has been around > > > ‘forever’. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology > > > > On Oct 27, 3:45 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Rick S said >>> If I ate a peach and told you that it tasted like an > > > > apple to me, how > > > > could you possibly prove that I was mistaken? It might taste like a > > > > peach to you and everyone else. But it still might taste like an > > > > apple > > > > to me. <<< > > > > > You are right. I guess that is what Orn. calls "subjective truths". > > > > But that still does not get you very far. If you want me to agree > > > > with your assertion that the peach taste like an apple, I would say, > > > > OK. Show me how you got to that conclusion. (Freethinker?) :-) > > > > Give me the objective standard by which you judge it to taste like an > > > > apple? Unless and untill you do that I have no way to judge the > > > > "truth" (value?) of your statement that the peach taste like an > > > > apple. Now, this is kind of an absurd argument, to me. Things like > > > > taste is subjective...and/or rather the description thereof. If you > > > > tell me that you had some kind of oceanic feeling, I can't argue with > > > > that. But if you want me to believe it as truth, then you have to > > > > supply me with an objective standard. Otherwise I will just have to > > > > hold off on my judgement of such I guess. > > > > > By the way, do you equate "truth" with fact or is it just something > > > > that feels good? If so, how do you show that? Conversly, if someone > > > > were to show you, give you an objective standard that something is > > > > real, a fact, would you be open to admit that that "truth" you hold is > > > > false...or at the least subjective? > > > > > Sorry for the ramble. > > > > > Orn. said >>> including things like black is not red. > > > > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances > > > > is > > > > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > > > > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > > > > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself.<<< > > > > > Thanks for the feedback Orn. (an stimulating thought for/in me) I > > > > can't help but think of Wittgenstien, though. Even if you are talking > > > > about the "thing itself" unless you have a standard of what is RED and > > > > what is BLACK then it seems to me it still will be "subjective". For > > > > instance, what do you mean by RED? It seems meaningless unless you > > > > provide a consistent standard of what IS RED. Kind of like the > > > > meaningless statements when one talks about "collective consciousness" > > > > or "god/God". > > > > > stemcell > > > > > On Oct 27, 4:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > “…Is truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing?…” – Stem > > > > > > No. > > > > > > There are subjective truths…including things like black is not red. > > > > > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances is > > > > > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > > > > > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > > > > > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself. > > > > > > There are ultimate truths. Truths having to do with the absolute are > > > > > in this category. Things like, all is one. > > > > > > On Oct 27, 1:20 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Orn. said this >>> ultimate truth <<< > > > > > > > How is that different from mega-truth? A smidgen of truth? etc.? > > > > > > Is > > > > > > truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing? How can a woman be a > > > > > > little pregnant? > > > > > > > stemcell > > > > > > > by the way, truthfully, great thread. :-) > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 11:40 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > “Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's > > > > > > > left > > > > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific > > > > > > > theories > > > > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > > > > occurring forever.” – Taylor > > > > > > > > A few observations here Taylor. First, I’m not sure which ‘truth’ > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > are talking about when associating the term with science. Is it > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > sort of ultimate truth? A unified theory? Perhaps you have > > > > > > > addressed > > > > > > > this elsewhere, but in context your intention is not clear to me. > > > > > > > It’s > > > > > > > almost a tautology. > > > > > > > > As to your apparently rhetorical question about an ontology based > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > possibilities, perhaps anything at all is ‘possible’? Not wishing > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > enter into a formal debate here, but it would seem that numerous > > > > > > > fallacies are included within that notion. > > > > > > > > As to your last speculation, while, again, perhaps anything is > > > > > > > ‘possible’, in this context, the reverse is more probable, being > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > simplest ‘answer’. Perhaps it is a similar thing to one of Zeno’s > > > > > > > paradoxes? > > > > > > > > All of this said, I do appreciate your candor and openness in this > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 7:56 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > <<OK. But Popper?>> > > > > > > > > > Quote mining. > > > > > > > > > Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all > > > > > > > > that's left > > > > > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific > > > > > > > > theories > > > > > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > > > > > occurring forever.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
