What is truth?

[Delta4Embassy]

"The sky is blue." is false. It only looks blue, to us, given daytime and clear skies. But it's no more blue than a polar bear is white. Look it up, will blow your mind.

Yes, I know. It has no color and what we see is an attribute of that hollowness. You're missing my point, which is that just because a statement on its surface might not be able to be determined to have a truth value does not mean the matter is a simple opinion.

There is a difference between a statement and a premise. A statement is expressed in language. A premise is the underlying meaning of the statement. In logic, it is the premise itself which is most important. Statements are merely vehicles for the premise. Elliptical statements are ones that are essentially incomplete, where context and other information leads to additional information being inferred so as to reveal the premise.

Thus, your examples rely on ambiguity, creating elliptical statements. When Jane Doe says "Polar bears are white" she is typically are talking about the general appearance of polar bears. On the other hand, when you say here that "Polar bears are not white" you are referring to the fact that the transparent fur has no pigmentation and has light scattering properties that cause light to become trapped inside the fur and glow at every visible wavelength. That is an entirely different premise than what Jane was talking about. Your premise is true, and so is Jane's premise.

Polar bears look white. True. Polar bears are white. False.

Polar bears are in fact black. Their translucent fur bends light passing through it making it appear white just like clouds do despite being composed of water vapor with has no color. But a polar bear's skin is black.

 

[SwimExpert]

Color is not measured by a spectrometer. A spectrometer measures the spectrum of wavelengths in a given sample of EM radiation, and graphs that data. Do I really need to explain this to you again? Spectral colors are a limited subset human perception of color.

Modern spectrometer instruments can make decisions on color without the awkward usage of visible graphs that a human would have to interpret.

You seem to think that just because something can have attributes and qualities that can be observed and measured, it is an objective object. The absolute absurdity and bass akwardsness of your thinking is amazing. Falling in love is a subjective experience. This doesn't cease to be true just because we can objectively identify that the experience involves certain chemicals in the brain. Pain is also a subjective experience, even though we can observe the action of neurons polarizing to transmit information to the brain which can also be observed reacting strongly to that information.

Color is in your mind! It does not exist in the outside world. Just like pain does not exist in the objective world. Sure, the knife that stabbed you objectively exists, but the pain you feel is entirely subjective. Just like the color you see is entirely subjective.

Love, pain, emotion, etc are complex neural phenomena. Yes, color can evoke sensations and emotions too. That is a valid humanistic argument.

However, when it comes to a discussion on truth it is also valid to look at what phenomena can be measured outside the foibles of human perception. These phenomena such as color have a simpler more fundamental aspect related to the laws of physics that much more easily capture the objectivity of what is being sensed, sometimes falsely, by a human.

I'm not even sure why I'm discussing this with you. There is nothing to debate on the subjectivity of color. No, you don't have an opinion, you are wrong as an issue of fact and definition. Color is not an objective phenomenon. I'm amazed that anyone can be so ignorant and uneducated to even think otherwise.

Ad hominem argument. Very juvenile.

Oh sure, let's put more words in my mouth, shall we? I have a better idea....perhaps you can go out on a dinner date with your straw man, because you're obtuse thinking is becoming so weak that I fear you may be on the verge of an insulin coma. Your brain needs fuel in order to work properly.

You are making another ad hominem reply to my question below.

Try to remember this thread is about the nature of truth. I contend that there are certain physical processes that are unambiguous in deriving the reality (truth) of certain physical events given the appropriate measuring tools. Please be clear on why you think that type of physical measurement is always ultimately subjective.

That is not putting words in your mouth nor a strawman. That is a question which is at the crux of the argument on truth that you keep avoiding. Are you going to answer the question or diverge into another ad hominem or distraction?

*yawn*

I will say this one last time and either you get it through your thick skull or you don't. Just because something has objectively observable features does not make it an objective phenomenon. Valid to look at it? Yes! That's what I said! Valid to conclude that pain is an objective phenomenon? No. Not even close. Pain is subjective. Color is subjective.

 

[SwimExpert]

Polar bears look white. True. Polar bears are white. False.

If someone says "Polar bears are white" but what they really mean is "Polar bears look white" than the premise is true. You need to learn to distinguish between statements and premises.

Polar bears are in fact black. Their translucent fur bends light passing through it making it appear white just like clouds do despite being composed of water vapor with has no color. But a polar bear's skin is black.

Actually "polar bears are black" could also be considered false, depending on the premise that is meant to be expressed. After all, a polar bear's skin is only part of the polar bear. The point is you cannot use ambiguity of elliptical statements to imply truth value of premises.

 

[Wuwei]

You and cap are "up on science"? You both are trying to argue logical absurdities and scientific falsehoods, and going off on irrelevant tangents because you keep running into your own walls. You are both claiming premises which are false. Not different opinions, scientifically false. Color is not an objective phenomenon, and the universe is not atemporal; events are not atemporal.

Both of you are desperately, and pathetically, trying to evade a truth that I have demonstrated 1000 times over now. Truth is not always objective, subjective truths exist. Your attempts to pin all truth to some objective phenomenon continue to fail, because your arguments and examples all continue to rely on subjectivity. You tried to define color objectively in terms of wavelength, and that failed because wavelength cannot establish what you or I will perceive (I didn't even scratch the surface on the fact that even light at a given wavelength still does not possess color; color still remains a subjective perception and interpretation of the human mind). Then, you tried to define color in terms of the CIE color space that failed when I pointed out that the majority of the color space is based on subjective human perception. You've made a sloppy mess of yourself as you continue to try to avoid the simple fact that subjective truth does exist, and not all truth can be objectively weighed and measured. Cap has gone down the rabbit hole and tried to claim that as long as an object retains the same mass it never changes, and that that somehow means that time does not exist.

Both of you are compounding foolishness in a post hoc attempt to maintain flawed premises about truth necessarily being objective. But you're right....the reason you and he have both gone off on tangents is because I jedi-mind tricked you into providing me with the distraction I was looking for.

Mostly ad hominem attacks. You are really going to have to take charge of your emotions
The following are points I agree or disagree with.

Truth is not always objective, subjective truths exist.
Agree.

Your attempts to pin all truth to some objective phenomenon continue to fail
Disagree. Only a few counterexamples were shown, not all truth.

try to avoid the simple fact that subjective truth does exist
Agree subjective truth exists. Disagree: That fact was not avoided.

and not all truth can be objectively weighed and measured.
Agree. Only some truth can be objectively measured.

... a post hoc attempt to maintain flawed premises about truth necessarily being objective.
Disagree. Only a few counterexamples were given. Nobody said all truth is objective.

You are still replete misunderstanding about the posts I have been making.

You still didn't answer the simple question I posed for you. Why do you think that color measurements by an autonomous machine are always subjective. Why are you avoiding that question?

 

[SwimExpert]

Truth is not always objective, subjective truths exist.
Agree.

Then why are you arguing?

Why do you think that color measurements by an autonomous machine are always subjective.

Machines don't measure color. They measure light and return a value. They graph the data, and that data is interpreted into the human conceptions of color. Or they are programmed to return a direct color value, which is programmed by humans, based on human conceptions of color.

 

[Wuwei]

I will say this one last time and either you get it through your thick skull or you don't. Just because something has objectively observable features does not make it an objective phenomenon. Valid to look at it? Yes! That's what I said! Valid to conclude that pain is an objective phenomenon? No. Not even close. Pain is subjective. Color is subjective.

Sure. As soon as the objective nature of light in the real world is analyzed by your brain, it is subjective to you. However any phenomena that can be objectively measured trumps any mental assignment that you make to that phenomena. In short, the measured phenomena represents reality (truth) and is invariant over all humans whereas human perception is subjective and variant.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sure. As soon as the objective nature of light in the real world is analyzed by your brain, it is subjective to you.

Yes.

However any phenomena that can be objectively measured trumps any mental assignment that you make to that phenomena.

False. For someone who is claiming to acknowledge that subjective truth exists, you continue to argue to the contrary. You have arbitrarily decided that objective qualities are more important than subjective experiences.

In short, the measured phenomena represents reality (truth) and is invariant over all humans whereas human perception is subjective and variant.

You forgot to mention the part that what is seen by humans is also a part of reality.

 

[Wuwei]

Truth is not always objective, subjective truths exist.
Agree.

Then why are you arguing?

You are dripping with irony. When you say "not always objective" that implies some truth is objective. That was an argument I believed since day one. I'm glad you finally agree.

Why do you think that color measurements by an autonomous machine are always subjective.

Machines don't measure color. They measure light and return a value. They graph the data, and that data is interpreted into the human conceptions of color. Or they are programmed to return a direct color value, which is programmed by humans, based on human conceptions of color.

Yes, they measure wavelengths and can return a color value if programed to do so. Graphing is unimportant for assembly line process control.

Final programming is not always done by humans. Machines can "learn" the color by showing it to them and classifying the parameters. Humans can give that classification a name if wanted. That is the way kids learn colors. The machine can then autonomously and objectively sense, measure, and classify the objects at millisecond speeds without any foibles of human subjectivity.

 

[Wuwei]

False. For someone who is claiming to acknowledge that subjective truth exists, you continue to argue to the contrary. You have arbitrarily decided that objective qualities are more important than subjective experiences.

I never argued the contrary. I previously said subjective truth exists for love, pain, etc. But in my previous post I said color is one area where objective machines can trump subjective humans, and I showed how.

 

[teddyearp]

How many times do I need to write the same thing?

To each individual, reality is indeed dependent on that person's perception.
It is real to THAT person.
That makes it that person's truth.

Back to religion and/or believing in a god.

For the person who believes there is a god, that is that person's truth.

I think your problem is that you are looking too shallow to see what the question really is. The question as asked does NOT say anything about your truth, my truth, a catholic's truth, etc. Other wise the question would be, "What is your truth?"

 

[Capstone]

...You think that your previous garble was actually proving your point? No, not at all. Rambling about mass-energy conservation is not proving your point. It is entirely irrelevant to your point. Do you know what your point was? Maybe you've forgotten. Maybe you got your threads mixed up. Let me give you a little refresher: You were trying to claim that temporal phenomenon and events can be atemporal. In other words, you are trying to claim that two contradictories can be true, which is an absurdity. ...

Black and white checkered floors don't exist then?!

Someone had better alert the Masons.

Describing such a floor as "black and white" would only be a contradiction in terms if it were entirely black or entirely white. Likewise, since the Universe is both temporal and atemporal "in various respects" (and for the record: that's the second time I've repeated and highlighted that phrase in response to the charge of contradiction), describing it as such is perfectly accurate and internally/logically consistent.

As for the relevance of the laws of physics to my description, the laws of conservation demonstrate its truth in practice in the phenomal world, because they imply that the totality of matter in its simplest form has always existed as an unchanged quantity; which is to say that neither its existence proper nor the total amount of it are dependent on time. In those respects, it is, was, and forever will be entirely unaffected by time, I.E. atemporal. That's Q.E.D. in relation to the point that was to be proven.

Now, granted, in order to fully justify my claim to having proven my point, this glaringly relevant physical evidence has to be considered in light of the axiomatic principle that nothing can arise from pure nothingness (existentially speaking). In accordance to that single logical precept, whatever cannot be created or destroyed is necessarily eternally existent (which further implies that the simple fact of its existence is neither dependent on nor affected by time).

The fact that this atemporal quantity composes all of the 'complex' temporal objects in the phenomenal world...has no bearing whatsoever on the atemporality of its existence as a constant quantity. Harkening back to one of my 'go-to' analogies, it is the atemporal deck of cards from which all the temporal cardhouses have been constructed in this multifaceted reality we call the Universe.

Evoking the imagery of your example, as an egg is an egg whether it's fried, scrambled, or hard-boiled, the total mass of the cosmos remains what it has always been, no matter how or where it's been distributed throughout space and time. Despite its presence and activity in temporal reality, it is an atemporal quantity, because the quantity is neither "dependent on" nor in any way "affected by" time. It is what it is, was, and forever will be, regardless of the ravages of time.

...Are you seriously trying to say that scrambling an egg does not effect it?...

No, I'm trying to penetrate an overly thick skull in order to drive home the fact that material distribution through space and time is irrelevant to the atemporality of the existence and quantity of the simplest building blocks. Physically speaking, the egg is a "cardhouse". That is, it's a multi-tiered complex of fundamentally simple material. The existence and longevity of that complex formation are dependent on time; the collective existence and logevity of its simplest components are not.

The question as to when an egg can be called an "egg" throughout the formative and disintegrative stages of its existence is an open one; but properly or not, common usage seems to allow for some degree of disintegration, which is why we needn't worry about coming across as "completely asinine" in referring to an egg as an "egg"...whether it's fried, scrambled, or hard-boiled.

...Events take place in time. That the egg cannot be both whole and scrambled is a temporal effect. It was whole, now it's scrambled. Time has had an effect.

...on the existence of a temporary formation (the whole egg), yes; on the existence of its most fundamental components, no.

In other words: while the existence of the egg IS dependent on material distribution, the collective existence of its most fundamental components isn't.

...the universe is not atemporal; events are not atemporal.

One more time for good measure: the Universe is temporal and atemporal in various respects. With respect to events and the existence of all complex formations, it is temporal; with respect to the existence and quantity of its simplest building blocks, it is atemporal.

And BTW, just to refresh your memory, what started this "tangent" was the following strawman:

...You attribute temporal qualities to describe an alleged atemporal reality...

That was a blatant mischaracterization of my view, which you most likely constructed in order to knock it down as self-contradictory.

I've demonstrated that my use of the term "atemporal" to describe certain aspects of the Universe is perfectly in line with the OED'S definition...and that the Universe's temporal aspects have no bearing on the objective atemporality of their counterparts.

I also quickly exposed your stated definition of "eternal" as the joke it was. After all, is anything more laughable than the notion that something with a beginning and an ending can be classified as "eternally existent"?!

 

[SwimExpert]

Black and white checkered floors don't exist then?!

Let me get this straight.....you are saying that the rules of logic regarding contradictories and the laws of thought are bupkiss because......

....Because a checkered floor has both black and white tiles?

*stares*

I'm just going to put you on ignore, now.

*walks away slowly*

 

[Capstone]

Let me get this straight.....you are saying that the rules of logic regarding contradictories and the laws of thought are bupkiss because......

....Because a checkered floor has both black and white tiles?

The fact that a black and white checkered floor can't be correctly characterized as entirely black or entirely white is perfectly analogous to the situation. The Universe is neither entirely temporal nor entirely atemporal; it's a combination of the two; and the laws of physics are a direct expression of that combo.

...I'm just going to put you on ignore, now. ...

Opting to set up and knock down a small army of strawmen, you've ignored a good portion of what I've stated in this thread as it is, so I doubt I'll notice much of a difference.

 

[Wuwei]

Whoever walks away and blocks his ears and says LA LA LA LA LA LA is the loser.

 

[SwimExpert]

Whoever walks away and blocks his ears and says LA LA LA LA LA LA is the loser.

So tempteth a fool. But a wise man hath no obligation to entertain a fool.

 

[Capstone]

“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
― William Shakespeare​

 

[danielpalos]

free chics claiming religious freedom to fornicate us into relationships simply for the sake of true witness bearing in modern times.

 

[Abishai100]

Intelligence Isles


Imagine the following comic book battle between the evil Decepticon Soundwave (a diabolical robot with miniature warrior-robots that eject from his chest and transform into spy-geared compact audio cassettes) and the valiant Autobot Hot Rod (a future leader who transforms into a powerful vehicle):

Soundwave unleashes his mini-warriors Laserbeak and Rumble on Hot Rod, but the Autobot counters by paralyzing them and Soundwave with a powerful gun that freezes anyone within a certain radius.

We like fantasizing about sci-tech wizardry, simply because we are curious about the impact of intelligent design. If, however, we become arrogant about our own potent imagination, we run the risk of over-indulging in profit.

That's why a Best Buy gift card is an under-rated and nice Valentine's Day gift. You can use such a card to purchase a $200 Samsung Blu-ray player for your spouse.

If you keep things simple, you'll literally see the comfortable person you want to be. Does this mean that truth is subjective?






Best Buy