GameBanshee Forums

@Rob, have you ever read the "Relevance of Philosophy" thread, i think you would find it interesting

That sounds like a kind of perceptual truth, which if you check out the link that Delecroix posted earlier is referred to by Nietzsche and he covers it a lot better than i can

Memory of events past is very sketchy, in 60 years people might believe Titanic is a documentary and that William Wallace was indeed a fiery Australian/American...

Originally posted by Tom
Here we must disagree CE (it had to happen).
I don't understand why you think that the statement ‘Depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission’ can’t be true in the same way as the statement ‘my cup is on the table’.

To me it seems completely the same. the statement ‘my cup is on the table’ is made true if my cup is on the table. The statement ‘Depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission’ is true if depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission.

I believe that my cup is on the table. I could be wrong - maybe its not my cup or maybe I'm having a hallucination. You believe that depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission and you could be wrong together with a lot of other neuroscientists.
But surly what we belief does not influence the truth of the statements we make!?

I agree with your last sentence, but that is what makes the observation objective, but regarding the "depression is associated with abnormal serotonin etc", I meant what Sleep has already posted. It could theoretically be true in the same sense as the cup on the table, but it could also not be true in the same sence. It could turn out to partly true, whereas I can't see how the cup on the table can be partly true in the same sense. Also, I wanted to use the example as a contrast to what I think people mean with "absolute truth", absolute truth could never be only partly true, could it?

I think I'm starting to see what you mean - absolute truth as opposed to partial truth. I guess that I don't think there is such a thing as partial truth, something is either true or false imo.

So your example ‘depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission ’ is either true or false. It might well be that there are lots of other things also associate with depression but your statement is still 100% true.
It might well be false if the statement was ‘the only thing associated with depression is abnormal serotonin transmission’.

So while we might not be sure whether any given statement is true or false. The statement either is true or false and I think that holds for all statements.

@Tom: Personally I have problem with view, and I also don't normally use or even like the concept "absolute truth". In fact, the only situations where I have experience a need for the concept, is when discussing with people who wish to classify for instance scientific truths as less valid than religious truths. And in this context it is obvious that science cannot and should not strive for producing everlasting, unchangable and whole truths of the kind that religion can do. In religion, something is often accepted as the full truth, and it can and will never be falsified due to circle reasoning and circle definitions. In science, everything is always falsifiable, otherwise it is not a scientific theory per definition. A law like the law of gravity could theroretically be falsified by observation - even if this is extremly unlikely. But religion can never be falsified, so religion can keep dogmas where a statement is viewed as absolute in the sense that it is both complete (as opposed to partial) and everlasting whatever is observed.

You are right that it would a strange scientific theory that could not be falsified. But the notion of falsification seems to me to rest on the notion of truth (absolute truth if you like). Either scientific theory T is true or false. If T is not true or false how would we go about the falsification of T?

The concept of truth is at the same time very simple and very complex. Do you think there is an objective world out there that is independent of the observer? If you think there is, I find it hard to see how you can escape the notion of truth that I advocate.

Here is a theory of truth and meaning that has a lot going for it in my opinion (of course there are many problems with it).

Wittgenstein’s picture theory.
Wittgenstein first conceived of the theory when he learned about the practice of using models to represent traffic accidents in the law courts. We can represent different events (that may or may not have taken place) using dolls and toy cars. Any such model of reality must be composite, composed of a multiplicity of elements going proxy for the situation depicted. Such a model can either fit or fail to fit reality.

Wittgenstein’s idea was that language worked in the same way. He says that a statement is ‘a picture of reality’, it describes a state of affairs by depicting it. He claims that all statements are composed of simpler components (this is hard to deny) that ultimately can be analysed down to NAMES that stand for simple objects in the world (harder to maintain). Thus if the simple components of our statement are arranged in such a way that there is a logical isomorphism between the components of our statement and the components in the world we have a true statement. A false statement is one that ‘paints a picture’ that doesn't fit with the world.

This is a simplification and some of the vocap is not spot on but that is the basics of the theory. notice that there is no room for more than one notion of truth, what I believe you would call absolute truth. There are of course other theories of truth and meaning and some might accommodate your notion but I believe that all such theories must give up the notion of a mind independent and objective world.

(everything I have written is controversial)

Whoah - was this ever buried!

Sorry to bump this after so long, but I promised I would … don’t know when I might be able to get back to it again, either, but if anyone replies to this, I will get back.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Absolute truth's, here is one absolute truth of heaven and hell, redemption and damnation. There is no middle ground, no leeway, either you accept Jeebus or you are condemned to eternal hell...i struggle greatly with the concepts involved, it seems archaic and ridiculous that a pure and holy God would banish anyone to hell.

There is more but that should do for now

I would actually drop this debate back into another one that raged through SYM a while back: can logic lead to religion. I say “no.” And I say that because no single fact of reality can lead to showing the existence of God. (Or heaven, or hell, for that matter.) To put it very bluntly: show me God. If I cannot touch him, see him, hear him, etc. - if he makes no perceptible impact on me – if he does not impact my senses in some way --- I cannot allow myself to believe that he exists. Every thing that exists must show itself in some way. If it does not do this – if it does not leave some trace of itself for us to perceive – then it simply has no identity, and does not exist.

Now, one can in fact believe in things that do not have a defined identity in reality. This is known as “faith.” (This is why I refer back to that other debate. I think others have argued this point very well – perhaps better than I could.) I know that people can have faith in things which they cannot prove or cannot otherwise demonstrate. I believe this to be an exceedingly dangerous game. It leads (IMO) in its most benign form to agnosticism, and in its most virulent form to fanaticism. Neither mindset is desirable, and they are separated only by degrees, not in any fundamental manner. Both require that you blank out what you know and replace it with what you feel. Both can lead to literally any belief – from life forms on Mars, to the necessity of infidels being put to the sword.

Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
About the capitals. Capitalised words generally conveys one is shouting, i don't make up the rules etc etc I actually find emboldend (and capitalised) words to be slightly pointless in a debate since most of the people involved have a decent knowledge of language and don't need any emphasis, i am reading a sentence not a section of bullet points.

Oh. Well, I have done the bothersome italics and bolds for you in this post. I don’t know that I can change my ways over-night, but I will attempt to keep this in mind …

Re: Whoah - was this ever buried!

Originally posted by Lazarus
It leads (IMO) in its most benign form to agnosticism, and in its most virulent form to fanaticism. Neither mindset is desirable, and they are separated only by degrees, not in any fundamental manner. Both require that you blank out what you know and replace it with what you feel. Both can lead to literally any belief – from life forms on Mars, to the necessity of infidels being put to the sword.

I have to disagree with this. I am agnostic myself, it simply means that, while I don't believe in God/whatever (in large part for the reasons Lazarus mentions), I'm keeping a (reasonably, if healthily skeptical) open mind. I have not seen enough in my life to be able to make an assumption so large as "God does not exist" and be sure of it, at the moment my viewpoint is more "Based upon my own experiences so far, it's unlikely God exists."
To my mind it is by far the preferable mindset, as it allows you to change your views as you grow and gain more experiences.

Re: Whoah - was this ever buried!

Originally posted by Lazarus
I would actually drop this debate back into another one that raged through SYM a while back: can logic lead to religion. I say “no.” And I say that because no single fact of reality can lead to showing the existence of God. (Or heaven, or hell, for that matter.) To put it very bluntly: show me God. If I cannot touch him, see him, hear him, etc. - if he makes no perceptible impact on me – if he does not impact my senses in some way --- I cannot allow myself to believe that he exists. Every thing that exists must show itself in some way. If it does not do this – if it does not leave some trace of itself for us to perceive – then it simply has no identity, and does not exist.

The absolute truths of Protestants for instance seem to be an acceptance or you are condemned. There is no middle ground in between, of course because these things are out of our perception it is impossible to know the truths and through that we can not say for certain whether they are absolute or not. I know this kind of infringes on Eminem's points earlier, but i think CE dealt with that conundrum.

I am not actually sure how your points refer to the absolute truth, sorry, it didn't make sense... well in reference to the absolute truth/lie discussion anyway.

@Mr. Sleep: Check your PM in the next hour or so.

Originally posted by Lazarus
@Mr. Sleep: Check your PM in the next hour or so.

I am off for a while now, I will try to check in before going to bed.

Re: Whoah - was this ever buried!

... no single fact of reality can lead to showing the existence of God. (Or heaven, or hell, for that matter.) To put it very bluntly: show me God. If I cannot touch him, see him, hear him, etc. - if he makes no perceptible impact on me – if he does not impact my senses in some way --- I cannot allow myself to believe that he exists. Every thing that exists must show itself in some way. If it does not do this – if it does not leave some trace of itself for us to perceive – then it simply has no identity, and does not exist.

You can't perceive the thoughts that I'm thinking in my mind; you can't touch, see, hear, or be impacted by what my imagination has conceived, but I don't think you can claim it has no existence simply because it fails to appeal to your senses. I'm quite certain my thoughts exist even if they don't meet your criteria for existence. I can say the same thing about a gentle summer breeze, or the feelings of a deaf/mute child inflicted with severe downs syndrome. Neither are perceptible to human sense, but it's impossible to deny they exist.

Now, one can in fact believe in things that do not have a defined identity in reality. This is known as “faith.” (This is why I refer back to that other debate. I think others have argued this point very well – perhaps better than I could.) I know that people can have faith in things which they cannot prove or cannot otherwise demonstrate. I believe this to be an exceedingly dangerous game. It leads (IMO) in its most benign form to agnosticism, and in its most virulent form to fanaticism. Neither mindset is desirable, and they are separated only by degrees, not in any fundamental manner. Both require that you blank out what you know and replace it with what you feel. Both can lead to literally any belief – from life forms on Mars, to the necessity of infidels being put to the sword.

Genuine faith isn't blind, nor is it a merely a feeling. What you're talking about sounds more like "ignorance," not faith.