More inclusive... ? In what way? And, how are the principles of cause and effect, and vibration (energy) limited? — BrianW
Then you are not as reasonable as I am. I think our reason is our only guide to what's true. You, I suspect, like to put yourself in the mix as well and will only listen to reason if she seems to be saying things you already agree with. — Bartricks
I have no idea what that means or why I should endorse it given that you have provided no argument whatsoever in support of it, whereas I have provided an argument - an argument you have ignored because it had assumptions (like, you know, every argument ever) - in support of mine. — Bartricks
There is at some point where truth can be defined as an object. Since the universe exists and theoretically AI could operate on the entire universe's principles, then that AI would be truth. — ep3265
some of the sentences we call true could be false. — Bartricks
The principles of cause and effect and vibration refer to a reality that is four-dimensional: relative to time and space. But what is real or true is not necessarily bound by time, or by cause and effect. Potential energy, for instance, is not an ‘effect’ and has no ‘cause’ - and yet we understand it to be real/true. It is a truth that exists in relation to value and meaning, but has no defined temporal or spatial aspect. The principle of cause and effect does not apply to potential energy, and neither does the principle of vibration. — Possibility
Reason presupposes truth as correspondence by virtue of presupposing the truth of it's premisses. — creativesoul
If you don't know why "she" thinks things are the case, then how do you know that "her" thinking them to be the case makes them true? — Janus
Also, if reason alone can determine truth, and we are reasonable beings, then we should be able to know what is true and what not; otherwise what use is reason to us on your understanding? — Janus
Because of the argument I gave in the OP. You don't have to know why the burglar burgled your home in order to be able reliably to know 'that' the burglar burgled your home, or be able to explain why the serial killer did that to his victims before we are justified in believing that he did that to his victims, and so on. — Bartricks
Would you allow that Reason could be metaphorically described as a (the) set of tools/filters that allow reason to judge that something is true or not? — tim wood
Let's set aside the circularity in this, because I don't think that's necessarily fatal. — tim wood
This analogy fails because you know why the burglar burgled your home: it was in order to steal things. We don't have access to "capital 'R' Reason", we only have access to our own reasoning. — Janus
Reason presupposes truth as correspondence by virtue of presupposing the truth of it's premisses — creativesoul
Reason presupposes truth as correspondence by virtue of presupposing the truth of it's premisses. — creativesoul
As should be apparent, I fully agree. — javra
Reasoning is the act of structuring and restructuring the mind for the purpose of integrating new information to minimise instances of prediction error. — Possibility
When it comes to "Reason" valuing certain things, if you knew that "Reason" valued those things, then you would know why it values them. — Janus
Sarah is a person who can tell you or show you through her actions what she values. How do know what this fictitious "Reason" of yours values, and how do you know it? — Janus
Via my faculty of reason and by comparing what my faculty says to what the faculty of reason of others reports Reason as valuing. — Bartricks
Dialetheism is the position that some statements are both true and false, i.e. that some contradictory propositions express what is termed “true contradictions” — javra
If truth is that which Reason asserts, given that reason can assert both dialetheism and the LNC, would both dialetheism and LNC be true? — javra
All you know there is what others value, whether reasonably or not. People usually have reasons for valuing what they do, and if you ask them they will tell you. If they can't tell why they value something then you might conclude that they don't really value it at all, but are merely paying lip service; just blindly following along without thinking about it. — Janus
You're just not getting the point. The point, once more, is that we can know 'that' something is the case without having to know 'why' it is the case.
We can know that truth is what Reason asserts, without knowing why she asserts what she asserts. — Bartricks
You're conflating the empirical context in which we can of course know that something is the case without knowing why with the rational context in which we cannot. In other words it isn't possible in the context of logical thought which is the basis of reason to know what is the case without knowing why it is the case, even if that merely means knowing that something is self-evident. In order to know that something follows logically or rationally you have to know why. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.