Is it true? I think it is, but who am I to declare what is true?
— Possibility

I agree that the statement “We never know what is true” is logically false, given a mutual understanding that claims to ‘knowledge’ are claims to ‘truth’.
— Possibility
I had a feeling I could count on you, Banno. Your perspective, limited though it is, has been presented as indisputable fact, as always.
— Possibility
You seem to be contradicting yourself. In speaking with me, you say that we can't know the truth - you can't even assert that what you said is true, yet with Banno, you acknowledge that we can know what it is true, and that what Banno says is fact. :lol: — Harry Hindu

Not the way I see it. First of all, I personally try not to declare ‘truth’, because I understand that what might I think or say is true can only be a limited perspective of what is true.

Secondly, given that both ‘know’ and ‘true’ are understood as subjective claims, the proposition that Banno suggested is logically false as stated. What we claim to know we also claim to be true, so to claim that we never ‘know’ what is true doesn’t make sense. But I don’t think it’s the same as suggesting that our capacity for certainty in relation to what is true is always limited, despite what we claim to ‘know’.

Lastly, Banno has a way of confidently asserting his perspective so that it appears indisputable. Given that my own approach has always been to eschew certainty, I was looking forward to his contribution to the discussion. I wasn’t disappointed.

So it is in using it that we develop confidence in what it is. Prediction error enables the organism to construct a more accurate interoceptive map of reality.
— Possibility
So in using something you are able to declare what is true? In using, are you not attempting to falsify the information you have about the object you are using? Are we not performing a falsification of the scientific theories that the technology is based on when using our smartphones? When the smartphone doesn't work when using it a certain way, is that a limitation of the smartphone, or a limitation of you knowledge of how the smartphone works and is supposed to be used? — Harry Hindu

Interesting perspective. There’s a difference in my view between developing confidence in our understanding of a concept, and declaring what is true.

In using a smartphone, we develop confidence in what we can and can’t do with it: its perceived potential and value in relation to our own. In relating to how others use that smartphone, however, we recognise the differences in what they can and can’t do with it as indicative of what we both have yet to understand about the smartphone’s potential and value in relation to our own, as well as what it means to others.

Not the way I see it. First of all, I personally try not to declare ‘truth’, because I understand that what might I think or say is true can only be a limited perspective of what is true. — Possibility

I don't get this at all. So we're not suppose to believe anything you say?

"We never know what is true" is obviously wrong, since we everything we know is indeed true - otherwise it would be incorrect to claim to know it. — Banno

I agree with you that maybe we can know what is true, but when you say "since we everything we know is indeed true - otherwise it would be incorrect to claim to know it", that's a false logic
Do you know how many things we thought we know, but turned to be wrong?

we thought we know — I-wonder

And so...those are things we thought we knew. It turned out that we were wrong; that is, althogh we thoght we knew them, we didn't actually know them.

Think about it again.

Thanks for the reply.
Yeah, I understand now.
But then how can you be sure that we really know the things which we think we know?
Ex: take any scientific theory we have now if we found evidence against that theory, and we proved it to be wrong, does that mean we now know the truth?
If anything in my writing is unclear I apologize.

Statements are combinations of nouns and verbs and such like; Some statements are either true or false, and we can call these propositions. So, "The present king of France is bald" is a statement, but not a proposition.

Beliefs range over propositions. (arguably, they might be made to range over statements: Fred believes the present king of France is bald.)

Beliefs set out a relation of a particular sort between an agent and a proposition.

This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.

The logical problem here, the philosophical interesting side issue, is that beliefs overdetermine our actions. There are other beliefs and desires that could explain my going to the tap.
______________

We know some statement when at the least we believe it, it fits in with our other beliefs, and when it is true.

The "fits in with other beliefs" is a first approximation for a justification. Something stronger is needed, but material implication will not do.

Discard Gettier. The definition is not hard-and-fast.

It does not make sense to ask if we know X to be true; that's exactly the same as asking if we know X. The "we only know it if it is true" bit is only there because we can't know things that are false.

If you cannot provide a justification, that is, if you cannot provide other beliefs with which a given statement coheres, then you cannot be said to know it.


A belief that is not subject to doubt is a certainty.

Without a difference between belief and truth, we can't be wrong; if we can't be wrong, we can't fix our mistakes; without being able to fix our mistakes, we can't make things better.

So... Banno is assertive, hence what he says is false. But Possibility is not assertive, so what he says is true.

:broken:

I don't know Banno, maybe language is a barrier for understanding what are you talking about.
Why not put it in a simple way.
preferably, give me an example of scientific truths.

Night and day are caused by the earth rotating.

It's an objective truth.

It's true regardless of where you are, or of what you see.

It's the view from anywhere.

So is it absolutely true that it is caused by the earth rotating?
Whatever happens in the distant future?

It's true, isn' t it?

Why add "absolutely"?

That's the problem with philosophy, as Wittgenstein pointed out. It takes something nice and straightforward and confuses it with extra words.

What does "absolutely" do here?

You're right.
I just wanted to say, that there is many things we said: We know X is true.
But as time goes someone disproves it, like how Einstein disproved Newton Ideas about absolute time.
Do you see what I mean?

Oh, that's right. But so many folk take that as implying that we don't know anything...

Their argument goes something along the lines of... anything we say we know might be wrong; therefore we don't know anything...

Now when you say it like that, it's artless and obviously cobblers. So folk like @Possibility hide it in lots of other words like "absolute", "subjective", Quantum"...

The philosophers' job is to point out the bullshit.

I agree.
Maybe I should've mention certainty&uncertainty to specify what I was talking about.
By the way, you're agnostic atheist, right?

Yep.

I'm a fellow agnostic, but I have a problem with oblivion, can you take a look at a thread I started?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8215/im-afraid-of-losing-life

Right. There is no way we can distinguish truth value objectively, there is no way we can think anything objectively or do anything whatsoever objectively. We are all subjects. Objective truth has nothing to do with what we think; it is out there independent of us. Every conceivable statement about existence has a truth value which we cannot know or distinguish. A statement about the existence of God has an objective truth value. It is either objectively true or objectively false. We don’t know which; we only know that it can’t be both and it can’t be neither since that would be logically impossible. Nothing can both exist and not exist. “A = not A” is logically impossible. — Congau

Well, if knowledge is irrelevant to objective truth, then logical impossibility has no relevance to it either, and true or false is indefinite. But if that’s the case, then what would you say is the relevance of objective truth value? Why even have such a concept, if objective truth has nothing to do with what we think and is completely independent of us, of logic and of definition? What does it matter?

“X exists” has no truth value, because x as it stands is not referring to anything but put anything in the place of x and the statement receives an objective truth value. Whether x is God or my computer or a unicorn the existence of it is an objectively definite true or false. “Objective” doesn’t mean “can be known”, it doesn’t refer to knowledge at all since knowledge is only something in the mind and minds are subjective.
The existence of something is a mere possibility for us, but in reality (unknown to us) it absolutely exists or absolutely does not exist. — Congau

Put a noun in the place of x and any statement structured correctly has value. Such is the reduction process of language systems. “X eats y” is a relational structure of potential information, the meaning of which is definable once x and y have value attributed to them from within the value system of the English language. Propositional logic sets further limitations to the relational structure, so that the meaning of the statement is definable only as a binary value referred to as ‘truth’. Within the value system (ideology) of propositional logic, this ‘truth value’ is objectively possible for all existence, but its potential is limited to a language system and a particular set of logical rules.

What I’ve been encouraging you to do is to imagine what is outside the ideology of propositional logic, beyond the limitations in which ‘truth value’ is objectively definite and it is impossible for something to both exist and not exist. Because the possibility that “Peter will break his leg in 2021” still has potential to be explored in relation to objective truth, and can be useful as such, whether or not the statement is definable as ‘true’ from a certain perspective.

This is the challenge I see in relating to ‘objective truth’ - or even just ‘truth’, or ‘reality’ or ‘existence’ or ‘information’ or ‘meaning’, or any concept that has claims to objectivity. This is why I think it is so difficult for us to describe these concepts, let alone define them, and why it matters that we make the effort to relate to them as ‘objective’ anyway. It isn’t to define it or describe it ‘objectively’, because that would be meaningless. It’s to remind us of our fallibility, and the uncertainty of our position - that there is potential and possible information we are ignoring, isolating or excluding that matters from different perspectives, whether or not we can or are willing to understand why or how it matters at the time. And it’s a challenge to manifest ways to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with this information, improving the accuracy of our limited interaction with existence.

I don't get this at all. So we're not suppose to believe anything you say? — Harry Hindu

That’s up to you. I can tell you what I think and explain why I think that way. Whether you believe it or not is not something I’m going to enforce. Does that freedom bother you?

So... Banno is assertive, hence what he says is false. But Possibility is not assertive, so what he says is true. — Banno

Wow - that’s what you got from what I said?

It is in relating to the difference in your perspective that I can improve the accuracy of my understanding. It isn’t about who speaks true or false statements, as far as I’m concerned. It is your assertiveness that stimulates the discussion. Otherwise I might as well be talking to myself.

I just find it kind of asinine to claim you're being perfectly objective despite the fact that you're experiencing things no one will ever understand. "This sentence is in English" is essentially a meaningless statement, as far as I can tell.

Night and day are caused by the earth rotating.

It's an objective truth.

It's true regardless of where you are, or of what you see.

It's the view from anywhere. — Banno

...in this temporal position, and from the position of those who understand the significance of ‘night’, ‘day’, ‘caused by’, ‘earth’, ‘rotating’, etc. within a relational structure of language.

It refers to the possibility of objective truth from a relative position, which you assume is common to everyone. That’s fine, as long as you don’t assume that it IS identical to objective truth, as in eternally, absolutely, unquestionably ‘I-could-not-possibly-be-wrong-about-this-ever’ truth.

This is what Wittgenstein seemed to be on about: the difference in meaning of ‘I know’, as in ‘this is currently the information that I am certain of’ as opposed to ‘I can’t be wrong’. I can relate to the frustration of unnecessary language such as qualifiers when we can be certain of a shared perspective. Reduction of information to ‘the difference that makes a difference’ is important to ensure accuracy in communication as an interactive event.

The difficulty with (speculative) philosophy is that it’s not just about communication, but about striving for accuracy in relation to all possible existence. So when we’re trying to maximise our understanding of an ‘objective’ anything, it shouldn’t just be about what we can communicate succinctly amongst each other, but about all the fuzziness of information we have beyond that, and then trying to piece it all together into something more coherent, and eventually testable.

We can’t keep speculating and getting ‘creative’ with theoretical meanings and value structures ad absurdum - I get that. But it isn’t about reducing information to fit existing structures, either - it’s about adjusting those structures in a way that enables us to integrate more relevant information and improves the accuracy of our interactions.

The creative process is about continually refining a dynamic balance between all possibilities and what we think we can achieve within practical limitations. If you’re open to refining your perspective of the practical limitations, then I’ll try to keep bringing my wild speculations back to what I think we can achieve.

I just find it kind of asinine to claim you're being perfectly objective despite the fact that you're experiencing things no one will ever understand. "This sentence is in English" is essentially a meaningless statement, as far as I can tell. — neonspectraltoast

To someone who is trying to improve their understanding of syntax, the English language, propositional logic, etc, this statement is meaningful. To the rest of us, its potential information is either not new or not relevant, hence it appears meaningless from our perspective.

Seems to me that "objective truth" is only hazy on a philosophy forum. Objectivity and truth are often used interchangeably. You are asserting truth (asserting truth doesn't mean that what you are asserting is actually true - only that you intend for it to be interpreted as a given and the basis for your other forthcoming ideas that are intended to be a given as well because disagreeing would mean that you are wrong and I am right) any time you make a statement that you intend to be about the shared world. Being that some statement is about the shared world means that it is objective - that we all are shaped by and beholden to, the same truth, even if we don't believe it (delusions)). — Harry Hindu

I agree with you here. As in my reply above to Banno, when accuracy in communication is our aim, most of what I’m discussing here is pointless drivel. It is in the context of philosophical attempts to understand existence beyond a perspective that you and I share that we even need to qualify ‘objective truth’ (as opposed to simply ‘objective’ or ‘truth’) at all.

This is what Wittgenstein seemed to be on about: — Possibility

You are going to use Wittgenstein to defend some form of relativism?

This should be good...

rt

Night and day are caused by the earth rotating.

It's an objective truth. — Banno

Well, to me, sort of. We perceive things from specific points in time and space. Here you are using the view from anywhere, as a kind of test. So, we imagine a time experiencing primate type mind getting the same results from any location (and also any of these minds presumably, good old scientific testing). But what if it's actually a block uniiverse. Then there are no causes and effects, just adjacency in the block. The earth isn't rotating there's sort of this long four dimensional earth through some longish portion of the block. When we imagine our way to anywhere viewpoints we take with us still, I think, a lot of what might, at least, be really quite subjective. It might be universal amongst minds like ours. Of course it might not be. Some human minds have claimed not to experience it this way. Some of these were like nuts, but others were physicists who seemed to be pretty functional. I suppose 'experience' might be a bit of a stretch as a verb. And by the way this is pretty exploratory.

And this is what I can manage to imagine my primate, time-unfolding experiencing, in one place mind might be assuming and which might not be true. There might be other things that it is incredibly hard for me or anyone to imagine has skewed what I think is an objective evaluation. The view from anywhere, really needs to be a veiw from an anymind, anyexperiencing consciousness or something. Not just anywhere.

I have thought for years that Nagel meant the view from Nowhere as a pejorative, since we can't have that. It's been decades since I read him. IOW not what we want is a view from nowhere, but more like, there isn't a view from nowhere, but some act like there is. As said, this could be totally off.

Edit:did some checking and it seems like I am wrong. I think I am projecting somethings from the bat essay and assuming stuff. And further while I do agree that we can strive for a view from nowhere or anywhere, we can't do either. At least at this stage of our evolution. Some post singularity mind, who knows? Which is not to say, at all, I think it's all subjective, no point in making an effort toward these views, etc.

I connect this to the other thread on the something form nothing issue, partly to say, hey, I am not addicted to cause/effect models.

It's true regardless of where you are, or of what you see.

It's the view from anywhere. — Banno

That’s up to you. I can tell you what I think and explain why I think that way. Whether you believe it or not is not something I’m going to enforce. Does that freedom bother you? — Possibility

But why would you even conclude that what you think would be useful to me if we weren't similar in some way in the way we think already, or that we live in a shared world where similar causes lead to similar effects - that what you think is objective rather than subjective?

What you are doing in sharing your idea is attempting to get others to agree with you so that you can use that as a evidence to support your idea being true. In doing this, you are trying to change your subjective view to an objective one.

Sure everyone has the freedom to come up with their own imaginings, without any inhibitions, but that just means that dragons and unicorns really exist in a hidden dimension and Elvis Presley's spirit has been reincarnated in Smitty Cooper of Tropical Paradise Trailer Park are all just as likely (or true) as any idea you come up with here in this thread.

But why would you even conclude that what you think would be useful to me if we weren't similar in some way in the way we think already, or that we live in a shared world where similar causes lead to similar effects - that what you think is objective rather than subjective? — Harry Hindu

You didn’t have to contribute to this thread. I imagine we share some elements of our perspective, otherwise you wouldn’t have engaged in the discussion. I won’t presume to know precisely how much we share, though.

What you are doing in sharing your idea is attempting to get others to agree with you so that you can use that as a evidence to support your idea being true. In doing this, you are trying to change your subjective view to an objective one. — Harry Hindu

I disagree. What I’m doing in sharing my idea is inviting others to disagree, so that I can refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view. I don’t think my particular view is objective in itself, but I believe it is potentially more accurate in relation to objectivity. But I don’t think I can really have an objective view - so, no, I don’t intend to claim one by consensus. I’m aiming more for (Hegelian) synthesis. I’m thinking that, between us, there is possibly a more objective view.

Perhaps objectivity is just a conceptual device within which we can relate perspectives of reality with a view to evaluating and refining our own. Anything I say about truth, reality, meaning, information, etc can only be an expression of my subjective view. When I use the qualifier ‘objective’, I’m exploring a possible structure in which I can relate to potential information expressed in your perspective, without necessarily changing how that information is structured in my own. Being able to imagine the differences between value structures in a more ‘objective’ mental construct allows me to compare and contrast conceptual ‘simulations’ and make predictions on possible structures - in relation to logic, memory, knowledge, beliefs, thoughts, sensory input, etc - before determining how to integrate this potential information.

I disagree. What I’m doing in sharing my idea is inviting others to disagree, so that I can refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view. I don’t think my particular view is objective in itself, but I believe it is potentially more accurate in relation to objectivity. But I don’t think I can really have an objective view - so, no, I don’t intend to claim one by consensus. I’m aiming more for (Hegelian) synthesis. I’m thinking that, between us, there is possibly a more objective view. — Possibility

If you are looking for others to disagree with your idea so that you can "refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view.", then why are you disagreeing with me? In disagreeing with me, you are saying that my subjective truth isn't true. So what determines if some subjective truth is true? Is your disagreement enough to determine that my subjective truth isn't true? In your disagreeing, am I now suppose to believe that my subjective truth is false?

Anything I say about truth, reality, meaning, information, etc can only be an expression of my subjective view. — Possibility

This is great example of an objective view of a subjective view. Is what you just said subjectively true, or objectively true? What if we dispense with "objective" and "subjective" because they are really just synonyms for "true" and "false". Is your above claim true or false?

If you are looking for others to disagree with your idea so that you can "refine the accuracy of my own perspective by relating to the differences between the two, such that these differences point to the possibility of a more objective view.", then why are you disagreeing with me? In disagreeing with me, you are saying that my subjective truth isn't true. So what determines if some subjective truth is true? Is your disagreement enough to determine that my subjective truth isn't true? In your disagreeing, am I now suppose to believe that my subjective truth is false? — Harry Hindu

In disagreeing with you, I’m saying that your subjective view of truth is different to my perspective of truth. I’m not telling you what you’re supposed to believe. But if you’re only hearing “you’re wrong and I’m right”, then it seems to me that you don’t believe we are capable of considering the potential of an alternative perspective without sacrificing our own.

Anything I say about truth, reality, meaning, information, etc can only be an expression of my subjective view.
— Possibility
This is great example of an objective view of a subjective view. Is what you just said subjectively true, or objectively true? What if we dispense with "objective" and "subjective" because they are really just synonyms for "true" and "false". Is your above claim true or false? — Harry Hindu

An ‘objective view of a subjective view’? Can we clarify the language here a little? This is an example of the reader assuming a claim to objectivity, and the author assuming an expression of a subjective view. If I’m saying that anything I say is an expression of my subjective view - whether you agree with it or not - then why do you assume I’m claiming objectivity with this statement? That doesn’t make sense. What I’ve said is a subjective view of what is true. That’s not synonymous with ‘false’, although it is fallible.

My view is that the concepts I’ve mentioned have an objectivity to them that will always extend beyond my subjective view of them, regardless of how accurate that view becomes. The nature of language is a reduction of information, so as carefully as I may render my expression, like any artwork, at best it will point to the objectivity or reality of that concept from my limited perspective.

You seem to be quite defensive of your perspective, and expecting me to claim the objective position. I’m not going to do that. Your perspective is valid - it can tell me your position in relation to my own - but the way I see it, we’re both describing truth like the blind men and the elephant. We get a more accurate picture when we can relate our perspectives to each other as partial maps of the territory, so to speak, rather than arguing whether our respective views are true or false.

We get a more accurate picture when we can relate our perspectives to each other as partial maps of the territory, so to speak, rather than arguing whether our respective views are true or false. — Possibility

If this is the way that you want to put it, then there are more or less accurate maps of the territory. If your map contradicts mine, then what do we do? Who has an actual map of the territory? If neither of us do, then we don't really have maps then do we?