I can’t speak for concrescence, but prehension and epochal make perfect sense to me without having heard them before, just based on their roots. — Pfhorrest

They make sense to me, too. But I’m thinking we’re already on the other side of the paradigm shift in many ways. To many readers, Whitehead’s philosophy feels like they have to learn a new language before they can follow his thinking, because the language he uses reflects his shifted perspective, rather than explaining how he got there. It loses touch with the old paradigm, which I’ve found is surprisingly easy to do.

Imagine being at the edge of a dark expanse, and someone’s calling to you from the darkness. They’re telling you all the reasons why you’re on the wrong side, but you can’t see where they are or how they got across. Do you follow the voice into the darkness, or ask for more information? If you can’t understand what their instructions mean from where you are, does it matter whether or not you agree that you’re on the wrong side? Do you move forward, stay where you are, or ignore them and try to find your own way across?

In that case it’s just not possible to communicate your thoughts to others. We are dependent on a common definition to be able to communicate. However, it’s not our definition because it is written down in a dictionary, but the other way around. Dictionaries only reflect our shared understanding of a word. — Congau

Yes - they only reflect our shared understanding - they are not equal to it. I’m not dismissing the dictionary definition, I’m pointing out its limitations in relation to the possibility of a shared understanding that extends beyond the subjectivity that contributed to it. It helps to begin with a common definition, sure. But we need not be constrained by it in relation to reality, just for the sake of certainty. Your understanding of the potential and meaning of the word extends beyond the stated definition, as does mine. You’re just not willing to let go of the sense of certainty that a written definition offers.

No, that’s not what I mean. I’m just saying that a thought is one addition to reality. Reality consists of stones, houses, nail polish, thoughts etc.
“I am now thinking about x.” That immediately adds one item to reality, this thought of mine, but it does nothing to x.
“I’m thinking about an elephant.” The elephant is not affected.
“I’m thinking about a unicorn.” The unicorn didn’t come into existence, even though my thought did. — Congau

So, given that you can spontaneously bring a thought into existence from nothing, how would you describe the relation between your existence and that of your thought?

A photograph is objective. It makes a copy of exactly how the object looks from a particular angle (including the degree of light/darkness and haze). It doesn’t make any interpretations, what it “sees” is what a human would have seen if we had been able to leave our biased impressions aside.

A photograph (or a human replica) makes no claim to be saying anything about the human experience. An objective understanding of the, or rather a, human experience would be the same as telepathy. — Congau

A photograph was engineered to replicate the human experience of visual interaction as an isolated capacity. It makes a single interpretation of the light that most closely matches the human visual perspective, including many limitations, and then adjusts for certainty. The ‘truth’ of a photograph is then evaluated within the subjectivity of the broader human experience.

Anything made or conceived by humanity communicates something about the human experience in general, in particular about its capacity and limitations in relation to a more objective sense of truth.

Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true...
— Possibility

That's not a given. There is all sorts of stuff that we can be certain is true. The term "absolutely" doesn't add anything here either. Drop it altogether.

Are you certain that what you say is true... that we cannot be certain that anything is true? — creativesoul

I’ll assume you haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I suggest you do. I’ve stated it as a given for the purpose of this discussion because no, I cannot be certain that what I say is true for everyone else in the same way that it is for me.

I might claim certainty, but I would do so by ignoring, isolating or excluding the possibility of alternative perspectives, which can’t then be a claim to objectivity. I’m suggesting that objectivity and certainty can be considered a conjugate pairing.

This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness — Gnomon

Strawman. Dimensional aspects of reality are not necessarily spatial - any New Age mumbo-jumbo about astral planes or parallel universes has nothing to do with my theory. My reference to dimensions has to do with structural relations, and merely explains and extends our existing dimensional structure using the mental (potential) rather than strictly physical nature of information (quanta and qualia) as ‘building blocks’. It then takes this structure a step further to propose an underlying creative impetus of pure relation/possibility - inclusive of existence and what Deacon refers to as ‘absential’ phenomenon - as the dynamic foundation of reality.

There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.

You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. i]Enformationism[/i] is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific and philosophical and religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything. — Gnomon

You’re right - I have responded here primarily to your attitude towards posters on this forum. But I have also said that I agree with much of what I’ve read of your work, and I stand by my comments. I’m not expecting a typical academic thesis paper (I’m unlikely to read it). You’ve directed your blog at the lay reader, which I think is actually a better fit for those on this forum. I recognise and support your efforts to formulate a ToE, and I was under the impression I was offering constructive criticism. I could be mistaken - I’m not accustomed to doing so. I may come across more forceful in challenging your work because I agree with your position, and think I see where it can go from here. Try not to to see it as an attack.

I enjoyed reading Blogs 76-77. My view seems to have many similarities to Deacon - and I’m particularly interested in the main differences you’ve pointed out between his work and yours. I will need to read up on his work and get back to you. You mentioned in 74 the need to come up with a “modern metaphor that explains both matter/energy and life/mind”, which your theory presents as information/enformation. I’m already there with you at the metaphorical level, but my point continues to be that metaphor is only a suggestion of structure. It isn’t structure. You seem to still be trying to convince readers to abandon their strictly materialist/spiritualist views, but offer little substance in your thesis for those of us who already have, and nothing convincing for those who haven’t.

I’m done trying to reassure you that I agree with your position. The main issues that I think @praxis might have with your theory (and I don’t want to assume here, only attempt to translate into something less personal) may have to do with the gap in your explanation at this level, which I’m afraid isn’t convincingly ‘filled’ for me, even by Blog 74. You’re suggesting how these views could be reconciled (and I agree with your belief that they are indeed reconcilable), but for anyone looking to be convinced, you’re giving them nothing except ‘look at all these puzzle pieces, isn’t it obvious?’. And by the same token, you’re giving me little to hang my hat on but metaphor.

So I can’t really defend your theory at this level, only because I’m finding little there to defend. That’s not to say you’re wrong - there’s just not enough meat where I’m looking for answers. I will need to take a closer look at your thesis, but what I think you may be presenting at this stage is more of a belief system than a ToE. It’s one I agree with on principle, but I’m past the point of needing someone else to provide a belief system for me - I’m working towards a conceptual structure that is ultimately testable.

A lot of our disagreement, as is often the case in philosophical debate, is actually about linguistics and how to define terms.

Of course I agree that we use input from the world to draw conclusions about it and make conjectures about what the future might look like. This perpetual human interaction creates individual and collective understanding and does constitute a reality of its own. Cultural and intersubjective beliefs are existing entities (and as such objective in my understanding of the term) but I don’t understand why you insist on calling such ideas objective. When the dictionary clearly states that “objective” means “not dependent on the mind” why is it necessary to push that dictionary definition? Couldn’t you get your point across by using other words? In the beginning of our discussion I was pleased to learn that you acknowledged the existence of objective truth, but then I realized that your understanding of “objective” was different from mine. Isn’t a debate about mere words really an unnecessary confusion (although a very common one)? — Congau

What do you mean by ‘a reality of its own’? Are you maintaining a dual sense of reality, as in mental vs physical? You agree that beliefs are objectively real and yet don’t understand why I include them in an objective sense of reality. I recognise that each of these beliefs are subjective, but together they contribute to a conceptual structure of truth that is in itself more objective than what is merely actual.

Any object can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, which would make an infinite number of objective truths and that is rather a characteristic of what is subjective. Why not call it subjective then? — Congau

A photograph of an object is subjective, because it displays only one limited view out of many, and offers no reason to suggest that another perspective is possible (even though we ‘know’ that many exist). A visual model of the object is more objective than the photograph, because it is inclusive of all visual perspectives. But it is also subjective in relation to a working replica of the object, which would be inclusive of information regarding an internal aspect: how the object is constructed and what it does in a temporal sense. This seems to be as far as your sense of objectivity stretches.

But if that object is a human being, then we understand that any ‘working replica’ of the object would still fall short of reality. This suggests that there is at least another aspect to the human experience, of which a p-zombie (as a full ‘working replica’ of a human being, inclusive of your sense of ‘objective’ understanding) gives no indication, like the photograph or the model. This renders the p-zombie a subjective view of humanity in relation to reality. A more objective understanding of the truth of human experience would then need to be inclusive of all experiential perspectives, such as cultural and intersubjective beliefs, conclusions and conjectures, about what the future might look like, etc.

I guess I’m not one to work only within the actual constraints of a dictionary definition simply because it’s written down as such. Definition is a reduction of knowledge, which is a reduction of meaning, after all.

Pain is an unpleasant sensation or thought evoked by certain noxious physical or mental stimuli. In general, such stimuli evoke a relieve-avoid-prevent response from the subject.

Biologically, pain plays an important role in our welfare and survival. Homeostasis refers to the biochemical equilibrium necessary for life to sustain itself. All living things are in homeostasis so long as it is alive and well. Injury, physical, chemical, etc. threatens this equilibrium and can cause death.

Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival.

To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival.

Given the above is true what can we say about suffering? Suffering seems to be a higher-order pain since it includes mental anguish too. However, consider the causes of mental anguish from failing in exams to losing in love - they're all critical aspects of social survival. We can literally see the similarity between physical and mental pain at a very fundamental level - SURVIVAL, either as an individual or as a member of society.

Therefore, suffering is necessary to the wellbeing of individuals alone and as members of a society.

What kind of ramifications would this realization have?

For one, we can do away with pessimistic philosophies that have, well, misunderstood the whole point of suffering. They think suffering shouldn't exist, implying that it is unnecessary, which I've shown is actually necessary for survival.

Also this view of suffering solves the problem of evil vis-a-vis god. — TheMadFool

While I agree that the existence of suffering (experiencing pain, humiliation, loss/lack) is necessary for survival, I disagree that survival is necessary to existence.

When we die, we don’t cease to exist, we simply cease to survive. The false equivalence of survival (a duration of physicality) and existence leads to the inaccurate conclusion that avoiding suffering is essential to our existence, as much as this equally inaccurate conclusion (disputed by anti-natalists) that the experience of suffering is essential to existence.

I’m only superficially familiar with with Whitehead. What neologisms did he coin? — Pfhorrest

‘Concrescence’, ‘epochal process’, and ‘prehension’ were all terms coined by Whitehead which, to my knowledge, were not previously used in the sense that he employed them. Concrescence is a biological term referring to teeth, prehension is another biological term referring to the grasping capacity of the thumb and forefinger, and epochal refers to distinguishably large periods of history. Like Gnomon’s writing, I agree with many of the ideas behind Whitehead’s process philosophy. I think it’s a shame the neologisms have prevented a wider reading of his work.

One of the main things I was hoping to get was feedback on exactly where people got stuck like this, so I could know where I need to change it, take slower smaller steps, give more examples, clarify what I do or don’t mean, etc. — Pfhorrest

That is exactly why I reordered the opening essays. Instead of starting off attacking the biggest opponents first and then their usual opponents in turn, before explaining where I stand between them, now I start with an overview of my whole general philosophy and the ways it agrees with other general philosophies. Then the places I think those other philosophies take those shared premises and each reach different wrong conclusions from them, and how I think it’s possible to reconcile the premises of all those different philosophies without reaching any of their mutually contrary wrong conclusions. Only then do I start going in to all the different possibilities of wrongness thereby avoided. — Pfhorrest

The problem is that the focus of your writing is on argument and debate. So you’re either preaching to the choir, or you’re trying to engage ‘stupid, lazy and mean’ readers. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re failing to obtain constructive criticism on anything other than style. I’ll be honest with you, there aren’t many people on this forum who have sufficient humility to point out where they didn’t understand, didn’t follow or didn’t have the patience to persist with specific parts of a formal argument.

As a reader, you’re only giving me two possible responses: agree or disagree. Where’s the journey? You’re not taking me anywhere except where I either have already been or have no interest in going. When you title an essay ‘Against Fideism’, for instance, what sort of readers are you expecting to attract, and how long do you expect them to persist?

As a challenge, have you ever tried arguing convincingly in support of Fideism? It’s an exercise in imagining perspective. In fiction, the most convincing and entertaining villains are those whose defence of their actions would be based on sound and valid reasoning, rather than simply being ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’. This is not something we’re often comfortable doing once we’ve settled on a position. Being able to say ‘I can see how that makes sense from your perspective’ without following it with ‘but you’re wrong’ allows us to encourage a dissenting reader to join us in looking at the bigger picture without engaging them strictly as an opponent.

I'm frustrated. but not deterred, by the inability of philosophical forum posters to learn a few new words that define a novel worldview, which is merely an update and reconciliation of old incompatible views. I could understand, if the man on the street wanted me to "talk down to them" with common words and conventional meanings. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That's what I'm doing : trying to converse with intelligent people in intelligent terms. — Gnomon

They’re not unable to learn the words - they’re unwilling to, and with good reason. There are enough words in the English language that if you can’t find a way to explain your meaning without making up new ones then you’re not trying hard enough. And this worldview is far from novel - that you’re presenting it in a novel way is clear, but you’re claiming ownership of a worldview that’s been around in various formats for millennia, and only requires a more complex structure in relation to modern knowledge. My argument is that you’re not acknowledging the historical progress made by so many others across religion, philosophy and science to reach this level of understanding, and that you’re not providing a clear enough structure.

Voltaire wasn’t talking about making up new words, by the way - he was talking about clarifying your position, in relation to his, regarding the meaning of existing concepts. It’s uncharitable to then declare your terms to be ‘intelligent’ and any alternative definition of existing terms as ‘common’. That’s not going to endear your argument to anyone.

Apparently, you haven't looked at the BothAnd blog. That's where I develop basic ideas of Enformationism with reference to "the way we interact with the world on a daily basis". Blog posts now number 107 articles. Does that sound like a shortcut? — Gnomon

I have looked at your blog on a number of occasions, which always requires one to delve into your website and glossary. The shortcut I’m referring to has nothing to do with volume. It has to do with the way you associate the metaphysical elements of your theory, using metaphor and neologisms instead of structural relations. ‘Information’ as a building block does not constitute a structural relation - it’s a concept that basically means ‘building block’, and says nothing about how it fits together at a metaphysical level, without an established structural relation like ‘space’ or ‘time’.

Was Immanuel Kant "arrogant" to "control the meaning" of his philosophy by defining in detail such terms as "Categorical Imperative" and "Noumenon"? — Gnomon

I’m not in a position to suggest changes to Kant’s methodology, but these are not new words, as such. Noumenon, for instance, is a common Greek word meaning ‘something conceived’. He wasn’t writing for an Internet forum or a blog but for academia, so he could afford to arrogantly assume at the time that everyone knew what he meant. Whitehead, on the other hand, was arrogant enough to make up his own words, and his philosophy suffered for it. You are not in any similar position.

What you don't seem to grasp is that, "encouraging a disconnect between" conventional concepts, is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I have constructed a "structure" (in which Information is the modular building block) that relates such old worldviews as Spiritualism and Materialism to a larger context. But, in order to reconcile Spiritualist views with Materialist views, holders of those views will have to give-up their confidence that each is the Whole Truth. Instead, they are both valid, but partial worldviews. They tend to dismiss and denigrate holders of the opposite view. But I'm trying to show that they are actually complementary views. — Gnomon

Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, I agree in principle with the concept of Both/And, and I support your efforts. But the glaring hole in your philosophy can be found in how you reconcile Spiritualism with Materialism. ‘Information’ makes sense to me, but it’s not enough. You’re not going to get anyone to give up their confidence simply because you declare that ‘EnFormAction’ - as a metaphysical form of energy/information - is the key. You’re effectively expecting them to abandon their position in favour of confidence in YOU. It ain’t gonna happen.

I find some of the terms of your worldview (as expressed in forum posts) incomprehensible. Is that a sign that you're arrogant, and concerned only with image? Or is it because your ideas are unconventional, and require some hard thinking to make sense of a new paradigm? — Gnomon

The difference between your use of terms and mine is that I claim no novelty or ownership of this particular worldview, let alone definitions of terminology. I recognise that many of the terms I use are applied unconventionally, but when readers question my usage, I don’t quote from my own glossary to support my argument. And my focus is on making the paradigm shift accessible to current thinking, not gaining followers to my guru-ness.

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all.

But both of those first two things take words to do, which thus sacrifices the third thing. So you could get back the third thing by instead sacrificing one of the first two things... or the other. But one way or another it seems like you can’t do all three of those at once. — Pfhorrest

I want to make some observations here that I think you might be missing. There is a difference between writing for an audience who feels obligated to read your communication, and writing for one that doesn’t. You’ll notice that most of us who gave you reasons why we didn’t continue to wade through your writing cited things that correspond to the three ‘vices’ you describe. It seems natural to me that they would feel offended by a derogatory description of their attitude, even though it wasn’t your intention to label anyone here in this way.

These three ‘vices’ as you call them are a description not of those reading, but of the attitude an author needs to assume when they revise or edit their own work. It’s a tool to ensure clarity and conciseness, and particularly to ensure that those who need to read it all the way through aren’t steaming under the collar while they do so.

Unlike your lecturers and the parents/staff I write for, however, those of us on this forum feel no obligation to read what anyone has written. So when they get bogged down in the technical terms, get offended, impatient or confused (which we all do at some stage unless it’s our own writing that we’re reading), they have no satisfactory answer to the question “Why should I continue?” So they waver, and eventually they stop.

You gave them a reason to start reading by your discussions on this forum, but you need to continually refer in your writing to reasons why they should persist when it gets difficult. It helps to also acknowledge when it’s about to get technical or unclear, and offer a quick ‘layman’s’ version so those who either already get what you’re saying, or don’t have time to get into the details and are prepared to take your word for it at this time, can skip to something more intriguing. Likewise, making an attempt to understand and sympathise with a dissenting position, rather than give all the reasons why you’re against it, will go a long way towards engaging readers who aren’t already on your side of the debate.

How can you know where readers are at in their lives before you start the philosophical narrative ?
Do you mean in a general sense - what is happening in our society - the challenges involved ? Eternal problems ? — Amity

In a way, it refers to the general assumptions we make about how the world works - the language and concepts humans are most comfortable using to describe our interactions with reality. It also refers to the problems we commonly recognise in our day to day lives, which remind us that how we conceptualise reality isn’t quite as accurate as we need it to be: how our uncertainty about morality, free will, consciousness, the origin of life and the universe relate to ordinary experiences such as eating breakfast, driving to work, arguing with a colleague, etc.

How does it remind you of the Hero's Journey?
I haven't read it, so what would make me want to delve in ?
Is everyone a Hero ? — Amity

Joseph Campbell’s book “Hero With a Thousand Faces” is quite a heavy-going book suggesting underlying threads tying all human mythology together, such as Jung’s archetypes. One such thread is that of the Hero’s Journey, where someone goes on a quest (to solve a problem) and finds themselves in a strange and unfamiliar land. They struggle to acclimatise to this strangeness, but soon recognise that it’s better or more accurate or more ‘real’ than where they came from in particular ways, and begin to feel more ‘at home’ there. But they remember their quest, and realise for whatever reason that staying there doesn’t help those they left behind. So eventually they return home, but they bring back with them not only new skills or secrets or solutions they needed to complete their quest, but also a ‘way’ to reach this better, more accurate or more ‘real’ world. But back home, they realise that we’re not ready to make this journey collectively. We need more heroes willing to embark on the journey and bring back more secrets and solutions that we’re still not quite ready to integrate, except to solve a specific problem that threatens us right now.

The whole scope of philosophy is, in my mind, completely at odds with day-to-day living, but certain magnification of ‘parts’ of philosophy do readily slot into day-to-day living. A project hoping to reach the general public the is infused with a complete overview of the philosophical endeavor is likely doomed to failure unless it can wrap itself around more obvious aspects of human life that connect with human activity in a visceral manner. — I like sushi

This is where I think it’s so difficult to make the transition from technical writing to mainstream publishable content. I think you’ve outlined the issue perfectly. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading books on physics by Carlo Rovelli, having little background in physics myself, because of the direct human experiences that he describes in relation to the concepts. Philosophical paradigm shifts are similarly difficult, in that you need to start where people are at in their lives, and then take them on a journey of discovery, without bogging them down in the technical nature of the process. You need to keep bringing your audience back to connect with real human experience, mainly because they’re unlikely to read the whole lot in one sitting - so they need to feel not too far from the everyday (or at least from humanity), even as you take them ‘deep into the woods’.

I’m reminded of Joseph Campbell’s descriptions of the Hero’s Journey.

I understand your preference for neologisms in order to ‘control its meaning precisely’. The amount of posts arguing over definitions and meaning of terminology on this forum seem to outweigh all other posts.

Like Whitehead’s writing, however, it is the neologisms that hobble one’s ability to relate a new worldview to their existing one. It makes the process slow and frustrating. Even with the glossary, there are so many neologisms and metaphors that you start to wonder if you’re understanding a philosophy or learning a new language.

I get that it’s a paradigm shift. You may have developed an understanding of existence beyond the limits of language, but that’s the easy part. Reducing that information down to thoughts, words and behaviour - the way we interact with the world on a daily basis - is where the real philosophy begins. And you’re trying to shortcut the process.

When I suspend my resistance to what seems like an arrogant attempt on your part to possess and control meaning, then I can see how your philosophy, mine and @Pfhorrest’s are referring to a similar worldview. Unfortunately, I cannot subscribe to your treatment of the relationship between language/knowledge and meaning - it’s as if these same ideas haven’t been understood and articulated from so many different perspectives for many thousands of years, long before you made up new words to convey your meaning.

‘Information’ is a concept that has relative meaning at different dimensional structures of relation: binary/quantum, atomic, chemical/spatial, actual/physical, value/potential and meaning/possible. Attempting to convey a distinction between potential and physical information by suggesting that it’s something other than information only complicates our attempts to understand ‘information’ in relation to shared conceptual structures. You end up encouraging a disconnect between what we already share and the new information you’re presenting, rather than demonstrating a structure by which we can understand the relation.

Metaphor, unfortunately, has no substance as a structural relation - all it does is suggest that two concepts relate, but gives no indication as to how. We’re supposed to simply trust your say so. It’s a little too close to apologetics for my liking, especially at a metaphysical level. The idea is that if I don’t intuitively get the nature of the relation, then I’m just not as intelligent or as enlightened as you are - a philistine, as it were. This is where I think your theory needs work, personally - but you seem rather attached to the ambiguity of your metaphorical ‘structures’. Perhaps it makes you feel superior, idk.

I can relate to this. My day job is marketing communications for a school. Our parents and staff would be predominantly lazy and mean, so while my key aims are to reduce ambiguity and verbosity, I also rely on building consistency of terminology, familiar patterns and well-worn conventions so they feel smart enough to understand the information.

That' just an ad hom; nothing more. It's poor thinking; an exercise in attempting to deny rationality by pretending it's mere powerplay, as if that were not itself a move in the same powerplay. Basically, its the root of bullshit. — Banno

Granted. This part was not my argument as such - it was a passing comment, and an ungracious one at that. My humble apologies.

In my opinion Davidson more than deals with your objections using charity and radical interpretation. — Banno

Thank you for this. I’d not heard of Davidson before, and I find that I agree with the vast majority of his theory (as described by SEP), particularly with regards to charity and radical interpretation. I will need to track down his original works at some stage. Much appreciated.

I don't think all ways of drawing conclusions are the same. I think we can be more certain of something, especially if we are agreeing on certain foundational beliefs: like if we are working with the idea that we are not in a simulation or otherwise brain in a vat type scenario and other such axioms. Sure, these might be wrong (but pretty much everyone who says 'everying is subjective' or 'we can't be certain of anything' has reached this conclusion based on ideas of perception, epistemology, minds...etc. that they cannot be certain about. Reserving some skepticism about what is considered true can be consistent, it's an attitude not an assertion. But the moment you try to demonstate that the correct conclusion is that one cannot be completely certain, well, you just joined the club of objectivists. — Coben

I agree with this. I think there appears to be an assumption here that my approach is purely relativistic as such. I believe that truth exists objectively - but neither as something actual, nor as something potentially knowable. I stated this lack of certainty as a ‘given’ condition in the OP, which clearly seemed to bother some people. For me, objectivity is a possibility: a concept we can aspire to understand most accurately in relation to those positions with which we disagree, or indeed perspectives which we struggle to understand. At this level of relation, though, we need to let go of certainty as a fundamental attribute to information, otherwise I think we miss the opportunity to learn.

That we can interact with the world for the most part without encountering challenges to the certainty in our perspective is insufficient reason to claim objectivity in a philosophical sense. This reasoning can lead to intellectual stagnation - a focus on preserving a claim to objectivity by prioritising certainty at the expense of possibilities, or even potential. Acknowledging that, as you say, much of what we conclude or claim to ‘know’ is based on uncertain information seems, to me, a first step in approaching a discussion about the notion of ‘objective truth’.

I'm rather fond of "the view from anywhere". It's the change from "I like vanilla" to "Banno likes vanilla". The overall point, of course, is contrary to those who would posit that truth is subjective and hence the banal relativism of
Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true...
— Possibility — Banno

The ‘view from anywhere’ is a claim to the most objective position, often in blatant ignorance of the possibility that one may be missing information. It’s a favourite technique of those who prefer to maintain an over-inflated sense of their own importance, often against all evidence to the contrary: like religious doctrine, scientific writers, journalists ...and Trump.

I’m not having a personal dig at you, Banno. I realise you’ve explained here that when we’re proven wrong, those statements are false, and we adjust our knowledge. But my argument is that logic is not the ‘objective’ position it claims to be. Relating to the logical position enables us to adjust our own position for distortions of affect, so I agree that it’s more objective than anyone’s personal perspective alone. But logic excludes certain ‘illogical’ possibilities that are important considerations when we’re trying to develop an accurate understanding of concepts such as ‘truth’, ‘existence’, ‘meaning’, ‘information’ and ‘reality’ - concepts that have an ‘objective’ aspect to them beyond the constraints of language, knowledge, morality, etc.

One of the main parameters of logic is the law of excluded middle. If we have different perspectives, logic tells us that one must be true and the other necessarily false. But if we cannot find a way to hold both perspectives in our mind as valid, then we’re unable to adjust for distortions of perspective that could improve the accuracy of both positions in relation to truth (see my reply to Harry above).

The ‘view from anywhere’ invites a power struggle - which of course suits those who hold the illusion of power. Galileo’s personal struggle against Church doctrine is an example of the problem with this ‘view from anywhere’. My position is that a little humility on both sides goes a long way.

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? — Harry Hindu

Then we explore in what specific ways they contradict. Your view is not in polar opposition to mine, because there are elements that we agree on. It is those things that help to orient our respective positions in a more objective ‘space’. It’s similar to how a computer combines 2D images of an object to construct a 3D view (only there are more aspects to consider).

An actual map of the territory is not what we’re after initially, although it may be our ultimate goal. This is part of what I’m trying to get across (and I’ve carelessly used a spatial example here, which I’m convinced is going to come back and bite me). When we have two maps that contradict, it’s pointless to argue over the maps themselves, because they may both be inaccurate in some way. The best way to solve the contradiction is to orient both maps together in the more objective 3D space (eg. travelling over the terrain), so that errors of perspective can be recognised and corrected. We’ll both still end up with 2D maps, but they’re both now more accurate than either of the two original maps.

So in order to ensure the most accurate 2D map of a 3D space, we need be orienting different 2D perspectives in 3D, and correcting for distortion, before reducing the resulting information back down to a more accurate 2D rendering of the territory. But if one of the cartographers refuses to consider the 3D space as ‘more objective’, then they won’t even attempt to orient both maps in 3D, and will fail to see where the distortions are in their own map in relation to the 3D space. They will insist that one map is true and the other 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.

Does anything truly matter? We all know our world is inherently meaningless. But let's imagine that we happened to find some irrefutable meaning in this world. Would it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Objectively yes, but from a philosophical perspective, I'm not sure. Meaning is always relative to some framework. From my philosophical standpoint, no reality truly matters. Truth is just truth. — Cidat

Objectively speaking, everything that exists matters, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. But one irrefutable, ‘objective’ meaning to everything is ultimately meaningless in itself. That’s not to say that imagining the possibility that everything matters isn’t meaningful.

What matters to me most is my potential to interact with the world, and what matters to you is yours. It is where those perspectives intersect that we achieve, and in their difference I can recognise that your potential to interact is meaningful even if it doesn’t realise my own (and vice versa), because you matter to me. Or else I can ignore what else matters to you, and risk the potential in the relationship we share by trying to limit your potential to interact with the world, simply because that potential holds no specific value/potential for me.

Perhaps what matters, ultimately, is how we relate.

Interesting, but I think it might be worth reading Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book “How Emotions Are Made” for the rest of the story.

I think it makes sense that we each conceptualise reality according to a perceived valence of affect (ie. pleasant/unpleasant). But this value prediction is a reduction of potential information only, and susceptible to error in relation to actual reality. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that emotional concepts are constructed based on gradually refining our predictions through these errors, rather than assuming that emotions themselves are inherent, universal indicators of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in reality, without question.

One thing I will ask: how do you suppose that value judgements are ‘actual things’?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

Yep, Wiki agrees with Sam, then adds a bit of ambiguity.

Nagel rather misfired, it seems to me. Rather than "a view from nowhere" I'd phrase it as "a view from anywhere", as opposed to "my view".
But if you’d rather go the way of reductionism, then you can’t ignore quantum mechanics, which brings us back to uncertainty, potentiality and the binary relations of possibility. Either way, we’re here - and the philosophical route is easier for me to navigate than quantum physics.
— Possibility
What's all that? — Banno

The way I see it, you can take the Wiki explanation one of two ways.

You could take Sam’s path of reductionism: ignore, isolate and exclude most of the limited information you have to find a lowest common denominator. This is similar to Descartes’ mistake, discarding all uncertainty and doubt from an already limited perspective. Don’t get me wrong - I think there’s plenty of use for reductionism. It is, after all, what enables us to act in the world. But I also think this reduction will always be flawed if it simply eliminates subjective truths as irrelevant, rather than seeks to explain their existence within what is ‘objective’. You can’t simply reduce reality to one without sentient subjects, for instance, and assume that ‘facts’ will obtain in their absence.

Objectively speaking, ‘facts’ are dimensionally located answers to dimensionally located questions. For a fact to exist, a question needs to be asked. This relates to quantum theory, in which it is the question that ultimately determines the answer. For ‘the Earth has one moon’ to exist as an actual ‘fact’ is dependent on a question asked from a relative position. This ‘observer’ position is fuzzy (uncertain) but limited: it is provable that the Earth has not always had a moon and has not always been what we understand to be the Earth - the two have not always existed in this relationship (can the moon have an Earth instead?). The ‘objective truth’ to which this fact refers is not contained by the statement, or inherent within the words. The fact is a reduction of potential information, a collapse of potentiality: so long as the potentiality of the question and the potentiality of the answer interact, then the fact exists in relation to the possibility of ‘objective truth’.

This seems contrived (and I may not have explained it very well), but it’s meant to illustrate the relevance of potentiality and possibility in a reductionist approach to ‘objective truth’. The point is that you’re not going to get away from uncertainty by hiding behind facts.

The other way to take this explanation is to employ ‘metaphysical speculation’: to maximise the diversity of information from individual subjects, including perception, emotion and imagination, and propose a possible relational structure that might exist independently of any individual subjectivity, while also explaining (not just accepting) all possible individual subjectivity. It’s something I think humans are uniquely equipped to develop and refine by using language to interact - not just at the level of qualitative and quantitative potentiality, but also at the level of imagination, meaningful interaction and other possible relations beyond any particular sense of value. The point is not just to make something up, but to do what we do best: to ask questions, gather information, hypothesise, make predictions, test, make mistakes, adjust and test and adjust some more...

I know, it sounds pie-in-the-sky, but what the hell, I’ve got nothing better to do...

How do we define this abstract concept? Well, if system A has a lot of ‘information’ on system B, then from system A’s state (from its fundamental quantities maybe, its position, momenta, temperature, order etc) we can deduce a lot about system B and the quantities associated with it. Again, the key is we can ‘deduce’. In reality these two systems are simply similar to one another or connected- we take the step to take certain qualities of A that are similar to B and label these ‘information’, disregarding the innumerable other qualities of the system that we can deduce less about B from. There is nothing physically special about these qualities apart from the fact that we can use them to find out more about the nature of B. — tom111

Carlo Rovelli had this to say about quantum mechanics in relation to information theory, that sounds similar to, but not quite what you’re describing here. I’m wondering if you could shed some light on why Rovelli’s description makes more intuitive sense to me (given my limited understanding of physics):

A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say, the correlation between the two systems...

The description of a system, in the end, is nothing other than a way of summarising all the past interactions with it, and using them to predict the effect of future interactions.

The entire formal structure of quantum mechanics can in large be expressed in two simple postulates:
1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system.

Here, the ‘relevant information’ is the information that we have about a given system as a consequence of our past interactions with it: information allowing us to predict what will be the result for us of future interactions with this system. — Carlo Rovelli ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

Yes, I’ve been here before:

“Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.” - Wikipedia

The philosophical understanding I’m coming from is that of Thomas Nagel’s exploration of ‘a view from nowhere’. But if you’d rather go the way of reductionism, then you can’t ignore quantum mechanics, which brings us back to uncertainty, potentiality and the binary relations of possibility. Either way, we’re here - and the philosophical route is easier for me to navigate than quantum physics.

Do we then conclude that we can never have objective truth? — Banno

Who drew that conclusion?

SO we sometimes disagree as to the facts. Sure do.

That's a very different observation to the stuff set out in the OP. Much less of the dramatic metaphysical speculation. Is that all this thread is about? — Banno

Not just disagree as to the facts - we also disagree as to how to act, what should be done, what is real, what exists, what anything means, what is true, etc.

These aren’t facts, they’re perspectives of a relational structure to reality that exists beyond what is obvious to everyone or proven by scientific method. You can call it what you want, but we USE this ‘metaphysical speculation’ continually to make, test and adjust predictions about our interactions with the world.

I'm suggesting that "objective" just serves to confuse the issue with which you wish to grapple. Certainly the thread could take on board Sam's suggestion that it be considered as contrasted with "subjective", but doing so serves to blunt the questions you have posed. — Banno

I disagree that ‘objective’ contrasts with ‘subjective’ in relation to truth. By my understanding, the possibility of a truth that is ‘objective’ must correlate all possible perspectives of ‘truth’, including those we may not believe are ‘subjective’, such as logic and mathematics. This may seem impossible to achieve, but ‘objective truth’ can still serve as a conceptual reference from which each perspective is understood to fall short in some respect - including yours.

Objective truth should be contrasted with subjective truth. Objective truths are quite mind-independent. For example, the Earth has one moon reflects a state-of-affairs that exists apart from any mind. In other words, one could eliminate all minds, and the fact would still obtain. There might not be anyone around to apprehend the objective truth, but the fact would still exist.

Subjective truths, on the other hand, are mind-dependent. For example, "Tim likes apples," is dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity, i.e., it is either the case that Tim does or does not like apples. The truth of the statement, for Tim, is subjective, dependent on the subject, his taste, likes or dislikes, etc. Eliminate all minds and you eliminate all subjective truths. — Sam26

Eliminate all minds and you eliminate awareness of ‘facts’ as answers to specific questions, as well as all questions, and therefore all facts. Something would still exist, though - but who would know?

The fact that “the Earth has one moon” is dependent on perception of concepts such as ‘earth’ and ‘moon’ and a possessive relation between the two. Without a mind, facts cannot obtain. You could argue that existence obtains independent of ‘mind’, but how would ‘mindless’ existence differentiate one existence from another, let alone differentiate a possessive relation?

My point in asking was to see if any preliminary navigation had been done. "Truth," whether or not flanked by adjectives, eludes definition except perhaps as an abstract generic quality of some propositions. And that, and your notion of the "gistness" of things, seems about the best anyone can do - unless of course someone does better here and now. — tim wood

I agree. I guess my point here is that, while the possibility of an agreeable definition eludes us, we can nevertheless improve the accuracy of our own limited perspective of what is ‘true’ and what is ‘objective’ by orienting our own perspective in relation to those who disagree.

As far as preliminary navigation, I have been discussing the notion of ‘objective truth’ for some time now with Congau, which began with a discussion on the value of relating different perspectives. Congau has been arguing for an ‘objective or real truth value’ (different to the truth value we attribute to propositions within the limited perspective of propositional logic), a concept I have stubbornly refused to acknowledge as anything more than a possibility. This prompted the question I set up in the OP.

we can never be absolutely certain of what is true
— Possibility

But that's just not right.

Or better, the word "absolutely" sits there making a perfectly normal sentence into a bit of metaphysical nonsense.

"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.

And further it is true that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you; and further, that we are certain of these things. Doubt here is senseless.

And there is that word "objective", propped up again against "truth" as if it made a difference. If you are not sure what it is, then don't use it. — Banno

I had a feeling I could count on you, Banno. Your perspective, limited though it is, has been presented as indisputable fact, as always.

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’.

I also agree that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you, and that you and I are certain of these things within the context of your subjective experience in relation to mine. Doubt here is unnecessary.

But what you state is ‘true’ is not always going to be identical to what I understand to be ‘true’, and even if we agree, it may not be with the same degree of certainty.

I love your statement: “If you are not sure what it is, then don’t use it.” The idea that we can or should only interact with complete confidence is part of what I am disputing here.

Neuroscience shows that the brain can only ever act with a relative degree of certainty, based on continually predictive evaluations of energy and attention requirements and capacity - affect - a correlation of quantitative and qualitative potential information. Our entire conceptualisation of reality is constructed from experiences of prediction error and resulting adjustments to this interoceptive map of perceived potentiality/value.

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.

Did anyone say what "objective truth" is? It seems to me that before anything can be said categorically, the thing spoken of ought to be reasonably well understood. I do not understand what is meant by "objective truth." Anyone take a moment and straighten me out? — tim wood

Ha ha - I was waiting for you to show up. What is meant by ‘objective truth’ is the topic of discussion. I don’t think anyone can define ‘objective truth’ - but that doesn’t preclude a discussion. I presented options, all of which are problematic. Personally, I’d go with the third option, but all three are useful in their own way.

Then it's true that this is a perceived limitation of the perspective from which you are asking the question, and that is the case whether I agree or not from my perspective (objective)? In talking about the nature of your perspective, are you speaking the truth, and is how you explain your perspective how it actually is even though I might disagree? Would I be wrong in disagreeing? What would that mean - to be wrong, or right about the nature of your perspective? — Harry Hindu

Is it true? I think it is, but who am I to declare what is true? If you tell me you disagree, then perhaps we can discuss our difference in perspective in relation to the possibility of objective truth. My perspective as I describe it is only how I describe it - I expect your perspective of my perspective to be quite different, but I can only ask you as to how different and in what ways. In relation to the possibility of objective truth, I would say that you disagreeing would be neither wrong nor right, but simply expressing a difference in perspective of the nature of my perspective.

So you're saying that the nature of reality within this discussion is different than outside of this discussion? — Harry Hindu

That’s not how I see it, no. I’m saying that my perspective of the perspective of those outside this discussion cannot be sufficiently determined from the discussion.

Is it true that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute? It seems to me that what is in dispute is that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute. — Harry Hindu

Possibly not - that was my perspective, given the discussion that led to this OP. I would agree with your statement of what may be in dispute between you and I, though. The question I have is: what is your perspective of the possibility of ‘objective truth’ as a concept? Because I’m not disputing the obvious limitations of my perspective. But relating to your perspective might improve the accuracy of mine, at least.

There is a simpler way to deal with this. Science has little to nothing to say about ‘truth’ but a lot to say about ‘facts’. Logic has little to nothing to say about facts but a lot to say about ‘truths’ - and there are different kinds of truths some of which are universal when set within strict parameters (that is precisely why propositional logic is useful).

Probability is much more well established in mathematics, which in turn can be put to use in the sciences but only with an error of margin ever present.

Potential refers to known possibilities and probable refers to known potential outcomes. But there could very well be unknown potential outcomes (which is clearly the case in reality as we’re unable to take into account every little variable).

1+1=2 is objectively true in basic arithmetic. In abstraction universals are used that can be mapped onto reality and allow us to make extremely accurate predictions in some situations and much less accurate predictions in other situations - it depend on how many variables there are , and how accurately they are accounted for.

The rest is purely a linguistic issue. Given that in day-to-day life we’re not inclined to use the terms ‘truth’ and ‘objective’ in anything other than gist manner it is no wonder that when we dog further there are clear misinterpretations and miscommunications. — I like sushi

Thank you for this. I think that acknowledging the limitations of each perspective in relation to the possibility of objective truth is important. Whether we’re talking logic, science, probability, potential or abstraction, we’re assuming a limited perspective of the possibility of objective truth, like the blind men around the elephant - except our ‘position’ is related not so much to spatial structures and sensory information, but to structures of value/significance (language, affect, epistemology, etc) and meaningful information.

When we ‘map’ one of these perspectives onto a prediction of reality, it is the prediction errors that point to the inaccuracy and limitations of that perspective, not of reality. This is meaningful information in discussions such as these, that focus on piecing together the ‘elephant’. But if we assume objectivity in the perspective and ignore the resulting prediction error - ie. that our ‘map’ doesn’t quite fit all perspectives - we miss an opportunity to develop a more accurate perspective in relation to the possibility of objective reality.