Some thoughts.

[wolven7]

You are a reasoning creature. We've talked about this. I can, in the course of debate, show you that, according to your beliefs, everything that you believe is groundless. Everything. And all you will be able to tell me is that "we have to do something."

From there, I will be able to show you that, if that's the case, not only should you probably hush about how right you are, you really shouldn't talk to anyone else, about how wrong they are. And yes, this goes for me too.

The methods I would use to do this? Completely unreliable, but totally accepted, as gospel, by nearly everyone.

And then? I'd fuck your day up a little bit more by saying this:

But all data is merely data, until it is interpreted. It is only when we filter it through perceptions and preferences that it becomes any sort of information.

Do you think dogs think as humans think? Reason as humans reason? Or ducks, or trees, or... whatever? Or do you think that they are merely instictual creatures, reacting to the external stimuli, acting on "evolutionary imperatives?" What do you think we are doing?

Act, react, create, destroy, grow, and decay. It is a process requiring that we find Something to make it okay, something to justify why we do what we do. For the most part, ours is reason, and it gives us the system by which we evaluate everything around us. But... can we really judge those systems? Can we say that they are failed, or wrong?

No. We have to. We must orient ourselves, somewhere, and work outward. We have to believe, wholeheartedly, or the world will never make sense. Close our eyes and never think about the fact that everyone out there is doing the same thing as we are, making analogous judgements, trying to make the world make sense, just as well as they can.

And I would say all of these things to you, to make your head hurt, and maybe make you cry a little bit, because I feel like being an utter asshole, and because I am Satan Himself. *Satan Face*

Feel free to discount what I've said, or to think i'm just being a tetchy prick. It's not been a pleasant day, so far, and I don't think it's going to get better.

Ta.

Comments

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

It is possibly a testament to how much time I've spent with you, or to something else entirely, that this does not make my head hurt, that it really only comes as something expected from you.

Shit, I can't even really debate it, or expand upon it, except to say that one shouldn't spend time judging anyone else's system, except to better their own.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

except to say that one shouldn't spend time judging anyone else's system, except to better their own.

And that's why you win the prize.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

Ooh. I Like Prizes! What is it? Is it SHINY?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Infinitely shiny, yes :P

[mendori.livejournal.com]

.....infinitely shiny object....

However, I would argue that dogs, cats, and other domestic animals that have been with us for a significant amount of time have picked up rationality by proxy. That is, they learn to behave as we do over generations because we breed for the ones we most identify with as LIKE US. A dog that grins, a cat that pets us, a horse that comes to its name....

They learn to reason by proxy. Wild animals, on the other hand, only pick up such behaviors either from domestic animals... or they already have them.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True, but my point is that wild animals get along just fine, without what we would deign to call "reason." They see the world as they see it, and they live eat shit fuck and die, just like the rest of us.

Ask yourself, what are the existential quandries of the cockroach?

[mendori.livejournal.com]

Why do I have a brain, when over 90% of my nerve impulses arent routed through it?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm saying. Why are we so prpeferential to certain evolutionary traits?

Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

I can, in the course of debate, show you that, according to your beliefs, everything that you believe is groundless. Everything.

I don't believe that debate is a functional method to understand reality.

In short: Debate produces status, not truth.

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Try Me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

What, then, would produce truth?

Truth is

[karishi.livejournal.com]

I don't know that it needs to be produced; 'at's one of those places where cause-and-effect doesn't feel pertinent. Capacity for recognizing truth comes of discourse (not to be confused with debate), experience, and discernment. Being out there, hearing what the world and the people in it have to say, and being in yourself and choosing what to make of it.

Re: Truth is

[wolven.livejournal.com]

So truth, then, is a product of intersubjective relationships between everything?

Re: Truth is

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Not unless you subscribe to the belief that existence doesn't happen outside of observation.
If I'm summing up what I said, then Recognition Of truth is a product of intersubjective relationships between everything.

If you don't think observation is necessary to make reality real, I'm maintaining that truth itself is just there, not a product of anything at all. If observation is a necessary forerunner of reality, then by that function truth would also have to be a result of said observation.
This, though, starts to lean toward the black-hole-debate of generation, that endless pit of "What was there before the first thing to produce said first thing?"

Re: Truth is

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Right.

How can we know that or if there's an objective truth, if the only way we have to process that it?

Mhr?

[karishi.livejournal.com]

That...isn't quite a sentence.

You're shifting focus, here. Assuming that sentence ends with "is subjective views" or something analogous, I'd say that there's some level of futility to the task but that it is technically possible.
Mr. Electron has no method of attaining surety regarding his world, but to say hi to others. So he does. Now, if he pays attention and takes in the data and makes several judgment calls correctly and considers the pieces carefully, he can know where he is, what kind of atom on what surface in what section of the world.
Can other electrons lie, give false witness? Sure. Will that throw off his calculations? If he falls for it, absolutely. So don't fall for it. Pay attention to the way in which your peers lie, and you learn a whole lot.

An alternate logical tack:
Considering the alternative, I'm left with the "We're Screwed" rule of "Are You a Werewolf?": If acceptance of a possibility leaves you with no way to proceed, you should always disbelieve the possibility (you shouldn't disbelieve that it can happen later, mind, just that it has happened). If you accept that there is no such thing as objective truth, tell me: What will you do with that information? What opportunities does it offer, that you would conceive of it?

Re: Mhr?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

"if the only way we have to process that it" Should read "if the only way we have to process it is that [which is necessarily subjective]?"

What I mean by intersubjectivity is that the electron, bumping into other electrons, proton, neutrons, and random other wave/particles knows only what it knows; can through off only measurements given from its Own Perspective. What it knows, through that, can only be filtered through a mechanism of internal reference. The same is true for that thing into whihc it bumped.

We have a series of impressions about "the world," all of which are slightly different, all of which, either initially, or at the final counting (or the entire way, really), take their interpretation, understanding and meaning from the thing experiencing them. It does not have to be a conscious process on My part. We've already said the electrons can do it, can know it. We'll leave off attuning yourself to what your electrons can know, for now.

This thing on which we agree? "The World?" It's not exactly "objectively real." There are many variables in the ways we process and understand the information within it. Some people don't have a concept of time, and do quite well, without it, while for others it's indispensible. Woven into the fabric of the universe and how it works.

Lies or no, agreement with the rest of the system as we see it, or no, the system itself is suspect.

Lemme back up to the start, here

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Because largely, this is boring me; I've heard all of this before. From you, even.

You asked what would produce truth. I pointed out that you were making an assumption in asking that question. When asked to sum up, I restated and it sounded like a belief I held personally. From there, I started to debate because debate can be fun. But this wasn't where I was going with this. Totally objective reality isn't a belief I hold, personally.
I'm well aware that proving that all truth must be objective would require a philosopher holding that viewpoint who was, himself, nothing. I wasn't putting forth a belief system to test your razor. Rather, the intent was to remind you to consider another possibility; to keep from limiting your view with your own phraseology.


Backing up farther, I don't agree with your initial statement, that you can prove to me in debate that my beliefs, according to my beliefs, are baseless. You can prove that something is lost in the translation of my beliefs to words and concepts for your perusal. You can prove that my understanding of the world is not proper a priori truth for all people.
But based on what you've said so far, neither of those facts means shit. My system, my reasons for what I do, they work for me. They are grounded in me. Can I prove that I exist, to you? Hellz no. I can't even prove that the you existing a second ago existed, to you, if Descartes is to be trusted (which he isn't).

A point Descartes never really got around to: Because nothing other than "My thinking at this moment proves my existence to me at this moment" is utterly certain, there's no purpose to demanding proofs of people.
I have a truth, over here, in me. I can throw it to you and you can choose to be ugly and slice it up with words for amusement or you can try to catch it. Your ability to slice it up says nothing of its truth or untruth. Even your ability or inability to catch it says nothing.
But I can prove it's a truth to me, have been able to do so without French aid for a long time now, and that's all that matters, as far as I'm concerned.

Whoop-*pratfall*

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Didn't intend to be as nasty about that as it looks on my reading of it now. I mean, yes, there was acid in your post, and self-stated cruelty to it. But you also took the time to recommend people ignore or dismiss you; I didn't need to throw cruelty.

Like memes, I have this thing against the propagation of cruelties ~_^

Re: Whoop-*pratfall*

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, it's perfectly fair. It was a mean thing I did, and even continued to do.

But you are perfectly right. We can know and internalise our own systems, moment to moment, based on the unanalysable fact that we exist, and our persistence of memory, each new moment, can either be discarded as false, or used to continue to create a consensus reality.

The data comes from and goes into us, information goes into and comes from us. It's all chunks of nothing, but they're Important chunks.

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Experience, sometimes
Perception, sometimes
Empathy, often

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

And, uh, just to note that you've done a thing here:

Me: "Debate is worthless for truth."
You: "What is useful for truth?"

I don't need to tell you what is worthwhile to believe that debate is worthless. It's not a binary.

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Try Me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, but if you tell me that a thing does not work, I really won't care unless you have a better suggestion. Something to at least get started at changing the situation.

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Fair.

Re: Try Me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

All filtered through the individual perception, which makes them suspect.

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

What isn't filtered through individual perception?

I find arguments that individual perception is suspect sort of pointless. Yes, it's suspect. But that doesn't matter because it's, ultimately, all we've got.

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Try Me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My point, exactly.

It is all we have, and we have to recognise, in that, that it my give birth to other systems than our own. Scientific systems, logical systems, all rest on provability, testability, fallibility, repeatability, consistency, but the perception through which we arrive at these benchmarks is, itself, a suspect system. So, even the criterion "what works, evolutionarily," is really only a best guess; it's something to tell ourselves, to keep going.

Which, from the system we have, we need, or we'd most likely get depressed and forget to do things, like eat food.

It's not pointless to recognise your weaknesses, because, at least then when someone else points them out, you can say "Yes, that is true, but via this system, we can recognise these failings, and account for them, internally, if not (necessarily) externally."

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

I think that, say, science is actually based pretty strongly on trying to get rid of observer bias. Not that this prevents it from totally eclipsing truth, from time to time, but comparing notes with others is a very useful thing and over time a shocking amount of consensus seems to emerge.

Of course, the very process of comparing notes is fraught, and this is when we start getting into issues of faith.

In short: Outside of the academy, I think no one seriously tries to use only rational deduction or only debate to resolve their personal issues. I don't think the problem is nearly as bad as you think it is.

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Try Me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My only issue is that not matter What we do, or how we frame it, it is filtered through us. And though we may use other means to arrive at our understanding of the world, all of those means are subject to the same problems.

But they're certainly useful, once we've decided on a schema.

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Oh, hey, check it out, I just figured out what's going on here.

I think that the problems with debate as a means for truth are far above and beyond the problems of the uncertainty of individual perception.

Meaning: even if it was possible to understand the world objectively (and, oh man, do I ever hope that's never possible), debate would still suck as a means of getting to the truth.

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Try Me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True indeed.

But even observation and Dialogue have their very real problems.

Re: Try Me

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

CUTE SNAKIE.

Re: Try Me

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[n3m3sis42.livejournal.com]

I think that sometimes we gain knowledge through reasoning, and sometimes we act based on instinct or evolutionary imperatives. The real problem is that it's sometimes harder than we realize to be sure of which one we're doing at any given time.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Very true, but whatever we do, whyever we think we do it, wee cannot examine the very apparatus we use, to do those things. No tool can be used on itself, and still retain its original use, unless that use is to examine itself. And then, wow... How limited is that?

We have to invent new tools, but we can never examine the thing we use to invent them...

Descartes said we know, individually, that we exist; that there is an I. This, he says, is the Only thing we can know. There must be an I there to experience, no matter what that I is. But how do we know that?

Round and round and round it goes.

-scratches head-

[sadistic-apollo.livejournal.com]

are my beliefs groundless?

if so then i'm leavin and i'm takin my toys (the everything) with me!!

Re: -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Awwww, is 'oo gonna cwy? :P

Create your own ground. It's all you can ever do, if anything at all.

Re: -scratches head-

[sadistic-apollo.livejournal.com]

LoL ok =)

but.. erm .. I dunno how to tell ya this, I still believe what I was believin a few minutes ago. Though I dunno if I'm gonna let ya play with my new G.I. joes!

Re: -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Didn't tell you not to believe it. Just... recognise what you do, when you do it.

Re: -scratches head-

[sadistic-apollo.livejournal.com]

I go forward in a direction more or less of my choice?

Re: -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

With nothing to justify it, but the fact that you could do it.

Re: -scratches head-

[sadistic-apollo.livejournal.com]

no no, there is a goal at the end.

I just kinda had to accept that fer the moment I won't be re-writing the past so I'm stuck with the present but it's ok, cause I've got a good aim on the future.

you sound like you've had more than a rough couple of days, want me to be obtuse and dense some other time?

Re: -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Even that goal is only available to you, through means and methods which are inherntly suspect. They are also the only thing you can have.

And it's just... Weird. I've a lot to get written, in not a lot of time, and people don't seem to be commmunicating, well.

It's okay, I just need to vent, and make people's heads hurt, for a while.

Re: -scratches head-

[sadistic-apollo.livejournal.com]

"even that goal is only available to you"

actually, not at all. (accepting that there are other (if unprovable) people out there) the goal is shared by people that can either read signs or are tapped by a greater power (call it collective unconscious, God, a sky fairy or the FSM) and are internally motivated to either help or hinder general progress towards it.

at least by my beliefs =)

which pretty much end roughly with my sphere of influence

good thing I'm so darn likable.

Re: -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's only the unprovability of the perceptions, and the inherently flawed nature anything we gain, thereby, that I'm talking about, here.

I accept that there are others, but I also accept that my knowledge of them is based on siomehitng of which I can have no knowledge.

Re: -scratches head-

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Why not rewrite the past?

Assuming that either an objective reality does not exist or our limited perception makes it impossible to thoroughly apply any knowledge of the existence of the supposed objective reality, what benefit is there to holding a past that doesn't suit you?

For wolven also, since I remember him objecting to a previous therapeutic method that changed the value of past events.

Re: -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Because the given value of the past is all that accounts for the given value of the present, and, having chosen a path, the act of re-stating the walking of it, rather than Actually going back to walk it (and even that, to a degree) seems inauthentic.

If you change how you feel about the past, and how you view those events, yes; but changing the statement of what actually happened? I count that as doubleplus ungood. It allows for a scenario in which everyone's present may be manipulated, without their consent, because they simply accept that what is told is what is true.

Which is why I like to try these things, and pick everything apart... I learn something about why I do things the way I do them, and, hopefully, everyone else learns something about themselves, as well. Hopefully, though I would not presume to state that my actions are Bound to cause certain reactions.

Re(2): -scratches head-

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Have you ever had dreams in which you decided you didn't like an outcome, and as such decided to change the actions? If so, did you do so with the awareness that it was a dream?

If reality is as subjective as described, noone else's present will be manipulated because they still see things as they are.

Re: Re(2): -scratches head-

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Intersubjectivity makes necessary the changing of all views (if only slightly), by changing mine. Which is why I try to warn people.

As to your dream question, I have, once or twice, stopped and rewound things, but only as a matter of life and death. The split reality that comes from that always makes my head hurt.