Is evolution hanging on ?

[Swa]

In mythology gods and fairies are two completely separate ideas. If u want someone to take u seriously don't you think you should get at least the basics right.

That assumes he wants to be taken seriously. He's just trolling.

 

[Sodan]

I do not dispute that a subjective truth can coincide perfectly with an absolute truth. Just that this does not mean the absolute truth itself has been "achieved" in any way.

In order to have the absolute truth, you have to know you have it, which means you have to be able to prove it to yourself. If you can't prove it to yourself, then you'll never know it's absolute, so you'll never be able to claim realising the absolute truth as an achievement.

I see what you mean, but I don't think it follows logically.

Why is achieving something contingent upon the achiever proving that s/he has achieved the thing? Say a school learner achieves 100% for an exam (absolute truth), and the learner believes s/he achieved 100% (subjective truth) because, perhaps learner is super-intelligent, or the test was super easy, straight out of the workbook, or whatever.
However, learner cannot prove that they did achieve 100% because the report card only shows a "7", and learner does not have access to the marked paper. Does this mean that learner did NOT achieve absolute truth in believing learner achieved 100%?

 

[Xarog]

I see what you mean, but I don't think it follows logically.

Why is achieving something contingent upon the achiever proving that s/he has achieved the thing?

How do you know something is true if you can't say why it is true?

Say a school learner achieves 100% for an exam (absolute truth), and the learner believes s/he achieved 100% (subjective truth) because, perhaps learner is super-intelligent, or the test was super easy, straight out of the workbook, or whatever.
However, learner cannot prove that they did achieve 100% because the report card only shows a "7", and learner does not have access to the marked paper. Does this mean that learner did NOT achieve absolute truth in believing learner achieved 100%?

Well, the student could be hallucinating the whole thing. How do they know they aren't? They can only have faith in their perceptions, at the end of the day. Seems to me truths mixed in with faith isn't a reasonable path to the absolute truth.

 

[Sodan]

How do you know something is true if you can't say why it is true?

That exactly is my point: why do you have to be able to say why your perception of truth coincides with an absolute truth in order for your perception of truth to coincide with that absolute truth? It could coincide, without you even knowing that it does, or caring that it does!

Well, the student could be hallucinating the whole thing. How do they know they aren't? They can only have faith in their perceptions, at the end of the day. Seems to me truths mixed in with faith isn't a reasonable path to the absolute truth.

Of course the learner could be hallucinating, or a whole myriad of other reasons why the learner's perception of truth is not coinciding with absolute truth. However, that's not how I defined the scenario. I said, the learner did in fact achieve 100%, and also believed (for whatever reasons) that s/he achieved 100%.
Does the fact that the learner, at a particular point in time, is not in a position to prove that s/he achieved 100% mean that said learner, at that point in time, did not (absolute truth) achieve 100%?

I still don't get why you think it's necessary that a subjective truth must be proved to coincide with an absolute truth in order for it (subjective truth) to coincide with it (absolute truth). In order to convince someone, sure, you would probably need proof for that. But for it to merely coincide is not contingent upon any proof. For that it only has to coincide.

 

[Xarog]

That exactly is my point: why do you have to be able to say why your perception of truth coincides with an absolute truth in order for your perception of truth to coincide with that absolute truth? It could coincide, without you even knowing that it does, or caring that it does!

You'd have a subjective truth that happened to co-incide with the absolute truth. You would not have the absolute truth.

Of course the learner could be hallucinating, or a whole myriad of other reasons why the learner's perception of truth is not coinciding with absolute truth. However, that's not how I defined the scenario. I said, the learner did in fact achieve 100%, and also believed (for whatever reasons) that s/he achieved 100%.
Does the fact that the learner, at a particular point in time, is not in a position to prove that s/he achieved 100% mean that said learner, at that point in time, did not (absolute truth) achieve 100%?

The learner has reasons to doubt the truth of their perceptions.

I still don't get why you think it's necessary that a subjective truth must be proved to coincide with an absolute truth in order for it (subjective truth) to coincide with it (absolute truth). In order to convince someone, sure, you would probably need proof for that. But for it to merely coincide is not contingent upon any proof. For that it only has to coincide.

For it to coincide is not to achieve it. To achieve it, one has to make the claim of the achievement. To make that claim one cannot have doubts. So how does any person get rid of the doubts? They don't. Thus, they will always have a subjective truth. In some cases it lines up with the objective or "absolute" truth, but truly we have no way of knowing which is which. We can only have faith.

 

[Sodan]

You'd have a subjective truth that happened to co-incide with the absolute truth. You would not have the absolute truth.


The learner has reasons to doubt the truth of their perceptions.


For it to coincide is not to achieve it. To achieve it, one has to make the claim of the achievement. To make that claim one cannot have doubts. So how does any person get rid of the doubts? They don't. Thus, they will always have a subjective truth. In some cases it lines up with the objective or "absolute" truth, but truly we have no way of knowing which is which. We can only have faith.

Why? Why does one have to make the claim of achievement in order to achieve something? Whether I claim to have had eggs for breakfast or not does not change the absolute truth of whether or not I had eggs for breakfast. I think this is where the logic (for me) appears to be breaking down.

Furthermore, what is sufficient "proof" for one person such that said person no longer has any doubt in a subjective truth may not necessarily be sufficient proof for the next person. And yet their subjective truth could conceivably coincide with absolute truth. Hence, we may indeed have a person holding on to a subjective truth, without any doubt in the subjective truth, and with that subjective truth coinciding with the absolute truth.
And thus, even by your definition of "achieving/achievement", it is possible for a person to "achieve" absolute truth.

 

[Xarog]

Why? Why does one have to make the claim of achievement in order to achieve something? Whether I claim to have had eggs for breakfast or not does not change the absolute truth of whether or not I had eggs for breakfast. I think this is where the logic (for me) appears to be breaking down.

Because to have a truth is to be aware of it. If you cannot demonstrate awareness of the truth, then that person does not have that truth. That person has a different truth, for they are aware of something else.

Furthermore, what is sufficient "proof" for one person such that said person no longer has any doubt in a subjective truth may not necessarily be sufficient proof for the next person. And yet their subjective truth could conceivably coincide with absolute truth. Hence, we may indeed have a person holding on to a subjective truth, without any doubt in the subjective truth, and with that subjective truth coinciding with the absolute truth.
And thus, even by your definition of "achieving/achievement", it is possible for a person to "achieve" absolute truth.

The person holding onto the subjective truth would have doubts about the accuracy of the subjectivity in the first place. Your example does nothing to ameliorate those doubts. Again, they would be laying claim to a different truth.

 

[Splinter]

Because to have a truth is to be aware of it. If you cannot demonstrate awareness of the truth, then that person does not have that truth. That person has a different truth, for they are aware of something else.


The person holding onto the subjective truth would have doubts about the accuracy of the subjectivity in the first place. Your example does nothing to ameliorate those doubts. Again, they would be laying claim to a different truth.

I always have doubts about your truths.

 

[Slootvreter]

Imperfect implies a known reference to work from. We have none. Something is perfect if it accomplishes the goal it was made for. Example, a piece of paper is perfect if it allows you to write on it. We get by more successfully than any other species with what it is we do. That defects crept in after the fact is besides the point.

ROFL

 

[Sodan]

Because to have a truth is to be aware of it. If you cannot demonstrate awareness of the truth, then that person does not have that truth. That person has a different truth, for they are aware of something else.

I disagree with this, and I'm also beginning to suspect we have different definitions for "truth", but right now I'm more interested in discussing the next bit:

The person holding onto the subjective truth would have doubts about the accuracy of the subjectivity in the first place. Your example does nothing to ameliorate those doubts. Again, they would be laying claim to a different truth.

You're making a claim here without substantiating it. Why does someone necessarily have to doubt the accuracy of their subjective truth?
In fact, in a previous post, you said: "We can only have faith". I got no problem with that. And now consider that there are those who, by their faith, have absolutely no doubt in their subjective truth.

 

[Xarog]

You're making a claim here without substantiating it. Why does someone necessarily have to doubt the accuracy of their subjective truth?
In fact, in a previous post, you said: "We can only have faith". I got no problem with that. And now consider that there are those who, by their faith, have absolutely no doubt in their subjective truth.

And their lack of doubt makes them undoubtably correct? That does not strike me as a reasonable conclusion.

The point I am raising here isn't that they must doubt their position, it's that they cannot provide any kind of proof that their perception is ultimately accurate.

 

[Splinter]

The point I am raising here isn't that they must doubt their position, it's that they cannot provide any kind of proof that their perception is ultimately accurate.

And the point you keep on avoiding, is that you cannot provide any proof that your perception is "ultimately accurate" as well.

 

[Sodan]

And their lack of doubt makes them undoubtably correct? That does not strike me as a reasonable conclusion.

The point I am raising here isn't that they must doubt their position, it's that they cannot provide any kind of proof that their perception is ultimately accurate.

At this point I think we need to take a step back. We need to firstly have a common understanding of the axiomatic concepts we're dealing with. To that end, can you please give your definition of the following:

1. subjective truth
2. absolute truth
3. achievement / achieving something

I think these are three concepts we need a to agree on (even if only for the sake of this discussion). Otherwise I doubt our discussion is not going to be productive.

Also, in your definitions, can you try to make them as independent of each other as possible? I fear we might otherwise end up with circular definitionsn., and that's probably not going to promote clarity.

 

[Xarog]

At this point I think we need to take a step back. We need to firstly have a common understanding of the axiomatic concepts we're dealing with. To that end, can you please give your definition of the following:

1. subjective truth

The kind of truth you or I could know. We know what our perspective on reality is, but we can't know for sure if it's the correct perspective on reality.

2. absolute truth

A truth where you know for sure that you have the correct perspective.

3. achievement / achieving something

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/achievement

something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed:

In order to accomplish something, one must be able to show the accomplishment, not so? Otherwise, well, I may just have created heaven on Earth, only no one knows about it.

I think these are three concepts we need a to agree on (even if only for the sake of this discussion). Otherwise I doubt our discussion is not going to be productive.

Also, in your definitions, can you try to make them as independent of each other as possible? I fear we might otherwise end up with circular definitionsn., and that's probably not going to promote clarity.

Do you find these definitions satisfactory? I didn't think any part of what I said thus far was circular...

 

[Bobbin]

And the point you keep on avoiding, is that you cannot provide any proof that your perception is "ultimately accurate" as well.

My interpretation: Simply don't bother reaching absolute truth as that act alone risks tethering you to falsehood. Counter-intuitively, totally relinquishing absolute truth is perhaps the only way one might in fact get closer to it if that is one's true intent.

 

[Xarog]

My interpretation: Simply don't bother reaching absolute truth as that act alone risks tethering you to falsehood. Counter-intuitively, totally relinquishing absolute truth is perhaps the only way one might in fact get closer to it if that is one's true intent.

Socrates would be proud.

 

[Sodan]

The kind of truth you or I could know. We know what our perspective on reality is, but we can't know for sure if it's the correct perspective on reality.


A truth where you know for sure that you have the correct perspective.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/achievement

something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed:

In order to accomplish something, one must be able to show the accomplishment, not so? Otherwise, well, I may just have created heaven on Earth, only no one knows about it.


Do you find these definitions satisfactory? I didn't think any part of what I said thus far was circular...

Let's focus on the definition of achievement:

"something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed:"

It does not say "something accomplished … that the accomplisher is able to show". However, outside of the quoted dictionary definition, you have stipulated "one must be able to show the accomplishment". This requirement is not part of the dictionary's definition, and, in fact, materially changes the dictionary's definition of "achievement".
Actually, your definition of "achievement" appears to be a subset of (your quoted) dictionary definition of "achievement".

If have a missed/misunderstood something, then please show me where in the dictionary's definition of "achievement" is it a requirement that "one must be able to show the accomplishment".

 

[Swa]

It's no use arguing with him over definitions.

 

[Xarog]

Let's focus on the definition of achievement:

"something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed:"

It does not say "something accomplished … that the accomplisher is able to show". However, outside of the quoted dictionary definition, you have stipulated "one must be able to show the accomplishment". This requirement is not part of the dictionary's definition, and, in fact, materially changes the dictionary's definition of "achievement".
Actually, your definition of "achievement" appears to be a subset of (your quoted) dictionary definition of "achievement".

If have a missed/misunderstood something, then please show me where in the dictionary's definition of "achievement" is it a requirement that "one must be able to show the accomplishment".

All truths require a measure of proof for their validity, do they not? If there is no proof requirement, then clearly anything goes. It is this aspect of having a truth that makes a demonstration a necessity. If you have a truth without its proof, well, that's just a faith-based belief, isn't it?

 

[Sodan]

All truths require a measure of proof for their validity, do they not? If there is no proof requirement, then clearly anything goes. It is this aspect of having a truth that makes a demonstration a necessity. If you have a truth without its proof, well, that's just a faith-based belief, isn't it?

We're not (yet) talking about truth: we're talking about achievement, and the definition thereof.

Where, in the definition of "achievement", is "proof" a requirement? It does not appear to be part of the dictionary definition that you quoted.

Note that if you're going to require proof for anything to be or to have been done/achieved, and you simultaneously reject all forms of proof, then you're well on your way to nihilism (in which case any discussion on the matter is meaningless )