On 01 Mar 2014, at 15:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:00:54 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope.
How do we know "consistency" though? Isn't the ability to detect and
interpret consistency (through sense and sense-making) more
primitive than the quality of truth or consistency?
The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People
have no direct knowledge of the universe.
If people have no direct sense of the universe, then neither does
anything else, and the expectation of some noumenal universe which
nothing can ever have knowledge of it itself purely hypothetical. We
have direct knowledge of our experience, and our experience of the
universe is the only universe that we can ever refer to empirically.
I do not know that the universe is consistent, since I am part of
the universe I know that consistency is a chore. If I want to make
sense and find truth, I have to participate in a process of
intuitive comparisons and empirical methods.
They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe.
We have the ability to mentally simulate, but we also have the
ability to directly contact and control external physical realities.
If we did not, then it would not matter how bad our simulations were.
To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live
and function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum
scope IS TRUTH.
I agree, but would qualify it: Maximum appreciation of the
significance of maximum consistency across the maximum scope is
truth. Without appreciation of significance, consistency is merely a
repeating coincidence with no expectation of consequence.
In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If
some aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest
then there is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the
inconsistency and you come nearer to truth.
Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.
Except that consistency can be projected by the mind itself. When
all inconsistency vanishes, complete delusion can be achieved as well.
OK.(and again this fits very well with computationalism).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
