Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still admire that he has taken the time to think about and develop a belief system or set of principles. Few do that.
I don't believe it's a matter of semantics as much as the simple problem of interpreting what I am explaining in different ways, with different words, than I am using. (Again for reasons that continue to baffle me). I'm not sure it's even a "belief system." Thanks for the kudos, but all I've done is put together a sort of platform of thoughts, one built on the other, from which anyone can consider their merit based on the very simple basics I'm explaining. From which to develop and/or confirm one's own belief system if you like.
In line with the facts, reason and logic as I lay them out or not. If not, why not?
This is to say, universal truth exists whether everyone recognizes what it is or no one recognizes what it is. Consensus is simply one fact to consider among many when trying to recognize universal truth for what it is. What is the truth and what is not.
Make sense?
Someone once said, "Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned."
Someone once said, "Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned."
Why did you not copy/paste the entire truth?
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
I can see how my words promote the value of finding consensus or recognizing the value of consensus in this respect as part of evaluating what is universal truth for all concerned. I can also see the room for confusion here, and I thank you for that! The sort of thing I've been asking for! Well done.
I would reword a truth or two if I could, to better clarify what I mean by universal truth and/or how consensus may or may not help us to recognize what it is. Fair?
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
I can see how my words promote the value of finding consensus or recognizing the value of consensus in this respect as part of evaluating what is universal truth for all concerned. I can also see the room for confusion here, and I thank you for that! The sort of thing I've been asking for! Well done.
I would reword a truth or two if I could, to better clarify what I mean by universal truth and/or how consensus may or may not help us to recognize what it is. Fair?
Fair enough.
I guess my bottom line is that when we talk about "universal truths", I always tend to think about how universal are they? Are we merely talking about factual "stuff"? Take gravity. Not much question about that. Ask the average American to explain gravity. They can't. Now ask a Thai living in some off the map village in Issan, Thailand about gravity. Probably all you'll get is glazed over eyes. When I would travel with Thai friends -- who were all at least high school grads, and mostly beyond), I found that none of them could read a bilingual map of their own country. Apparently maps are not taught in Thailand.
As I have said before, I admire your effort, and think there's a lot of great stuff in your Ten Truths.
When I was trying to get a promotion to administrator, one of the things that helped was that I prepared a separate "Statement Of My Educational Philosophy" as part of the application process. Several interviewers mentioned that none of their other candidates ever seemed to have sat down and thought that out. So I applaud that you have taken the time to think through this. Few people participate in such intellectual endeavors.
I guess my bottom line is that when we talk about "universal truths", I always tend to think about how universal are they? Are we merely talking about factual "stuff"? Take gravity. Not much question about that. Ask the average American to explain gravity. They can't. Now ask a Thai living in some off the map village in Issan, Thailand about gravity. Probably all you'll get is glazed over eyes. When I would travel with Thai friends -- who were all at least high school grads, and mostly beyond), I found that none of them could read a bilingual map of their own country. Apparently maps are not taught in Thailand.
As I have said before, I admire your effort, and think there's a lot of great stuff in your Ten Truths.
When I was trying to get a promotion to administrator, one of the things that helped was that I prepared a separate "Statement Of My Educational Philosophy" as part of the application process. Several interviewers mentioned that none of their other candidates ever seemed to have sat down and thought that out. So I applaud that you have taken the time to think through this. Few people participate in such intellectual endeavors.
Thanks. I appreciate your approach to these sorts of discussion as well, whether we agree or not. Too bad we can't all exchange points of view in much the same way (without all the BS)...
There may still be some room for clarification given how I read your comment or further question about universal truths.
First, it's important to simply recognize and/or agree universal truth exists. If that's not possible, then we're not understanding what a universal truth really is. A problem this thread has demonstrated by way of many a comment over time.
To keep it simple, I would say yes; we're merely talking about what is factual, true. Whether one person, some people or all people, in Thailand, America or the North Pole, can EXPLAIN what is universally true for all of us is immaterial. Not relevant. Universal truth remains what it is regardless.
The same for all of us regardless who recognizes it, who understands it or who even bothers to think about it.
Funny thing about my "effort" and again thanks for the compliments, but I am forever amazed that any effort is necessary to get others to simply agree about some of these basics. I know I've not written them perfectly, but more often than not it seems that tenth truth is in play more than anyone care admit. More than should be in any case...
Since the OP mentioned this thread to me I thought I will take a look. I haven't read all 52 pages, just the first and last one.
Overall I think your points are pretty valid ones.
Your first point, which I agree with, reminded me of a question I have often thought about - how do we discover the true nature of reality? Let me write an explicit answer to that question from my point of view. I am going to asininely adhere to explicit detail and avoid assumptions as much as possible.
I start with the fact that everything I experience comes from my perceptions. Sure I could measure the height of a chair with a ruler, but then I need to read off the ruler and process it in my brain before I can make a claim about the height of a chair. So any claim I make about the true external reality must necessarily pass through my own perceptions.
We perceive things that are external to ourselves - for example the height of a chair. Now there are two possibilities here:
a) That external reality objectively exists, and our perceptions are an interpretation (often imperfect) of that objective external reality.
b) That external reality does not objectively exist, and our perceptions create our own reality.
Lets explore the first option - external reality objectively exists, but we view it through our perception. In this case how do we know that our perception is an accurate reflection of that external reality? How do we know we are not delusional? Here are some of my suggestions:
-Repeatable observations. If I measure the chair in the morning, and then again in the evening and get the same measurement, that gives
-Repeatable observations from others. If I can measure the height of the chair as 100cm, and someone else independently also measures it and confirm it is 100cm, then that increases the likelihood that my measurement was accurate.
-The scientific method
-Any other suggestion?
Now lets explore the second option - that external reality does not objectively exist, and our perceptions create it. In this case we cannot make any claims of the world around us, we can only make claims about what we perceive. We can't say "the chair is 100cm tall," we can only say "the chair seems 100cm tall to me." Going further, we can't even tell whether anyone else is even conscious. I inhibit my consciousness, but I do not inhibit other people's consciousness. How do I know they are even conscious like me? Maybe I imagine them, and I am the only consciousness in the universe? Maybe they are all fake beings that outwardly exhibit consciousness, but are not internally conscious. After all I am the only consciousness that I directly experience.
I take the first option. This requires an assumption on my part - that there exists a reality outside my perceptions, and I am not merely imagining it. I have no problem with those who take the second option as long as all their beliefs are consistent with the second option - i.e they don't make claims about the true objective nature of reality outside their mind.
I do have a problem with the people who take the second option, but then make objective claims as if they took the first option. That to me is intellectually dishonest.
Last edited by Peter600; 07-22-2021 at 04:44 PM..
Reason: Removed my use of the word "senses" to avoid confusion
Since the OP mentioned this thread to me I thought I will take a look. I haven't read all 52 pages, just the first and last one.
Overall I think your points make a lot of sense.
Your first point, which I agree with, reminded me of a question I have often thought about - how do we discover the true nature of reality? Let me write an explicit answer to that question from my point of view. I am going to asininely adhere to explicit detail and avoid assumptions as much as possible.
I start with the fact that everything I experience comes from my senses. Sure I could measure the height of a chair with a ruler, but then I need to read off the ruler and process it in my brain before I can make a claim about the height of a chair. So any claim I make about the true external reality must nessasaraly pass through my own perceptions.
We perceive things that are external to ourselves - for example the height of a chair. Now there are two possibilities here:
a) That external reality objectively exists, and our perceptions are an interpretation (often imperfect) of that objective external reality.
b) That external reality does not objectively exist, and our perceptions create our own reality.
Lets explore the first option - external reality objectively exists, but we view it through our perception. In this case how do we know that our perception is an accurate reflection of that external reality? How do we know we are not delusional? Here are some of my suggestions:
-Repeatable observations. If I measure the chair in the morning, and then again in the evening and get the same measurement, that gives
-Repeatable observations from others. If I can measure the height of the chair as 100cm, and someone else independently also measures it and confirm it is 100cm, then that increases the likelihood that my measurement was accurate.
-The scientific method
-Any other suggestion?
Now lets explore the second option - that external reality does not objectively exist, and our perceptions create it. In this case we cannot make any claims of the world around us, we can only make claims about what we perceive. We can't say "the chair is 100cm tall," we can only say "the chair seems 100cm tall to me." Going further, we can't tell whether anyone else is even conscious. I inhibit my consciousness, but I do not inhibit other people's consciousness. How do I know they are even conscious like me? Maybe I imagine them, and I am the only consciousness in the universe? Maybe they are all fake beings that outwardly exhibit consciousness, but are not internally conscious. After all I am the only consciousness that I directly experience.
I take the first option. This requires an assumption on my part - that there exists a reality outside my perceptions, and I am not merely imagining it. I have no problem with those who take the second option as long as all their beliefs are consistent with the second option - i.e they don't make claims about the true objective nature of reality outside their mind.
I do have a problem with the people who take the second option, but then make objective claims as if they took the first option. That to me is intellectually dishonest.
Your preferred view limits our Reality to those things our senses and their measurement extensions can access (which is currently about <5% of Reality). This leaves whatever exists within the remaining 95+% outside the scope of the Reality you consider (which just happens to include the very phenomenon you are using to do the consideration - consciousness). I find that limitation too restrictive.
Your preferred view limits our Reality to those things our senses and their measurement extensions can access (which is currently about <5% of Reality). This leaves whatever exists within the remaining 95+% outside the scope of the Reality you consider (which just happens to include the very phenomenon you are using to do the consideration - consciousness). I find that limitation too restrictive.
First of all where do you get 5% from? As opposed to 10% or 15% or 20%, etc?
Secondly let me clarify, by senses I mean perception in every way. Not nessasaraly that which we can materially measure. I used the word senses once in my post, and perceptions 7 times. I have now replaced that 1 use of senses with perceptions as well.
So what I wrote is still valid for that which we can perceive (in any way - materially, non-materially, however).
First of all where do you get 5% from? As opposed to 10% or 15% or 20%, etc?
When it comes to what we can directly measure, it comprises less than 5% of the observable universe. The remaining 95+% is not directly measurable though we can indirectly measure its effects. We currently label it dark energy and dark matter because we do not know what it is.
Quote:
Secondly let me clarify, by senses I mean perception in every way. Not necessarily that which we can materially measure. I used the word senses once in my post, and perceptions 7 times. I have now replaced that 1 use of senses with perceptions as well.
So what I wrote is still valid for that which we can perceive (in any way - materially, non-materially, however).
Okay. I thought you were limiting Reality to what our science can validate.
When it comes to what we can directly measure, it comprises less than 5% of the observable universe. The remaining 95+% is not directly measurable though we can indirectly measure its effects. We currently label it dark energy and dark matter because we do not know what it is. Okay. I thought you were limiting Reality to what our science can validate.
Ok fair enough.
About the 5%, if I understand correctly, you are using the fact that less than 5% of the indirectly calculated mass of the universe is visible matter (baryonic matter). Fine, that is a hypothesis that may be testable in the future, though it isn't with today's technology. If one day we are able to directly measure what dark matter and dark energy are composed of, then we will be able to tell whether that hypothesis is correct or wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
