Before you go... If I may...

Post #29,476 by Another Scott 2/23/02 9:32:44 AM Reply	Before you go... If I may... Hi, I think that Brandioch is trying, in his rather direct way, to get to an important point - a point that you don't seem to see. He's not arguing that reality doesn't exist, nor that all of life is a coin toss. His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. A simple bisection search won't find the answer if the ground rules are that random chance determines whether you answer "high" or "low" (because there are an infinite number of numbers in any finite interval). If we can't agree on the ground rules, the definitions of words, etc., then we can't reach consensus on what the "truth" is or even if it's a meaningful term in a particular discussion. I think "truth" is intrinsically related to human filtering of reality. It's not the same as reality. I think it's arrived at from what people perceive to be logical, or at least reasonable, conclusions. But the thought process isn't boolean - there are shades of gray, as you said. How can you fit a grayscale object into a 0 or 1 box? We all agree, I think, that the scientific method is our best tool for finding out the reality of the physical world. Brandioch isn't disputing that. What he's trying to bring out is that value judgements about the results of experiments color our findings and color what we see as the "truth". This becomes startlingly clear if you consider how people with autism, perfect pitch, and other rather uncommon brains perceive the world. There are reports of people like Tesla who remembered sounds as colors, etc. What we perceive as reality is tremendously filtered by our brains. And that in turn affects what we view as "truth". As does our experiences, our education, etc. This is an interesting topic. I hope you'll return to it and that both you and Brandioch can continue the debate with little of the jabbing which seems, unfortunately, to usually enter these discussions. Cheers, Scott.
Post #29,479 by Brandioch 2/23/02 12:36:03 PM Reply	Don't forget the initial assumptions. His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. That is correct. But don't forget to include your starting assumptions. Such as whether "God" exists and takes an active part. Or whether there is a secret cabal that controls the governments and banks. Or whether there is an objective "Truth" that can be found. Suppose there are 6 Billion people on the planet. You're looking for the "Truth" about people. Person #1 comes up with the "Truth" that has 5,999,999,999 different special cases. Person #2 believes there is no "Truth". Who is correct? Which was one of my reasons for asking Marlowe to provide the "Truth" that he's found. You starting assumptions will determine at what point you claim to have found "The Truth". Well, that would be true EXCEPT where there was a demonstratable, objective "Truth". Note the use of the word "objective". Like gravity is "objective".
Post #29,843 by marlowe 2/26/02 2:54:06 PM Reply	If that's really his point... 1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes 2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before. Anyone can be cute, with pseudophilosphy about subjectivity of truth. I have no respect for mere cuteness. I have respect for what works in real life. But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument. And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point. He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else. He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit. Shame on you for buying the humbug. You really ought to be smarter than that. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
Post #29,865 by Brandioch 2/26/02 3:47:55 PM Reply	Reality just doesn't exist for you, does it? 1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes Okay, yet this does seem to be at odds with your earlier statements about you being closer to "The Truth" because your method "works". Allow me to re-fresh your memory of what Scott said: His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. So, because you've already determined what the ground rules are (ie. what "works" for you) you've already established what "Truth" you'll find. 2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before. That's strange. I would say that it has EVERYTHING to do with what "went before". Because >YOU< were the one making statements about the "Truth". I illustrated how you don't have any idea what the "Truth" is. All you know is what your >OPINION< is. Then you went off about how your opinion is closer to "The Truth" because your opinion "works". In other words, you've established the ground rules for yourself for the search for "The Truth" and those ground rules will result in a certain "Truth" being found (whether that "Truth" is actually "The Truth" or not). Now, how can you say that it has nothing to do with the discussion? I'll say it again, your >OPINION< is nothing more than your >OPINION< and the ONLY reason you think it has any relation to "The Truth" is that it is your >OPINION<. But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument. So, Marlowe starts a discussion about what colour the tooth fairey's house is. I say there isn't a tooth fairey. Marlowe says I'm not bringing any "facts" to the discussion? And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point. I think I have made my point. There is NO tooth fairey. That means there is no tooth fairey's house. So arguing about what colour it is or saying that someone else is thinking of the wrong colour is idiotic. But you'll keep doing it. He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else. My point was that what you say is "The Truth" is nothing more than your >OPINION<. Also that the search for "The Truth" will always be meaningless because you will ALWAYS be constrained by your pre-conceptions and opinions. Just like in my math example. You can get ever closer to "The Truth" and actually think you're accomplishing something when you're just stringing unrelated incidents together. He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit. If I recall correctly, >YOU< were the one that tried to introduce this metaphysical "Truth" shit into the Politics discussions. And you want to lecture me about "intellectual incomptence"? And I will continue to note that you're "Truth" definition is so meaningless as to grant "Truth" to Clinton (whom you obviously hate). Seems the flaws are all your's.

Welcome to IWETHEY!