Conception and reality

Post Reply New Topic

There is a vague possibility that you could transform your brain into pea soup. There are indications in that direction.

Is that how you retaliate when your brain starts to become like - how you say? - pea soup?
That's okay. I sometimes get like this as well!

Don't take me too seriously and read up on your Einstein. Have a merry Watchamacallit.

That's actually a real question with real problems, where people really do take one side or the other. In fact, the survival side is actually more popular among philosophers.

Accept or lean toward: survival 337 / 931 (36.1%)
Other 304 / 931 (32.6%)
Accept or lean toward: death 290 / 931 (31.1%)

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl



Nations are social constructs, and in some ways not completely good either. I mean, think about Somalia. Is it a nation? Well, it still has the national lines on the map, but really there is no ruling government. Think about other African nations, the warlords might use the lines, but the people might not even care, as the lines are arbitrary nothings to them. Think about Iraq, 3 groups that hate each other in one "nation", what national unity is shared? I mean, nations such as the US and other 1st world nations might be better about these problems, but mostly because of the efforts to instill nationalist ideas and to keep the borders solid representations of something. Really though, the lines used to be a lot squishier, and partially because it was an old habit of royalty to claim ownership of any land, no matter how tenuous the connection was to them, and because kings of the time were really weak in how much power they had. Being a social construct though, denies nations a good amount of objective foundations and a lot of them really do or have lacked real foundations.

In any case, I would have to argue that there is a better arguments for nations existing than selves. Simply because while a nation tends to have people who are nationalist, the brain is completely comprised of neurons that neither know nor care who they belong to. The self is a construct, and not one that can really be too meaningfully talked about I think.

If nothing else, the statement that the self is a delusion raises the question as to what is being deluded.

Sand said that this doesn't ring true to him. Truth is relative and facts are subject to change. How would truth be understood without a person sensing that emotion of realness or rightness?

Truth is a mental construct, but it is formed by an opinion of some sort of observation of facts. Opinions are emotional if you dissect it to the smallest thread. At least that is how I see it. I can't imagine having a sense of truth without it be accompanied with that abstract feeling of a click inside my gut, or eureka moment.

Truth from Merriam-Webster:

1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : true 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized Christian Science : god

Definitions 2 and 3 encapsulate the correspondence theory of truth, the theory that Aristotle favored. There are other theories of truth, such as the Coherence Theory taught by Quine and others. In any case True is a predicate that attaches to a declarative judgment that asserts something about the world. Facts are simply what is/are. Even if there were no sentient beings in the cosmos to make statements there would be facts. Wittgenstein defined reality as all the facts there are.

ruveyn

If the facts are wrong then the assumption of truth is false. That has happened many times in science as well as religion. What makes one person arrive at a truth is clouded by their emotions. Why do you think so many people disagree on issues? I'm sure most people are sincere in their quest for truth. There are emotional ties to what we want to believe, and where we look for facts. Why do you think Sand said, "This doesn't ring true to me."? He was using some gut instinct/emotional gauge, after he first used his reason and collection of knowledge in which he is familiar.

That's cool - I won't take you too seriously because you haven't given me any reasons to take seriously yet! lol (You can take me seriously but only on the condition that you're in a light-hearted mood!) I don't feel like reading Einstein but if you provide something of his that's relevant here it might inspire me to. And what's a Watchamacallit?!

A brain is being deluded, but a self isn't, because a self is an artificial concept.

Well, here's what I am going to say:

1) Magnus, you are right in that our perception of truth is based upon an emotion. Thus the perception of truth is an emotion.

2) Sand and ruveyn aren't wrong, as they are working from a definition. Definitions are hard to say to be false.

I don't think that the conflict really runs as deep as anybody thinks it is, unless Magnus, you are actually arguing a different notion of truth than just the perceived truth. Like, the basis of reality is our current emotion. Now, a major thing I would like to avoid here is the overstatement of metaphysical differences, it is sometimes better to look for common ground.

Quote from Magnus: 'Sand said that this doesn't ring true to him. Truth is relative and facts are subject to change. How would truth be understood without a person sensing that emotion of realness or rightness?

Truth is a mental construct, but it is formed by an opinion of some sort of observation of facts. Opinions are emotional if you dissect it to the smallest thread. At least that is how I see it. I can't imagine having a sense of truth without it be accompanied with that abstract feeling of a click inside my gut, or eureka moment.' End Quote.

I can't help finding a few faults with this statement.
1) If something can only be true when an emotion or a feeling in the gut is present how can something factual exist that doesn't permit this type of response? For instance - take the roof of your house? Is it true that it's there? But I'm sure that the fact it exists doesn't cause an emotional response.

2) If you observe a small animal crossing a road and a car comes along travelling at fast speed - and according to your judgement it appears the animal has been hit by the car. An emotional reaction stirs in your gut. But then after the car has gone and you cross the road you find that the animal actually managed to make it to the other side unscathed. Just because you felt that certainty in your gut doesn't necessarily mean that it was a truth.

3) Yes I agree that different people have different philosophies or ideas that resonate with them - which is due to our conditioning. And I think that it's only appropriate that we each follow the particular principles that make the most sense to us. However, when it comes to the reality of how things actually exist I don't believe there can be more than one way. If one person has a gut-reaction that makes them feel the creation theory is the cause of our existence, and another person feels certain about the evolution theory - it can't possibly mean that one person was created while the other managed to evolve from some minuscule sea creature.

That is the point I was trying to make.

As for the roof of the house being there, we can call that a fact. I was suggesting that a truth is something that we string together from collecting facts. Emotions cause people to select which facts they want to see.

As for the animal that got hit... If you think something is true then you get an emotional response from it. Whether or not it is ultimately true, it doesn't matter.

The deluded self is being deluded. It may only exist as a concept, but this doesn't take away the fact that it's still a functional thing. And in this circumstance that function is the 'act of being deluded'. Woo-hoo!

hmmm - Perhaps we could all arrive at the same truth if emotions weren't involved then?
Because when it comes down to fundamentals - can there really be more than one basic truth (for existence)?

Yes, of course...

But, still we need emotions I think. There are lower emotions beneath reason and higher emotions above reason.