There exists an objective reality. A true statement correctly describes that objective reality. A false statement incorrectly describes that objective reality.
It is really is quite simple (though people manage to get very confused about that anyway, somehow).
Yes, there is “circularity” to it, in that the mind uses itself to validate itself.
But it’s not just validating the definition of truth against itself (if it did, “truth” would just be a floating concept not connected to anything. So it could mean anything and still validate).
It is validating my definition of truth against all my sensory input, against all my knowledge, against all my memories. Does this definition of truth add up to a coherent reality?
How do you know that this objective reality exists? What about the world is explained by the existence of objective reality that can’t also be explained as an illusion of your own mind?
That you think this comic captures this discussion means I’ve missed the mark with you, because you’ve failed to grasp the intended meaning. I suspect, like many other commenters here, you’ve interpreted my words to say more than they do.
Then I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps it would be easier if you explain your beliefs instead of trying to get me to question mine?
It seems like you are trying to break people out of an over-reliance on concepts and trying to point them at the fundamental thing behind the concepts?
My beliefs validate; I don’t see it being worth my time to explain the validation process in full detail.
Indeed, this post is more focused on breaking people out of one set of concepts rather than fully explaining another because it’s a long process to explain the thing I’m pointing at and this post was a way for me to play with writing about a couple ideas I had for a larger writing project.
If it’s not worth you’re time, that’s well worth knowing!
It is not worth my time because I already understand the thing you are trying to communicate. Or so I believe.
If you are trying to get me to “look up” and “look away from my phone”, but we are communicating over phones, so how do I demonstrate I already know to do this?
If you are trying to get me to see the truth beyond words and concepts, but we are communicating in words, so how do I demonstrate I already don’t see words as the truth?
I also feel that maybe you have gone too far in on that one, and from realizing that words are not, in themselves, the truth, decided to assume that words cannot meaningfully connect to the truth at all. And that the only way to get people to see the truth is to “crash their program”, is to force them to “look up”?
What does it matter if you’ve demonstrated you know something to me? I’m just some guy posting things on Less Wrong.
I never said that words cannot meaningfully connect to truth or any other thing. Words are clearly quite useful for pointing at stuff about the world! I only claimed that this connection is not independent of our motivations.
I would say you if hold the correct understanding of what truth is, then truth seeking is cognition motivated by seeking truth.
So yes, it is motivated cognition. But the motivation is correct.
This seems like circular reasoning that doesn’t ground out to anything. How do you know if you have the correct (“true”) understanding of truth?
There exists an objective reality. A true statement correctly describes that objective reality. A false statement incorrectly describes that objective reality.
It is really is quite simple (though people manage to get very confused about that anyway, somehow).
Yes, there is “circularity” to it, in that the mind uses itself to validate itself.
But it’s not just validating the definition of truth against itself (if it did, “truth” would just be a floating concept not connected to anything. So it could mean anything and still validate).
It is validating my definition of truth against all my sensory input, against all my knowledge, against all my memories. Does this definition of truth add up to a coherent reality?
How do you know that this objective reality exists? What about the world is explained by the existence of objective reality that can’t also be explained as an illusion of your own mind?
This isn’t news to me. Nor do I feel this an interesting topic to discuss.
That you think this comic captures this discussion means I’ve missed the mark with you, because you’ve failed to grasp the intended meaning. I suspect, like many other commenters here, you’ve interpreted my words to say more than they do.
Then I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps it would be easier if you explain your beliefs instead of trying to get me to question mine?
It seems like you are trying to break people out of an over-reliance on concepts and trying to point them at the fundamental thing behind the concepts?
My beliefs validate; I don’t see it being worth my time to explain the validation process in full detail.
Indeed, this post is more focused on breaking people out of one set of concepts rather than fully explaining another because it’s a long process to explain the thing I’m pointing at and this post was a way for me to play with writing about a couple ideas I had for a larger writing project.
If it’s not worth you’re time, that’s well worth knowing!
Thanks, that clarifies your position somewhat.
It is not worth my time because I already understand the thing you are trying to communicate. Or so I believe.
If you are trying to get me to “look up” and “look away from my phone”, but we are communicating over phones, so how do I demonstrate I already know to do this?
If you are trying to get me to see the truth beyond words and concepts, but we are communicating in words, so how do I demonstrate I already don’t see words as the truth?
I also feel that maybe you have gone too far in on that one, and from realizing that words are not, in themselves, the truth, decided to assume that words cannot meaningfully connect to the truth at all. And that the only way to get people to see the truth is to “crash their program”, is to force them to “look up”?
What does it matter if you’ve demonstrated you know something to me? I’m just some guy posting things on Less Wrong.
I never said that words cannot meaningfully connect to truth or any other thing. Words are clearly quite useful for pointing at stuff about the world! I only claimed that this connection is not independent of our motivations.