Question for BaGua Monk

[Lightworker]

You must be smoking some very good shit, vell.

[Lightworker]

So we are star dust. I think that's pretty cool, actually.

Let's go a little further. Our minds are the universe's ultimate achievement (as far as we know). That is achievement is that the universe evolved our minds to contemplate itself.

I think that's very cool.

I want a dime bag of what YOU are now smoking, dude! 

[Lightworker]

To be simple about it, I believe truth is what has what's called an 'empirical referrent'.

Following that rule, one stoutly resists as far as is humanly possible the temptation to bend realities to one's wishes and presuppositions.

[Mornac]

I answered your question.

No, you johnhp'd my question. The question requires nothing more than a yes or a no. You've proffered neither.

[Michael]

I have been told by the most intelligent that truly good leadership involves the ability to put ones own personal desires aside when making decisions involving those in ones charge.

This leadership ability comes from years of practice from a very highly principled individual.  Few have this unique qualification for the best leadership.

The problem with most is that their desires such as personal/familial financial security, public acceptance, obsession with heroics, pier pressure, etc. etc. etc.... are a priority over making decisions regarding what is best for the greater whole. 

Some of you think you are quite clever with your mental strategies to produce the political climate which best suits your personal/social/and even racial advantages. 

But "clever" is not always synonymous with "wise".

[ivanm]

George Sorel, a huge influence on the left [as HPSauce can tell you ] did not believe in 'truth' but thought truth can be determined by an effort of the will.

[from the wikipedia article, but I can attest to its overall accuracy]:

He also maintained that the categories we impose upon the world, "alter what we call reality…they do not establish timeless truths as the positivists maintained", [1; 302] and to "confuse our own constructions with eternal laws or divine decrees is one of the most fatal delusions of men." [1; 303] It is "ideological patter…bureaucracy, la petite science…the Tree of Knowledge has killed the Tree of Life…human life [has been reduced] to rules that seem to be based on objective truths." [1; 303] Such to Sorel, is the appalling arrogance of science, a vast deceit of the imagination, a view that conspires to "stifle the sense of common humanity and destroy human dignity." [1; 304]

[edit] Science is not a recipe
Science, he maintained, "is not a ‘mill’ into which you can drop any problem facing you, and which yields solutions", [1; 311] that are automatically true and authentic. Yet, this is precisely how too many people seem to regard it.

To Sorel, that is way "too much of a conceptual, ideological construction", [1; 312] smothering our perception of truth through the "stifling oppression of remorselessly tidy rational organisation." [1; 321] For Sorel, the inevitable "consequence of the modern scientific movement and the application of scientific categories and methods to the behaviour of men", [1; 323] is an outburst of interest in irrational forces, religions, social unrest, criminality and deviance - resulting directly from an overzealous and monistic obsession with scientific rationalism.

And what science confers, "a moral grandeur, bureaucratic organisation of human lives in the light of…la petite science, positivist application of quasi-scientific rules to society – all this Sorel despised and hated", [1; 328] as so much self-delusion and nonsense that generates no good and nothing of lasting value. In essence, something of a Romantic like Blake, Sorel would say, "the artist creates as the bird sings on the bough, as the lily bursts into flower, to all appearance for no ulterior purpose."

I think the scientific method, if followed, has a good chance of revealing the truth of an issue.  The proof is in the pudding so to speak.  For example, the theories that led to the development and use of nuclear weapons were in time proven to be true else the monster would never have worked.

It appears that the "truth" mornac is pursuing here is a philosophical issue.  Being a pragmatist, I will accept most versions of the truth that get results.

[Velleity]

No, you johnhp'd my question. The question requires nothing more than a yes or a no. You've proffered neither.

You "Mornac'd" me with your question. 

I don't have the answers to the great questions of the universe. I don't think you do either.

Is it possible for human beings to find those answers? Maybe. We're closer to having them than we have ever been but we have a long, long way to go. Maybe we have a 5% chance of surviving long enough to reach that point? That's my guess.

[Velleity]

I want a dime bag of what YOU are now smoking, dude! 

You've never studied astrophysics, "university student?"

Feel free to correct my typo and anything else that I got wrong.

[Mornac]

You "Mornac'd" me with your question. 

--Get used to it.

I don't have the answers to the great questions of the universe.

--Who said anything about “the great questions of the universe.” My question simply asked if you believed a particular thing. Let me make it easy for you by putting it in multiple choice format:

Do you believe that there is such thing as truth and that it can be known?

a) Yes

b) No

c) I don’t have clue as to what I believe and what I don’t

d) I’m afraid to admit what I believe

[Velleity]

--Get used to it.

 

--Who said anything about “the great questions of the universe.” My question simply asked if you believed a particular thing. Let me make it easy for you by putting it in multiple choice format:

Do you believe that there is such thing as truth and that it can be known?

a) Yes

b) No

c) I don’t have clue as to what I believe and what I don’t

d) I’m afraid to admit what I believe

I have no problem telling you what I believe.

Mornac, I provided you with the Wikipedia entry on "truth." This is actually a deep philosophical question that has to start first with your definition of "truth."

Ultimately I believe the human brain can discover any kind of truth. For goodness sake, we've already created life, from scratch, in a test tube. Obviously we're capable of a great deal more. How am I supposed to know what our limits are?

What's your answer?

[Mornac]

I have no problem telling you what I believe.

--Oh good, then you won’t mind telling me if you believe that there is such thing as truth and that it can be known?

Mornac, I provided you with the Wikipedia entry on "truth."

--You provided an entry on “The major theories of truth”. I wasn’t interested in that. I wanted to know if you believe that there is such thing as truth and that it can be known.

This is actually a deep philosophical question that has to start first with your definition of "truth."

--Okay. I’m going to define it for the purposes of this conversation as a fact that persists in being a fact everywhere and for all time, independently of human thought or feelings. By way of example let me make this statement: Lead melts at a lower temperature than iron. I hold that to be true regardless of how many people dispute it and regardless of how recently in time it has come to be known to man. 

Ultimately I believe the human brain can discover any kind of truth.

--Any kind of truth? If truth had different kinds then it wouldn’t be truth.

For goodness sake, we've already created life, from scratch, in a test tube. Obviously we're capable of a great deal more. How am I supposed to know what our limits are?

--I don’t expect you to. I do expect you to answer my question.

What's your answer?

--My answer is yes.

[Velleity]

--You provided an entry on “The major theories of truth”. I wasn’t interested in that. I wanted to know if you believe that there is such thing as truth and that it can be known.

I asked you to clarify your definition of truth and I provided the Wikipedia entry to demonstrate how ambiguous your question was. Which definition of truth am I supposed be using?

--Okay. I’m going to define it for the purposes of this conversation as a fact that persists in being a fact everywhere and for all time, independently of human thought or feelings. By way of example let me make this statement: Lead melts at a lower temperature than iron. I hold that to be true regardless of how many people dispute it and regardless of how recently in time it has come to be known to man. 

I am not so sure that "lead melts at a lower temperature than iron" is "a fact that persists in being a fact everywhere and for all time." I also pointed out a conclusion (not necessarily a fact) that identified the universe as a single incredibly dense and incredibly hot singularity. Since there was no lead and there was no iron it appears that your "fact" was neither true nor false at that time and that place.

Which also demonstrates another point I tried to make, which was that your perception of reality is something that was naturally selected for. Without instruments that can detect wavelengths over and below the wavelength available to your sensory organs, or the scales to which your perception can be applied, you have no idea what reality is. In fact matter is energy, and energy is matter. So even your question is not as simple as you seem to think.

What is that iron? What is that lead? Both the iron and lead are composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which are composed of even smaller particles with even more interesting properties. . .

From your limited perspective, and mine (a blind man describing an elephant), lead melts at a lower temperature than iron and you can count on that as a fact. But my point here is that there are other perspectives that we know of, or think we know of, where it is not necessarily true or completely irrelevant. It stands to reason that we're not done exploring and discovering even more perspectives.

Perhaps those other perspectives are "God?"

I certainly don't pretend to know, Mornac. I find it all to be most humbling and to me the most fitting truth is that we should approach each other in the most humble ways possible.

Do I think human beings can know truth? In the simplest ways, like the melting points of elements, in the here and now yes. I also do think we've managed to progress a bit beyond the here and the now. While I am by no means 100% certain I do believe we have discovered certain truths beyond or limited natural perceptions. The argument for the Big Bang is compelling, as is the argument for evolution, as is the argument for quantum physics which opens up all kinds of other "truths."

Yes, I think we can get there ultimately toward some significant truth.

Do you know anything about quantum mechanics?
 

--Any kind of truth? If truth had different kinds then it wouldn’t be truth.

You've said that the ways of God are not the ways of man and that the ways of God are not for man to understand. Did you not? I thought you did but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I would say that statement contains truth, from my perspective.

If that's true, then how do you know that there aren't different "kinds" of truth and how do you know that there is only one "truth" mutually exclusive to all others?

To me the highest truth is that God put a little bit of herself in everyone person's heart and therefore serving people is the best thing a person can do. This is a very Jewish perspective. Christians see it a little differently, as I understand it: do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

There is a slight but highly significant difference to both of these "truths," and I would regard both as true. I regard both as noble, perhaps equally so. There is a higher meaning to both, beyond the literal meaning of the words.

I think both truths can get you to the same place. You don't seem to believe that, but I do.

[Mornac]

I asked you to clarify your definition of truth and I provided the Wikipedia entry to demonstrate how ambiguous your question was. Which definition of truth am I supposed be using?

--The one that I provided at your behest. Maybe if you’d concentrate on answering the yes or no question instead of posting three different things at the same time, this would be easier for you.

I am not so sure that "lead melts at a lower temperature than iron" is "a fact that persists in being a fact everywhere and for all time."

--That’s because in true relativist fashion, you've conveniently ignored the time factor in my statement.

I also pointed out a conclusion (not necessarily a fact) that identified the universe as a single incredibly dense and incredibly hot singularity. Since there was no lead and there was no iron it appears that your "fact" was neither true nor false at that time and that place.

--Wrong. The problem is that you read like johnhp, assuming things that are not there. To complicate matters, you can’t seem to shake loose the handicap of reasoning like a relativist. My statement was that "lead melts at a lower temperature than iron". Notice the present tense. I made the statement on September 27 2009 at 06:05:35 PM. I contend that it is a truth that, at that point in history it could be said that “lead melts at a lower temperature that iron.” (on Earth is implied here just in case you weasel like johnhp too.) I further contend that, at any time in history or at any place in the universe it is a truth that on September 27 2009 at 06:05:35 PM it could be said that “lead melts at a lower temperature than iron (on Earth).”

Which also demonstrates another point I tried to make, which was that your perception of reality is something that was naturally selected for. Without instruments that can detect wavelengths over and below the wavelength available to your sensory organs, or the scales to which your perception can be applied, you have no idea what reality is. In fact matter is energy, and energy is matter. So even your question is not as simple as you seem to think.

--It is, and I am not about to get ahead of myself until I make you realize it. Now in light of what I’ve just explained here, read the question again and try to answer it.

[Velleity]

--The one that I provided at your behest. Maybe if you’d concentrate on answering the yes or no question instead of posting three different things at the same time, this would be easier for you.

It's hard for me to not focus on three things at a time when your questions are so vague.

--That’s because in true relativist fashion, you've conveniently ignored the time factor in my statement.

I quoted your "time factor" verbatum: "a fact that persists in being a fact everywhere and for all time." I think my example of the moment before the Big Bang proves that your "fact" does not persist in being a fact everywhere and for all time. If there was no iron and no lead at that time, and there would be no iron or lead for billions years, how do you comment one way or another on the relative melting points?

How is that "relativist?" No lead. No iron. Has not yet existed. . . What's "relative" about that?

How is the moment before the Big Bang not qualified in the set which comprises "everywhere and for all time?"

Of course the other factors that I glossed over are concepts of "everywhere" and "time." You assume that your perception of both is "real." Again, your perception is selected for because your failure to so perceive these concepts would render you a mutation that probably wouldn't survive.

You seem to be confident that your perception of reality is reality. I am not an expert on this subject but everything I know about it suggests that you're wrong. Our perception is an illusion. 

--Wrong. The problem is that you read like johnhp, assuming things that are not there. To complicate matters, you can’t seem to shake loose the handicap of reasoning like a relativist. My statement was that "lead melts at a lower temperature than iron". Notice the present tense. I made the statement on September 27 2009 at 06:05:35 PM. I contend that it is a truth that, at that point in history it could be said that “lead melts at a lower temperature that iron.” (on Earth is implied here just in case you weasel like johnhp too.) I further contend that, at any time in history or at any place in the universe it is a truth that on September 27 2009 at 06:05:35 PM it could be said that “lead melts at a lower temperature than iron (on Earth).”

You said "a fact that persists in being a fact everywhere and for all time."

Which is it?

--It is, and I am not about to get ahead of myself until I make you realize it. Now in light of what I’ve just explained here, read the question again and try to answer it.

Look, I can readily admit that my understanding of the true nature of the universe is probably wrong. However I see no evidence at this point that yours is any better than mine.

Newtonian physics is useful, but it's also wrong. The Bohr atom is also useful, but it is also wrong.

In the same way your parochial view of "truth" is useful, knowing the melting points of various metals. But it can be also be wrong. 

I have answered your question. You just don't like my answer so you resort to name-calling. Calling me a name like "relativist" and scoffing at me may be useful, but it too may be wrong.

I think it is.

[Velleity]

Of course there are other questions embedded in all of this Mornac. If we're at the moment before the Big Bang, in an incredibly hot and dense singularity, is it inevitable that there will be iron and lead? Is it fate? Or could something else, entirely different, occur? For that matter did something else entirely different occur?

We can back to the issue of Schroedinger's Cat, when you're ready to stop avoiding it.

Is the cat dead or alive?