+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45

Thread: "Your truth" v "the truth"

  1. Link to Post #21
    Finland Avalon Member rgray222's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th September 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,290
    Thanks
    8,985
    Thanked 21,020 times in 2,189 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    The truth is an issue that we have all been chasing for a long time.

    The truth is what you choose to believe, you may have evidence of the truth and even rock-solid proof of your truth but others may not choose to believe it. This is frustrating particularly when it comes to issues like politics but there is not much you can do about it. You can attempt to convince or persuade (huge difference) but that may not change minds.

    The problems for me is when lies become institutionalized. When people hear the same lie over and over from multiple sources it becomes almost impossible to reach them with the truth. The perfect example of this the Russian Collusion that President Trump was accused of. There were a total of 5 investigations (house, senate, 2 intelligence committees and one special prosecutor) and every single one of them found that there was absolutely no Russian collusion but yet people still believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. These lies were perpetuated by the mainstream media and still are today. Many of these people will watch or read the same media day after day and never search for truth because their media is their truth. Their media reported the honest findings of these investigations but they told their readers and viewers in the same story that collusion happened but it did not rise to a level of criminal behaviour. When you actually read the investigation reports you can only conclude that the media is lying. Most people don't take the time to dig or search for the truth.

    Politics touches every aspect of our lives so the mainstream media has taken institutionalized lying to new heights. You'll find it in science, health, crime, race relations, medicine and even weather reporting. Many people (but not enough), particularly on Avalon, seem to have a fairly good balance of where they find their news. Most will search the truth out on liberal, conservative and alternative media, so in my view, it gives people a better perspective on the truth. Also throwing some of these topics out for discussion to a wider group brings us just a bit closer to the truth.

    The problem arises for society when millions get their news from a single source or multiple like-minded sources. These people actually believe that they arrived at their truth through thought but in reality, they were simply handed their truth, there was no search or effort. The sad "truth" is that they get a new dose of their truth every day without any thinking or effort. Millions have eagerly embraced institutional lying.
    Last edited by rgray222; 22nd December 2020 at 01:18.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rgray222 For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (23rd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020), Vangelo (22nd December 2020)

  3. Link to Post #22
    France Avalon Member Lunesoleil's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th November 2012
    Location
    Alsace (France)
    Language
    uses a translator
    Posts
    1,420
    Thanks
    1,420
    Thanked 6,303 times in 1,185 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote Posted by weAllMustLearnToNavigate (here)
    Hi all, this is my first post on project Avalon, other than the introductory one to set up the account. So please let me know if this post is -- for example in the right place -- appropriate to forum protocols etc.
    Welcome to the Avalon Forum Oh how topical is the topic of truth and I'm 100% with your thought.

    And I would add: Criticism is easy, but art is difficult.

    Truth is the passing of one inspiration before the expiration of another truth?

    the first breath of the divine ... before the silence of words triumph ...


  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lunesoleil For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (23rd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020), WeAllMustLearnToNavigate (22nd December 2020)

  5. Link to Post #23
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    This is a real problem. It feels like I've been ranting about it for ages.

    Subjective "truths" have become something of a plague. Problem is they're often not true at all - they're opinions at best and delusions at worst.

    Even that wouldn't be so bad if the people harboring them kept to themselves. But we're all now being required, sometimes with extreme social pressure and sometimes by the law, to not only recognize the subjective "truths" of others but to treat them as the actual truth, with a capital T. I don't think I need to explain why this is an enormous problem.

    Well I'll explain just a little: There are so many f#cking groups now, so many subjective truths, so many identities, and they are all demanding equal outcomes. How do you equalize outcomes among a long and ever expanding list of identity groups? It's impossible. When you try to do that, in earnest, you get nothing but tyranny. And Marxism, which is basically the same thing.
    Yes I so agree with that. And of course when you do try to speak truth --- you get preached at about 'non acceptance' or referred to some book or other. Basically nicelly disguised way of trying to scilence people.

    RE- Equal Outcomes ---- Ken Wilber talks about this. He has a nice (and I think quite accurate distinction) between what he calls 'orange liberals' and 'green liberals' -- Aaron Shwartz is a classic example of orange liberal. So Orange Liberals want equal opportunity - freedom of speech (opposite of totalitarian). Green Liberals --hate freedom of speech, and want equal outcomes.

    B.t.w. I tried the youtube link but it's 'not available'. (probably one of the green liberals at Youtube -- or their AI counterpart )
    Last edited by WeAllMustLearnToNavigate; 22nd December 2020 at 02:37. Reason: add comment about green liberals.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Deborah (ahamkara) (23rd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020)

  7. Link to Post #24
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    @Soullight "Everything is true"--- is exactly the same as saying 'nothing is true' because it renders truth meaningless. That's another new-age way of throwing truth out the window with fluffy words.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020), Vangelo (22nd December 2020)

  9. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member thepainterdoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th November 2013
    Age
    70
    Posts
    3,216
    Thanks
    11,007
    Thanked 33,162 times in 3,159 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    welcome we All must Learn To NAVIGATE,,, All I can say right now is welcome to the rabbit hole. The best rabbit hole on the net .

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to thepainterdoug For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020), WeAllMustLearnToNavigate (22nd December 2020)

  11. Link to Post #26
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    @palehorse
    re the Eight-circuit model of consciousness
    yes this is a similar formalisation, possibly going into more detail. Although the difference is the starting point. The starting point in my model, is that the physical system of the brain (which could be thought of as essentially deterministic) is a navigational system. It's a propperty of all navigation systems (biological or electronic) that there is a decision process. (because it's a fundamental property of a navigation system that it decides direction). What we experience consciously in the first person IS that decision process. So it's a very formal model. But introspection fits very naturally into that. And if you think about it from your own first person perspective -- within the domain of the physical -- that IS what you are. (i.e. statement of fact).

    From there the categorisations are really secondary but it makes sense to break down that decision process, and the three levels I'm presenting are very clear and directly map to actual introspections. I.E for a given thought you can easily confirm for yourself is this a level 2 thougth or a level 3 thought. (so it's a functional categorisation). (and it's also fairly clear what is reflex or not).

    Of course it's possible to break down further (at the risk of losing simplicity) and the eight steps woud potentially be a starting point.



    re Timothy Leary, I've read parts of his book that he wrote in jail and watched every interview of him I could find on youtube. I also did have that book " The psychedelic experience", at some point and possibly read parts of it. No doubt he was being used by the CIA who were actually using LSD to political ends, but I believe he was very genuine - highly intelligent - with some very fascinating ideas. His view of the world as it should be was very much ahead of his time.

    Dr. Hyatt and Madam Blavatsky (the name rings a bell), I don't know much about but will look into.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020)

  13. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Member Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    journeying to the end of the night
    Age
    46
    Posts
    5,777
    Thanks
    35,703
    Thanked 50,309 times in 5,692 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote B.t.w. I tried the youtube link but it's 'not available'. (probably one of the green liberals at Youtube -- or their AI counterpart )

    Lol! No worries. I've listened to Ken talk about that stuff, and I think he's great.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mike For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020), rgray222 (23rd December 2020)

  15. Link to Post #28
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    @rgray222
    "The truth is what you choose to believe, you may have evidence of the truth and even rock-solid proof of your truth but others may not choose to believe it. This is frustrating particularly when it comes to issues like politics but there is not much you can do about it. You can attempt to convince or persuade (huge difference) but that may not change minds."

    I realised that most people can't really discern between fact and fiction -- i.e. the difference between information and entertainment. The reaction to either is along the lines of how someone watching x-factor determines if they like the performance of a contestant. So if your presenting fermats last theorem and john who has a crayon up his nose drew a butterfly -- they're pretty much on the same footing.

    And this really is because when relativism pervades and the very notion of truth is thrown out the window. Without which the capacity for independent thought simply cannot exist.
    (that's why it's rather fundamental to get truth back into the picture )
    It's the established authority does the 'thinking' for them, and they lack the confidence to hear their own inner voice. For fear of being wrong -- under the impression that they can't be right when this apparently so much more powerful external speaks otherwise. (and unless they've been fortunate enought to stumble upon some alternative source which does speak counter to it -- they may not even believe it is possible.)

    B.t.w It's not a sin to be wrong, or to not know something if you have never heard it before --- but it seems a lot of people don't know that and the way we treat those who try and speak the truth as they see it, are usually torn down for making the slightest error. (which makes it rather terrifying for many people to speak their mind)

    Re the mainstream media -- anyone whose seen a clip with mainstream reporters from multiple channels all delivering the same talking point line -- word for word -- knows that it's an echo chamber -- the appearance of many voices orchestrated by the few.

    It's very much like herding sheep --- they know people feel safer in the center of the pack so their giant echo chambers of lies propagate an impression of where the center of the pack is (even though it might in reality be massively mis-construing actual public opinion) -- it also uses the stick. This takes many forms -- like social pressure. (construing those who wear a mask as being helpful to others -- and those who don't as being selfish and anti social). They defame those who speak publically against party line - knowing that most people read things on the level of personality (again like x-factor ), rather than assessing for themselves the veracity of what was actually said. (it's much easier just have a list --- believe everything these guys say --- disbelieve everything these guys say (the authorised version of reality ) )

    In a sense it is very much like the wizard of Oz -- where she pulls back the curtain and there's a little old man -- in place of the 'great and powerful Oz'.

    " The problem arises for society when millions get their news from a single source or multiple like-minded sources. These people actually believe that they arrived at their truth through thought but in reality, they were simply handed their truth, there was no search or effort. The sad "truth" is that they get a new dose of their truth every day without any thinking or effort."

    Yes -- this is what I mean when most 'discussions' are really just both sides parroting their sanctioned perspective. (repeating the public speakers on their side of the fence).

    at least the guys on the alternative side of the political fence usually have to be a little more creative -- but increasingly those inside the bubble are less and less inclined to hear any opposing view.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Elainie (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Avalon Member Soullight's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st March 2017
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 814 times in 132 posts

    Unhappy Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote Posted by weAllMustLearnToNavigate (here)
    @Soullight "Everything is true"--- is exactly the same as saying 'nothing is true' because it renders truth meaningless. That's another new-age way of throwing truth out the window with fluffy words.
    BTW I’m not a moral relativist and don’t support the so called New Age ideology, nor do I support the looney left and their insane personification pronouns, etc.

    And I agree with Mike’s views regarding a fairly narrow band of consensus truth in 3D. Otherwise it would indeed be la-la land, oh wait, that was 2020, the Left, Democrats and the Biden administration, lol...

    However, I disagree that “Everything is true"--- is exactly the same as saying 'nothing is true‘“- because nothing is nothing. And since we’re living and actually something and everything else is something, even if it’s a concept or indescribable energy/anomaly, etc, it cannot be the same thing as nothing.

    Further, stating that “Everything is true” can’t negate anything, especially truth, since according to the premise that everything that IS...IS, cannot negate any-thing by the sheer fact that it IS, regardless of whether it is or can be known.

    The irony/pun in your conjecture is that meaninglessness can actually only be “nothing”.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Soullight For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), palehorse (22nd December 2020)

  19. Link to Post #30
    Avalon Member palehorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th April 2020
    Location
    Gaia
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks
    12,042
    Thanked 11,413 times in 1,572 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote Posted by weAllMustLearnToNavigate (here)
    @palehorse
    re the Eight-circuit model of consciousness
    yes this is a similar formalisation, possibly going into more detail. Although the difference is the starting point. The starting point in my model, is that the physical system of the brain (which could be thought of as essentially deterministic) is a navigational system. It's a propperty of all navigation systems (biological or electronic) that there is a decision process. (because it's a fundamental property of a navigation system that it decides direction). What we experience consciously in the first person IS that decision process. So it's a very formal model. But introspection fits very naturally into that. And if you think about it from your own first person perspective -- within the domain of the physical -- that IS what you are. (i.e. statement of fact).

    I totally got what you mean by navigation and this quote explains further the the limitations of it:

    "The circuit III "mind" never gets beyond the permutations and combinations of those tunnel-realities originally imprinted, or abstractions associated with the imprints through later conditioning. And so forth."

    Despite it been a third circuit from Leary's model (because I actually do not follow his model nor totally believe as absolute truth, but I give due respect), I can confirm some realities in the model, because God knows how many time I tried to get rid of some imprints that I consider to be harmful to myself, we all have it, some people will live an entire life without even notice that they are made of imprints and it starts before physical birth.

    My point is: there is limitations in the "navigation software", it won't allow us to fully explore the surroundings due to imprints that formed us as we really are, unless we fully understand where the limitations are and carefully remove them, it is like remove a stone from the path in order to continue the trip further, not impossible but there is some effort involved.


    Quote Posted by weAllMustLearnToNavigate (here)
    From there the categorisations are really secondary but it makes sense to break down that decision process, and the three levels I'm presenting are very clear and directly map to actual introspections. I.E for a given thought you can easily confirm for yourself is this a level 2 thougth or a level 3 thought. (so it's a functional categorisation). (and it's also fairly clear what is reflex or not).

    Of course it's possible to break down further (at the risk of losing simplicity) and the eight steps woud potentially be a starting point.


    re Timothy Leary, I've read parts of his book that he wrote in jail and watched every interview of him I could find on youtube. I also did have that book " The psychedelic experience", at some point and possibly read parts of it. No doubt he was being used by the CIA who were actually using LSD to political ends, but I believe he was very genuine - highly intelligent - with some very fascinating ideas. His view of the world as it should be was very much ahead of his time.

    Dr. Hyatt and Madam Blavatsky (the name rings a bell), I don't know much about but will look into.

    The 8 circuit brain model developed by Tim Leary was actually based in old indigenous writings and adapted to fit the western understand of things, I always knew the model came from somewhere in Asia, but never had the interest to dig enough to find out more about it, well until now, I did a little research and found out that the original model came from a little known manuscript called "Hindu Tantric regimen" also referred as "Little Asian Jewel".

    Here is a talking between Leary and a professor his friend, the origin of the manuscript that gave origin to the 8 circuit model of Tim Leary, interesting piece of history https://web.archive.org/web/20081022...g/8origins.htm

    I will look for the original manuscript, probably it was written in a more simplistic way, but for what they say in the article above it has the 8 levels with 24 stages, it is separated in 2 main parts with 4 levels and 12 stages each, it worth to comment that this separation "layer" is called by some as "limbo" or "Black iron prison" or "Chapel perilous", a very dangerous "imaginary area" that one enters once in life, where the mechanical body or robot body that follows all stimulus suffers rapture. Yet another proof for myself(s) that this separation layer (2 parts of the model) is quite real, I had my bad moments getting rid of old paradigms, old programming stuffs in my brain and I survived the chapel perilous.

    Leary probably worked for CIA, but he was one of those guys that were not motivated by money but by searching the truth, which put him in a very privileged position that no one not even CIA could corrupt him (see CIA mind control), this alone make him some sort of myth nowadays in some closed circles, I could say the same about Robert Anton Wilson and Terrence McKenna, all illuminated beings with their own differences and they left a tons of good research for us.

    The puzzle is huge, no human alone would be allowed to put it all together due to our own limitations, does not matter how intelligent one can be, I believe that one way and probably the only way to really get a great understand of the situation is working in group, uniting people, but it requires a huge effort from all sides, Gurdieff promoted his studies in group, no one could possibly do anything alone, it is just impossible and madness.

    If you have more details about your model, I would love to read it and learn more about it, it seems to be very interesting the way you put the navigation system.

    Thanks for the thread, this subject is infinitely amazing.
    --
    A chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to palehorse For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), Mike (22nd December 2020), WeAllMustLearnToNavigate (22nd December 2020)

  21. Link to Post #31
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    @palehorse if you think about truth as being simply what is -- then either our internal model / view is aligned with it or not.
    So the Buddhist notion of Karma and Darma, map nicely to this simple observation. Darma being associated with alignment to what actually is, and Karma being associated with mis-alignment.

    One of the most fundamental mis-alignments is when your world view is blinkered or blinded to one aspect of reality. (This is a type of mind cage --- (and links also to the Buddhist concept of attachment -- Imagine reality as a beautiful infinite and beautiful tapestry -- the problem being it is so beautiful we easily become captivated by part of it, through attachment, and thus separated from the whole))

    On one side of the fence those with a spiritual bent often disregard mathematics. This is very big part of reality to disregard.

    On the other side of the fence the supposed rationalist whose views are based on a physicalist perspective rooted in behaviourism. Behaviourism views ourselves in terms of inputs and outputs (stimulus respons) and specifically disregards what happens in between (MIND). As such this is very terrible mind cage -- and can easily lead to nhilism. Things not fitting into this blinkered world view are disregarded (so such a believer is blind sighted to whole parts of reality) .

    There's two seperate issues --(the world view rooted in physical as primary) -- and the second issue is being rooted in behaviourism.

    The navigation perspective specifically keeps the physical as primary perspective -- but by approaching these physical systems as navigational systems, allows introspection to fit naturally into the model. (Where our thoughts, observations, memories and perceptions are all aspects of the decision process. -- and we the concious first person IS the navigator. ) So the you I am talking to is not your brain but the conscious navigator -- of the decision process. )

    All this is entirely factual -- in the sense that it actually is the case that the you, that you perceive in the first person, actually is the navigator, and you the navigater are a fundemental aspect of the decision process, of the physical navigation system which is your brain. (remember your brain itself is a physical system, which is really like any other physical system following the laws of physics.).

    The same events that you perceive through introspection could be described in terms of neurons firing etc, but in fact, when understanding a navigation system it is the decision process which is pertinent. (e.g. it's easier to understand the simple decision process of a thermostat (if it's too cold warm up) than it is to analyse it's electrical circuits. Notice it's perfectly reasonable to think in terms of decision process, even from an extremely formal perspective. Hence this is a rational viewpoint but one that circumvents the serious issues (and giant blind spot) associated with a rational perspective rooted in behviourism.

    Now you talk about a limitation. Well the model says nothing about the metaphysical. For example we may be something much more than appears on the surface, and these meat suits are more like avatars. In which case our true selves -- may be eternal -- souls -- higher dimensional beings etc. -- there are a host of possibilities in the metaphysical, and different religions have different beliefs. The secular atheist would see the physical as the totatility.

    The point is regardless of your views in the metaphysical the navigational viewpoint is true and correct within the domain of the physical. (what I would call the domain of the apparent temporal physical.) .

    So the idea is to bridge -- the blindspots on both sides of the fence with a simple and reconcilable perspective -- which is potentially formalisable. Without making any specific statement about the metaphysical.

    I.e. I'm not claiming it is the totality -- but I do consider metaphysical statements to be contentions and for that reason none are made. It's not a disagreement with either perspective. (i.e. I'm not saying people on the 'spiritual' side are right or those on the 'rational' side are right)

    @palehorse I hope that makes the purpose clearer.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  23. Link to Post #32
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    b.t.w the definition of 'information' actually makes a lot more sense from this viewpoint -- in fact there's a whole area of mathematics called decision theory, and it's really only in the context of a decision that information makes sense.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    daddy-keith (22nd December 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  25. Link to Post #33
    Trinidad Tobago Avalon Member daddy-keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th December 2011
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Language
    English
    Age
    77
    Posts
    28
    Thanks
    638
    Thanked 169 times in 24 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Whether you seen it or not, a video that puts things into some perspective is:
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=ic70cVN5IdQ

    Interview by Freedom Central with Bill Ryan. I look at it from time to time to keep my spirits up.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daddy-keith For This Post:

    palehorse (23rd December 2020), WeAllMustLearnToNavigate (22nd December 2020)

  27. Link to Post #34
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    The Truth cannot be known because it is objective.

    Personal truth is known, because it is subjective.

    The Truth, of itself, has no personal truth because it is not a person.

    The Truth is akin to a circle. It is whole and complete, with no beginning and no end, eternal and unchanging.

    Personal truth is akin to a line. It has a source, a beginning, a duration, an end, is fundamentally reducible, malleable, forever changing, and never complete.

    Bias is a completely natural and efficient adaptation in response to incomplete information. There is only so much time and far too many dead ends of potentials to pursue. Choices have to be made without all the relevant data. Mistakes have to accumulate so data can be confidently discarded; experience has to be gained in order to gauge the merits of particular information.

    Personal truth is forever biased. That bias can be honed by wisdom. It can approach perfection. It can spiral towards The Truth. It can even orbit Truth. But personal truth will never be The Truth because it cannot contain It.


    Somewhere it was said "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." It is true. But even the king is blind in one eye...that is truer.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Mike (22nd December 2020), Open Minded Dude (22nd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020), WeAllMustLearnToNavigate (22nd December 2020)

  29. Link to Post #35
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    The Truth cannot be known because it is objective.

    Personal truth is known, because it is subjective.

    The Truth, of itself, has no personal truth because it is not a person.

    The Truth is akin to a circle. It is whole and complete, with no beginning and no end, eternal and unchanging.

    Personal truth is akin to a line. It has a source, a beginning, a duration, an end, is fundamentally reducible, malleable, forever changing, and never complete.

    Bias is a completely natural and efficient adaptation in response to incomplete information. There is only so much time and far too many dead ends of potentials to pursue. Choices have to be made without all the relevant data. Mistakes have to accumulate so data can be confidently discarded; experience has to be gained in order to gauge the merits of particular information.

    Personal truth is forever biased. That bias can be honed by wisdom. It can approach perfection. It can spiral towards The Truth. It can even orbit Truth. But personal truth will never be The Truth because it cannot contain It.
    yeah as I said in another comment bias is inevitable in everyone --for even something like physical height -- being very tall or short, may introduce bias in perspective.

    The truth is indeed eternal and impersonal, and our subjective awareness of truth more temporal but on the other hand mathematical proofs tend to stand the test of time. So it is possible to be subjectively aware of eternal truths.

    B.t.w yet another way of throwing truth out the window is to make absolute truth the thing, and our subjective awareness of it nothing. (that does seem to be the general consensus in society in which we live. Anyone trying to speak the truth is generally persecuted for not speaking it perfectly (which is impossible anyway) -- meanwhile the most abominable liars go unquestioned. That's why we live in a world ruled by lies!)

    although by comparison to the etternal truth our awareness of it is but dirty rags

    (when they say in a court 'do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth' --- if you are honest you should say NO -- because it's impossible -- for precisely the reasons you mentions.)
    Last edited by WeAllMustLearnToNavigate; 22nd December 2020 at 23:33. Reason: add comment about whole truth nothing but

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  31. Link to Post #36
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Personal truth cannot exist alone, it must arise out of The Truth.

    And Parts of the The Truth are not The Truth.

    Parts of The Truth are personal truths - those parts of The Truth made known, which are only approximations of The Truth - even mathematics. There is no formula for love, for example. There is no reason for 1 + 1 = 2 either, there is no explanation for it.

    It is the comprehensive nature of The Truth that makes it impossible to be known. The Truth is one thing, in our manner of thinking. It is not a conglomeration or an aggregate, it is full and inclusive, binding and unifying.

    The Truth is totality.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  33. Link to Post #37
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    @daddy-keith
    this is another approach -- indirect -- if someone is trying to speak the truth treat it like their unsettled or need to be given perspective.

    what I'm trying to get at here is that it's the patterns of behaviour carried out by all of us, in our sub conscious and socially programmed attitudes toward any attempt at speaking truth, that effectively hinders almost anyone from ever doing so.

    people say the truth doesn't need defending -- in a sense that's correct because the truth simply is.

    but the truth does need defending -- if it is to exist at all in the minds of men -- and it's a pretty sure bet that survival will in some way be contingent on knowing the truth at some point . (The truth will continue to be the truth whether humans have any realisation of it or not - but our species won't if we don't ) .

    not only is the brain a navigational system, an entire society is also a navigation. For it to function in a health manner it needs to be grounded in truth (all navigation systems need correct information about the environment to navigate)-- which is contingent on people being able to speak it -- before it's not possible any more. Imagine a ship sailing to a rock, and someone whispering in the captains ear -- there's no rock it's a figment of your imagination -- the whole crew start laughing at him because he thinks there's a rock. Or maybe the captains persuaded by some new age philosophy which sees a 'rock' as a problem and the best way to solve all problems is to imagine they don't exist.
    Last edited by WeAllMustLearnToNavigate; 23rd December 2020 at 00:48. Reason: add name of person responding to

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  35. Link to Post #38
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Personal truth cannot exist alone, it must arise out of The Truth.

    And Parts of the The Truth are not The Truth.

    Parts of The Truth are personal truths - those parts of The Truth made known, which are only approximations of The Truth - even mathematics. There is no formula for love, for example. There is no reason for 1 + 1 = 2 either, there is no explanation for it.

    It is the comprehensive nature of The Truth that makes it impossible to be known. The Truth is one thing, in our manner of thinking. It is not a conglomeration or an aggregate, it is full and inclusive, binding and unifying.

    The Truth is totality.
    @Ernie Nemeth
    Yes truth is the totality.

    (b.t.w. I know full well that when i talk about maths most peoples response unconsciously is a kind of smug superiority - thinking it reflects a kind of limitation to my understanding which you assume - where as mathematics is just another language for expressing truth - (more precise -- but not totally). (re the 1+1=2 --- actually what exists here is functional certainty not absolute --(which is i think the point you are making) but I will anyway).

    I'm rather unusual, perhaps unique -- i don't know -- in that I came to some very deep philosophical understandings as a result of understanding certain mathematics. (if your technically minded -- it was an understanding of Bayes theorem in conjunction with the full joint distribution over multiple variables -- which is really a formalisation of something our brains do naturally (we don't use numbers though -- the process of thought is more like the weighing of stones (but the same dynamic applies)). (hence why understanding it in the maths - was revelatory)). --- anyway the reason i mention it is that is how I also came to the conclusion that:



    "It(The Truth) is the comprehensive nature of The Truth that makes it impossible to be known. The Truth is one thing, in our manner of thinking. It is not a conglomeration or an aggregate, it is full and inclusive, binding and unifying."

    The equivalent statement from a quantitive impirical perspective would be that all variables in the full joint distribution are dependent.
    The vast majority of models actually assume independence which is the opposite. (when two variables are independent the their joint distribution P(x,y) is equal to the product of their independent distributions P(x)*P(y). However in reality in the totality it's most likely that all variables are interdependent, so that the full joint distributions is not reducible.

    Indeed the truth is the totality -- and for that reason it is most likely not reducible. (slight problem with reductionist models) -- however because this is always the case our own internal models (i don't mean just mathematical but our internal mental representations also) are always partial and incomplete.

    When we attempt to express the truth - it is not that we are able to speak it - or even see it in the absolute.

    The truth for us lies at the limit, of a process of successive approximation. So technically it's innacurate to use the phrase 'to speak the truth' -- more precise would be 'to speak the approximate truth maximally aligned with the totality' -- but it's really much easier not to get to pedantic about semantics -- inferring intended meaning is more fruitful than clinging to the sematically precise linguistic construct.

    None the less whether we call it 'expression of our limited comprehension of the totality' or 'attempting to speak the truth' -- I believe the indevour to be important.
    Last edited by WeAllMustLearnToNavigate; 23rd December 2020 at 01:29. Reason: add italics

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  37. Link to Post #39
    Avalon Member O Donna's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th January 2018
    Posts
    1,683
    Thanks
    12,362
    Thanked 13,158 times in 1,663 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    Truth is always there or here, as the case may be, regardless of how deep it is buried.,

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to O Donna For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (23rd December 2020), palehorse (23rd December 2020)

  39. Link to Post #40
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd October 2020
    Language
    English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 208 times in 32 posts

    Default Re: "Your truth" v "the truth"

    The reason it's difficult to describe what I'm talking about is that people by and large fall into two categories -- those who see no value in precise mathematical reasoning -- and those who do but don't get it.

    It's a pretty sure bet that if there are advanced extraterestrial species out there, one of the features that makes them advanced is their mathematics. This alone should tell you that there is something about mathematical reasoning which is useful. That's because mathematics is real -- and in the case of certain understandings in machine learning -- can actually tell us about information -- and inference.

    On the other hand those that are mathematical are very often not able to integrate holistically. This quote from Vinny Eastwood show --(which I transcribed) put's it pretty well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anqpn5LG1ho
    (transcribed from timestamp: 1:42:15)
    "One of the things I wanted to talk about is in the accademic world we're training people to be brilliant halfwitts. They've got incredibly well developed left brains but their right brain intuition and their spiritual connection is being denied.
    And so our education system is giving us incredibly well trained left brained logical rational computers but where's the heart connection, where's the spiritual connection, where's the intuition telling them what's really going on.
    And so they're only getting half the picture..[goes on to compare with mainstream narrative]"
    So why don't they get it --- well that goes back to my earlier posts about the mainstream 'rational' perspective being rooted in behaviourism -- which excludes introspection, and is WHY i'm proposing an alternative perspective, (which is still rational -- and also rooted in the same physical empirical perspective -- but actually integrates with introspection, the human heart, and higher reason --(i.e. all those things the standard model is blind sighted on) )

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to WeAllMustLearnToNavigate For This Post:

    palehorse (23rd December 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts