Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AConcernedCoder t1_ix8yk8d wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730

>"truth" is an expression of assent to a partner's verbally expressed position.

This is giving me flashbacks to a time in my life when magical sequences of assent or dissent were seen as an adequate basis for reward and punishment... especially punishemnt.

3

eliyah23rd t1_ix97ve4 wrote

Yes. According to this paradigm we program each other.

If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".

Also socially constructed is not meant in the sense of constructed by society but in the sense of constructed in an interactive multi-person context.

Personally, I think a subjective model can do most of the work by itself, with other agents being a feature of the landscape of the evolving subject. However, the two alternatives might succeed in mapping to each other.

4

iiioiia t1_ixd4xdj wrote

> If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".

Do you think it would be useful for humanity to have a separate term for the oh so common (I'd estimate 75%++ of all discussions/beliefs) scenario where there is a distinction between ~"cultural/social truth" and actual truth?

Followup question: hard whorfism - are you a believer? (Arguing with linguists on that topic is....recursively interesting).

3

eliyah23rd t1_ixdd4cl wrote

I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.

In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO

Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.

3

iiioiia t1_ixdf31n wrote

> I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.

Hmmmm....maybe I misunderstood....want to run it by me again?

> In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO

Exactly my point (I think).....and worse: based on my observations, many people seem to think that Science is The answer to all our problems (presumably because of its genuinely amazing track record of success, but only in the limited domain within which it practices), but don't realize that science doesn't really take into consideration the complex layers of metaphysical reality that do indeed exist, whether or not we have a means of measuring them. As long as we continue to ignore metaphysics, it will continue to fuck up our shit, and we will continue to blame it on literal fantasies.

> Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.

Ok, that makes two of us. I think we need better marketing for this potentially transformational movement.

1

eliyah23rd t1_ixdmlo5 wrote

>but only in the limited domain within which it practices

I agree. I'm not much into metaphysics but complex social constructs with multiple meanings don't do well. Billiard balls and components that are engineered to replicate exactly to the tested prototype do great. However, the power of these replicants is getting ever larger.

2

iiioiia t1_ixdqwdt wrote

> I'm not much into metaphysics but complex social constructs with multiple meanings don't do well.

Agree, but pretending this dimension of reality does not exist, or references to it are "woo woo" doesn't seem like a good approach.

> Billiard balls and components that are engineered to replicate exactly to the tested prototype do great.

Physical reality and metaphysical reality run very differently, especially when it comes to causality. Physical reality is extremely simple, and scientism0oriented folks tend to assume the same is true of metaphysical causality, if the notion is even on their radar.

0