Fact/reality is what all of us use at one time or another, most times I would argue, to help us figure out which statements are true and which are not. The cup is on the table. You can look for yourself------->

It does not follow that fact/reality are "the ultimate truth". I've already discussed the issue(s) that arise with equating fact/reality with truth.



Evidently we use the term "logical" to mean different things.

No, I don't have a problem with the term logical. I think you have a problem with the term "truth." And probably reality also.

You measure the truth of a statement on how it corresponds to fact/reality. Then you make the statement that facts are neither true or false. Which means that you feel that reality is also neither true or false.

So it is our different ideas or opinions of the meaning of "true" where we differ.

And that's the truth.

Evidently you read words that I do not write and respomd to your own imaginings rather than what has been written.

What did I read that you did not write? You wrote this: "Facts are neither true nor false. Facts are states of affairs."

IF you are going to judge a statement as being true IF it corresponds to REALITY and then use fact/reality as the same term, and then state that facts are neither true or false, then that means you are also saying that reality is neither true or false.

Fact/reality when put together with a/ imply that fact=reality.

If facts are neither true or false, then reality is neither true or false.

If reality is neither true or false, then if a statement corresponds to reality, why would that equal the statement is true???

The statement would also have to be neither true or false.

You are proving a statement is true by its correspondence to REALITY which is "supposed" to be true also. But if reality is neither true or false what have you proven about your statement?

(Facts are also supposed to be true, or they are not facts.)

So why do you say that facts are neither true or false? <-----------

Are you trying to be confusing?

Nope, not trying to be confusing. Succeeding none-the-less.

Here's how truth works...

Thought/belief begins by being about the states of affairs, as they occur. States of affairs are fact. Reality is the overall state of affairs. Thought/belief presupposes it's own correspondence to fact/reality. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Thought/belief grounds language. Statements are expressions of thought/belief regarding states of affairs. Assuming honest testimony, statements presuppose truth. Thus, a statement is true if, and only if, it corresponds to fact/reality.

THE OP


My intermittent interaction in this thread has left me confused about the discussion thus far. I’ve had to start from the beginning to clarify where we are. I’ve reviewed the posts and even made a few notes, but I am even more confused than I thought I was.

Since I’m on spring break and I find this discussion interesting, I would like to pursue it, but I can’t until I understand what it’s about.

Forgive me, but perhaps if my earliest confusion is made clear, then I might be able to catch up.

1. discussion of illusion, early in the post

‘Pure illusion’ = what we ‘see’ that does not exist.
Optical illusion = what we ‘see’ that is not an accurate representation of the way things are (fact/reality)… due to the inherent limitations within our physiological sensory perception and/or the brain possibly overcompensating from the past habit of filling in for what is sometimes missing information.

What we ‘see’ is never more than a small percentage of fact/reality. The physical ability that allows us to see is ‘in fact’ a function that is very limited. We are also limited by the brain itself because the amount of data it can process for cognitive use is time sensitive. Sight must be transmitted to the brain and processed for cognitive use which does indeed require the brain to fill in the blanks.

Thus, our perceptions are the product of incoming sensual data and cognition.

Whether we are actively aware, dreaming or experiencing a mirage, we are responding to sensual data. To me, it does not make sense to differentiate between the illusive processes that lead to perception. Bias is always a part of the process, this is based on fact/reality and it’s the reason for the structured methods of scientific exploration.

". It is true that the hunter is making a sound that mimics the animal. It is true that the animal hears the sound. It is true that the animal thinks/believes that the sound indicates another animal.

If we proceed on the premise that there is a difference between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ then the difference has not been established at this point in the discussion .

However, if we proceed on the premise that truth and fact are synonymous then, I would agree.

It is not true that the sound is coming from another animal.
So, given this, the animal does not hear what is not true.

I think your logic is in error. Logic follows an order which I know your are well aware of. First you make the statement(s) then you draw the conclusions. You have included conclusions within your statements without providing conditions under which negation may operate.

For example: from the premise that truth and fact are synonymous: without conditions

An animal will respond to the sound of another animal
A man makes the sound of an animal
Therefore, ….

At this point there are several possible statements, for example:

Therefore .. an animal will respond to the sound of any animal OR an animal will respond to a man OR an animal will respond to a man making the sound of another animal….

The conclusion we reach about statements, based on logic, provide the truth value of the statements, whether the statement is factual or not, we can logically support our conclusions. This is true/fact and is only dependent on the logic we use to support the conclusion.

"The earth orbits the sun" is either true or false. "This sentence is false" is neither true, nor false. The difference between the two is that the former makes a claim about the world, whereas the latter is self-referencial and therefore is utterly meaningless.

If we proceed on the premise that truth and fact are synonymous and that any statement which makes a claim about the world is either true, not true, or (I would add) not known then, I agree that the statement “The Earth orbits the sun.” is either true or not true (but also) that the fact of the matter might not be known.

If we proceed on the premise that there IS a difference between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ and the difference has not been established at this point in the discussion, then we could concede that the truth of the matter is conditional or dependent on other statements or factors (context, for example).

As noted above – the statements made referring to the man and animal interaction were not logically set up from which to form logical conclusions.

However, if they were logically set up to form conclusions, than the conclusions we form may not be factual whether the statements being drawn to their logical conclusions are true or false..

This is the first stumbling block for me in this discussion. What is the premise from which we determine the difference between statements of truth and fact? That has not been clearly defined.

Later in the discussion there is the question of the effects of language development on the truth of statements. Are we really talking about language, or are we talking about the process by which the brain fills in the blanks of incoming data with pre-existing bias?

So, do we draw conclusions of fact (whether known or not known), differently than we draw conclusions of truth? If so please clarify.

Hello again Di. Great to see you. I think that we agree here, for all intents and purposes.



I do not normally talk about "perceptions", "data", and the like. I find that it often leads to unnecessary confusion from drawing unnecessary distinctions. Be that as it may, I realize that you're studying psychology, so I'll gladly make an exception.



I would hesitantly agree with the first statement, if we are to suppose that dreaming and experiencing a mirage are responses to memory of data rather then direct perception of existing data. I'm also unsure of exactly what you mean by "the illusive processes that lead to perception."



How we define the terms "truth" and "fact" is important. I do not hold that the two are synonymous, although they are often used in that way. If truth and fact are one in the same, then truth would be mind-independent.



I see the allegation, but I do not see adequate support for it. I mean if we look at what was true and what was not true, then we can parse out what the animal would have had to have heard in order for us to say that it heard what was not true.

1. The hunter was making a sound that mimics the animal.
2. The sound was not coming from another animal.
3. The sound was coming from another animal.

I suspect that you'll have no objection to either 1 or 2, because they are both obviously true. 3 is not true. So, given that, how could the animal be said to have heard what was not true? That would be to say that the animal heard a sound that was coming from another animal - which is not true.



This is not right Di. Truth-value is provided by the rules of correct inference; the rules of logic. Truth-value is not truth. Logic presupposes truth. Truth-value is a tool of logic. It is a measure of coherence/validity. Neither is sufficient for truth. Take the following example which is perfectly valid, follows the rules of logic, but is false to begin with, because there are black swans.

All swans are white
That bird is not white
That bird is not a swan



This is probably the best question you've asked thus far, because it seems to root out some of the underlying issues. You'll need to define both, because I've not put those terms to use. Rather, I find them unnecessarily confusing. On your view, what is a statement of truth? What is a statement of fact? I mean, what it is that makes either one what they are?



On my view, all conclusions drawn are believed to be true by s/he who draws them.

Along the lines of "perception" and "sense data", would you say that there are always images in the head? I mean, when I look across the table and see my blue cup, am I seeing an image that only exists in my head, or am I directly perceiving my blue cup?

Would that not depend upon where 'you' are.

If you are greater than your head...

Trust the sensors your body gave you.

Your 'head' is but a tool.

In essence a big 'eye' that you use for perception.

I don't see how it could depend upon that. I mean is there a blue cup that I see, or is that just an image - sense data - in my mind? My location in time and space does not much matter, does it?



A central tool, for sure. I suppose that I'm wondering if "perception" refers to one's interpretation of reality, or the part of reality that is perceivable(being perceived).

"I don't see how it could depend upon that. I mean is there a blue cup that I see, or is that just an image - sense data - in my mind? My location in time and space does not much matter, does it? "

Location in time and space for that which is your essence is of great import.

If your body is near a blue cup and your mind is locked in a past memory (or a future thought).

Where actually are 'you'...

would you see the cup or the memory in fuller detail?

At the measured moment of 'perception of reality' which is the one you are 'focused' upon?

Sounds like substance dualism. I do not find that there is a meaningful distinction to be made between me and my mind. The mind is the product of brain function. No brain... no mind.

Being somewhat uneducated I have no idea what 'substance dualism' is.

your 'no brain... no mind' presuposes that both are necessary for a human.

Humans simply grow the body for use in this reality. (should they be lucky enough to find the Well of Life open).

Humans (in the image of God) exist in multiple realms of reality.

Of which this is but one.

Albeit a most interesting one it is but a single facet of Reality.

The internet is such a great tool for learning things. I would suggest checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(SEP) and typing "substance dualism" into the internal search engine. Briefly... substance dualism refers to a philosophical position that holds that the mind exists indepedently of the physical body. Championed by the likes of Descartes.



Not necessarily for a human. Some are born brain-dead, as it were, or become brain-dead. More to the point, it presupposes that the mind lives and dies along with the brain's functioning. That is supported by all of the evidence that I've seen.



There is a whole lot of unpacking to do here. Upon what ground are any of these statements being made? I mean, what supports them?

Reality...

It is greater than science measures else religions would not exist.

As religions do exist there must also be more than science sees (or is willing to examine).

I do not see this as being the reason for the existence of religions. Religions came before science, afterall. The existence of religions does not constitute sufficient ground to conclude that that is somehow proof that there is more than what science sees or can measure.

I mean, I agree that there is more to know that we do not yet know. That is evident because we discover things all the time. Be that as it may, whatever may or may not exist in the unknown realm, cannot be meaningfully spoken of. It is unknown. The unknown realm serves only to remind us that we do not, and most likely cannot, know everything that there is to know about the way things are. There are some things that we can and do know however, and those things are far more revealing than the unknown realm could ever be.

This presents something that I missed earlier. I'm looking closely at your terminological use Di, in order to tease out exactly what it is that you're referring to when you use the terms "truth" and "fact". It seems to me that the usage above is sometimes meant to indicate true statements(such as the last claim), yet at other times it is meant to indicate something else. Is that right? If not, then what exactly does "the truth/fact of the matter" point to? I mean what exactly is it that you're talking about when those terms are being put to use?

There is another thing that is curious here. Do you find that in order for a statement to be true, that we must "know the fact/truth" of the matter? Or, is it adequate for us to say that the only thing that makes a statement true is correspondence with/to fact/reality? Take the following example...

"The dog has fleas."

The statement is true, if and only if, the dog has fleas. It does not matter whether or not we check to see, thus it does not matter if we know. It would be true, none-the-less.



This seems to be dangerously close to equating truth and meaning. Meaning is a peculiar fellar, to say the least.



This could be interesting. I'm not sure exactly which part of the discussion you're talking about. Assuming that what you mean when you say "the truth of statements" is whether or not statements are true, how does language development effect that?

--

I think that perhaps most of the confusion here could be laid to rest if we consider what I see as the most important aspect underlying the overall discussion. The rest 'falls' into place rather nicely...

What does it take for a statement to be true?

There are always images in your head but sometimes parts of an image are stored in different places. When one is asked to give a description (example:) of a cup used frequently, it is possible that the description will depict details of the bowl part of the cup down to the a chip near the bottom, while at the same time, details of the handle may not match. It would not be surprizing to discover that the handle that was described actually belonged to another cup that had been broken.

Why the confusion? Could be several reasons.

If you look accross a table and notice a cup, you may see the image of your blue cup because that is what you expect to see. But later you discover that your blue cup is in the sink and the cup you actually noticed was one left there by your son.

It depends on the level of awarness that you are operating under when objects come into view. If you are preoccupied with other thoughts, what you perceive is often what you would expect and not what you actually see.

Our range of vision, including periferal, can seem quite encompassing but we actually have a very limited range of focus and our focus is further diminished when our mind is preoccupied with other congnitions.

There are exceptions of course. Those who have grown up with severe hearing loss compensate for the handicap by maintaining a constant awareness of all lines of vision. Their visual 'perception' far exceeds that of hearing individuals.

You know all those pictures in which we are asked to find 14 hidden objects - hearing people are absolutely no competition to a Deaf person. Their memory is also more reliable. Some studies have correlated this heightened memory capacity to sign language development because the language itself is spacial, & gestural and relies on visual cues of facial and body movements for syntax and grammatical connotations.

Studies of multi-lingual individuals, particularly those who have grown up fluent in more than one language, consistanly correlate a greater capacity for abstract thought, a more reliable memory and much quicker adaptation to new languages.

Which is one of the reasons why I am so opposed to the idea of a national language and support much greater exposure to other languages in all levels of education.

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion about language. Clearly, how we develop our language skills and the number of languages we learn at an early age does affect the way in which our memory storage & access and cognitive functions work.

I hope this was a nice distraction from the topic and that it was informative on some level.

Always good stuff coming from you Di.

I have to ask though, if what I perceive(such as the blue cup) is not what is there, isn't it rather odd for us to say that I'm perceiving anything at all? Wouldn't that be more appropriately called imagining?