Conceptualisation and Philosophy

Harlequin

Keepin it Movin
Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
1,553
Location
London
Gil
7
FFXIV
Harly Mystile
FFXIV Server
Lamia
I've noticed many of us on these forums use certain words without actually understanding their usage and concepts. Instead of rehashing my thoughts on the subject every time I see an example I'm going to condense the entire subject in this thread for future reference.

Concepts such as:

- Correct, Definate, Evidence, Fact, Know, Proof, Truth.

Whilst these words can be used in reference to faith, their meanings are unequivocal in terms of conceptualisation. For example:

"I know the Earth is spherical and Mathematics proves this."
"I believe the Earth is spherical and Mathematics has provided me with the reference."
The first is a flawed statement. Whilst it would seem I am being overly pedantic about their usage, I believe for this statement to be true, the person would need an infinite knowledge and would therefore need to be infinity, for to have an infinite knowledge one would have to encompass everything.

First off, when taken at face value the person stating the above has likely never been to space nor circumnavigated the globe to provide reference for themselves. But even if they have, there is a chance they could be hallucinating, having an outer body experience, dreaming, dreaming from birth, living in a parallel universe, etc...

Which would by direct extension mean that they don't know. That there is no irrefutable proof, only reference in which to base a belief.

Therefore the second quote, whilst seemingly ambiguous at first would - rather ironically - be a far more accurate use of language and concepts. I hope this has clarified a seemingly murky area for many users.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone to be so pedantic about these concepts when going about their day to day lives, but in a philosophical and/or religious debate accuracy is of paramount importance.

-----

Now, on to these concepts:

- Logic, Rationale.

The two are, like absolutely everything we as humans perceive, subjective.

That doesn't necessarily mean a religion is what you want it to be, but it does mean that we as humans do not have the ability to discern fact from fiction, truth from false, reality from fantasy.

That means I cannot call someone's behaviour "irrational" nor "illogical" as a definate. The following examples should cover this scenario.

"You're an irrational person and the way you think is illogical."
"I feel as if you're an irrational person and the way you think is illogical."
One can only see from one's own viewpoint. As explained earlier in the thread I believe none of us have infinite knowledge, therefore we cannot ascertain anything unequivocally. The first falls into this fallacy, affirming the subject's rationale and logic as misguided. The second is subjective, which I believe is an accurate way of expressing one's opinion whilst remaining true to the concept of reference and belief - as explained below.

-----

- Belief, Reference.

Belief is based on reference. Without reference, belief cannot exist.

When you were pulled from your mother's womb, assuming you didn't have a C Sec or were birthed in another way, your senses provided you with the reference to see the world and indeed believe in the world around you.

You Saw, Tasted, Smelt, Heard and Felt - and so you based your belief. But you are still blind, because you are not all knowing. For example:

- If you see a man walk into a room, you don't know he walked into a room, you believe he did based on the reference your eyes have provided you with.

Similarly, if you have theorised something you decide whether or not to believe in it based on the reference you provide yourself with.

-----

This thread was conceived because I was tired of hearing the same argument from different people. I was tired of hearing these concepts bashed into the ground by those who would ironically believe they were in a position to impart knowledge based on their own beliefs. I am aware that the same irony would seem to ring true here, but I needed to vent and I needed this thread to stockpile my argument the next time I see someone fall into the perceived fallacies I've listed above.

Long story short, humans as we are lack the ability to know.

What are your views on the concepts I've listed above?

Cheers. (y)
 
Coming from a dutch person I find myself with the following conclusion: (correct me if im wrong)

People speak/talk/write in such a way they act like they know it for certain, when in fact they are not 100% sure and it is what they are been told and been fed.

We are all humans after all.

Thus people should speak more humbly? and not through their own arrogance?

Most people wil never speak or act like that bro.

We act like we know but we dont know anything at all.
 
People speak/talk/write in such a way they act like they know it for certain, when in fact they are not 100% sure and it is what they are been told and been fed.

Essentially, although it's not so much a conspiracy as it is a theory which I believe has been qualified in the context of the debate.

We can't know, because what if we die and it turns out reality was something different? Something we hadn't or perhaps couldn't theorise or even fathom?

Socrates put it perfectly when he said "True knowledge is knowing you know nothing."

Thus people should speak more humbly? and not through their own arrogance?

I wouldn't know, but I believe so yes. It's just an overview of the semantics in the language and concepts.

Sorry if I sound cryptic, it's for the sake of accuracy.
 
Ok first of all I'm going to tackle truth and the whole infinite knowledge concept, as they are the areas I have the most understanding in. I'm not challenging anything you said, I think I agree with most of it but I have not perused your post enough to be 100% sure.

First of all I believe the concept of truth doesn't actually exist, nothing that is conceived as true is ever constant. A statement only becomes true when it is referencing something else or is in relation to something else. For example the speed of light can only be measured when it is measured in comparison to a constant or it cannot exist. Truth operates on the same principles. As such truth can only exist when it has something to reference or is in relation to something, therefore truth doesn't really exist at all.

Now on to something a bit more easy to understand I think and that I can explain with more clarity. Infinite knowledge cannot exist (I know I'm being very definite here but there is no other way to explain what I'm trying to, or at least not one that I know of). A system that thinks it's infinite is wrong, as to garner a full understanding of something you must be able to examine it from the outside. It's why we will not be able to fully understand the universe as we are always inside the universe and cannot study what it from outside, as such nothing can have infinite knowledge as it can never know what it is like to view itself as something that is not itself.

Also in this same vein I have an interesting exercise for you to try at home, attempt to answer the following out loud. You may only answer true or false to these statements.

Paris is in France.

The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

The next thing you say will be 'false'.
 
First of all I believe the concept of truth doesn't actually exist, nothing that is conceived as true is ever constant. A statement only becomes true when it is referencing something else or is in relation to something else.

I respect that but as a Christian I disagree.

I believe the LORD is described as infinity in the Bible in the following verse of the top of my head:

""You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." Isaiah 43:10

"This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6

(I'm not trying to convert you or anything, I'm just providing qualification to my belief :wacky: )

I perceive this to mean that he is an infinite truth and a definate. He is all encompassing.

For example the speed of light can only be measured when it is measured in comparison to a constant or it cannot exist. Truth operates on the same principles. As such truth can only exist when it has something to reference or is in relation to something, therefore truth doesn't really exist at all.

I agree that we cannot fathom truth, but I believe that is only due to us as humans being finite. The only way truth could genuinely exist as a definate is if we could encompass everything in existence and measure it with infinite reference. Sorry if I've missed the mark there. :wacky:

Now on to something a bit more easy to understand I think and that I can explain with more clarity. Infinite knowledge cannot exist (I know I'm being very definite here but there is no other way to explain what I'm trying to, or at least not one that I know of). A system that thinks it's infinite is wrong, as to garner a full understanding of something you must be able to examine it from the outside. It's why we will not be able to fully understand the universe as we are always inside the universe and cannot study what it from outside, as such nothing can have infinite knowledge as it can never know what it is like to view itself as something that is not itself.

Yes! Exactly! Thank you so much Sir.

But I believe in the Lord as decribed in the Bible as being physically inaccessable but omnipresent from the realm (so to speak) in which we inhabit. The only way he could be that is if he were infinity itself, which I believe the Bible describes him as.

Also in this same vein I have an interesting exercise for you to try at home, attempt to answer the following out loud. You may only answer true or false to these statements.

Paris is in France.

The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

The next thing you say will be 'false'.

Hahaha that's not fair it's paradoxical!

Nice one though (y)
 
I'm an atheist personally, but I agree that if there was an almighty creator then he/she/or whatevs would so removed from humanity and operate on a level of understanding so above is there is no point even trying to understand the mechanics of its thoughts and perceptions.
 
I do know what you mean, and it makes sense to me. Are you saying that we're only borrowing other concepts to say that we saw someone do something? Such as your last example of saying we saw someone walk into the room. I do agree that we can never know something as such. But I believe we have the potential in the distant future to know.

According to some scientists, we don't use our entire brain when we think, only a small portion of it. If we one day unlocked the rest, we can only guess as to the potential of it (as we can only guess or believe most things :lew:)

I also find it interesting that in Buddhist culture, Nirvana is defined as reaching enlightenment, or ultimate knowledge. It is never really defined as to whether this state can be reached in life. Sort of irrelevant, but I do believe we can have the potential to know and believe.
 
Last edited:
I do know what you mean, and it makes sense to me. Are you saying that we're only borrowing other concepts to say that we saw someone do something? Such as your last example of saying we saw someone walk into the room. I do agree that we can never know something as such. But I believe we have the potential in the distant future to know.

According to some scientists, we don't use our entire brain when we think, only a small portion of it. If we one day unlocked the rest, we can only guess as to the potentiaal of it (as we can only guess or believe most things :lew:)

I also find it interesting that in Buddhist culture, Nirvana is defined as reaching enlightenment, or ultimate knowledge. It is never really defined as to whether this state can be reached in life. Sort of irrelevant, but I do believe we can have the potential to know and believe.

I would disagree. It's not so much using our brains as it is not being able to measure reality or truth.

I'm sorry if this becomes very confusing..

For example: My right hand is attached to me. I believe I have a right hand, but I can only believe. I cannot know because I do not know everything in existence. Suppose I die and it turns out what I believed I knew wasn't in fact reality? I couldn't know it. I could believe I knew it, but that in itself would be contradictory, because belief is the admittance of ignorance. I would need an infinite knowledge and understanding to know anything for that matter.

I believe the theory I threw up of infinity would fly in the face of Buddhism and polytheistic faiths because to have more than one God you would need a separate theism, for infinity (when refering to deities) would mean that those Gods would either need to be conjoined as infinity (making them one and not poly) or they couldn't exist. Following the theory I've presented the latter would seem true.

As for Buddhism, it would seem reaching Nirvana would be a metaphor for becoming one with infinity and reaching a full understanding. A theory I believe is also apparent in Christianity, our idea of Heaven.

"And you will know the Truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

I hope that's clarified things. Once again I apologise for the cryptic delivery in my message.
 
Isn't God and Nirvana itself just a concept? :wacky: Something we believe, yet we can't know if they exist. They just give us hope, the belief in something greater than ourselves. I still think it's always nice to have some hope in something beyond us, and yes, Nirvana seems to be a metaphor for the union with infinity. It would be a good state to exist in, in my opinion. Ultimate knowledge mightn't be easy but it's a state I'd like to see for myself sometime.
 
Isn't God and Nirvana itself just a concept? :wacky:

Yes and No.

Yes, it is a concept and we can't know whether it exists or not.

No, because it could well exist and indeed be everything in which it is. A religion is not just a lifestyle or exclusive to it's followers. It's an all encompassing concept which influences absolutely everything we were, are and could be.

Of course, if it turns out Buddhism is false then yes, it was just a lifestyle. :wacky:
 
You do have a point. But I do believe that concepts have influence over our lives, as does the knowledge most would claim to have.

The concept of a death in the family would have an influence on someone's emotions, just as "knowledge" might. I do believe in your theory to an extent. We do use words such as "know" a lot in everyday speech. :lew: Though I think others adapting this belief would make life a little simpler.
 
Actually that reminds me of a massive problem with the brain, it's been shown in tests that the human brain makes things up to fill in the gaps. In one experiment subjects were repeatedly asked did they remember a certain memory, and after a while with enough repetition they eventually 'remembered the memory' despite the fact the people running it used the exact same memory for every subject.

Another example is let's say you see the wall of a house and don't pay it much attention, then later on you try and remember the house. Your brain may only recall some parts of the wall but will fill in the rest of the wall with what it thinks should be there, so let's say all it remembers is a blank blue wall, and there is part of the wall that's a different colour your brain will simply paper it over so that you remember the wall as being totally blue.

You know those times when you can't remember if something really happened or if it happened in a dream. That is because the longer time goes on the brain stops being able to distinguish what it made up itself and what it experienced. Think of it like this(once again I am using definite to explain a point), you know a piece of information as a fact, but do you remember where you learned that piece of information. The answer is probably not, as your brain discards that information as superfluous. Also science still cannot explain WTF memories actually are.

The point I'm making is the things we experience we cannot know we actually experienced, such as a man walking into a room. Another version of this is, have you ever said something out loud and no one reacts at all and you start to wonder if you said anything at all.
 
We do use words such as "know" a lot in everyday speech. :lew: Though I think others adapting this belief would make life a little simpler.

Yeah I mean it boils down to a lack of a word to define this concept:

"An expression of affirmed and definate belief in something based on a perceived source of reference but without assertion of definate existence."

We don't have a word in English to condense that phrase into so use of the word 'know' will have to suffice. For example:

- "Did you know Big Ben is a landmark in London?"
- "Yes, I knew that."

Only a mug would pull you up on that.

I just hate it when people use the following in philosophical, moral or religious debates:

- "Everyone knows that..."
- "You're wrong because..."

And so on.
 
Well, I don't know which discussions/debates are being addressed here in which people are abusing these words, and I won't ask for the sake of privacy, so I'm not sure whether I'm saying anything relevant here or adding anything of value or not :lew:, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway, since I just spent a very long time typing this up and if I've been ninja'd several times then so be it. While there do seem to be a handful of people out there who really believe they "know everything," I think one of the main reasons why many people tend to say they "know" things to be "true" or "wrong" and so on and so forth, is merely as a method of standardization for communication purposes, and not necessarily that they actually believe that. In addition to having to standardize the medium (i.e. talking, typing, etc.), the language, the dialect, in a lot of cases for time's sake, most people will also assume based on their experiences that there is a perceived standard amongst humans for many concepts, and they will make their statements with this in mind, whether it's valid or not. For example, though it may be possible, I've never heard of any human having a condition where their vision allows them to selectively see some objects and not others, so if I say "I KNOW that cup is on the table," it's because I don't believe anyone looking at it will be able to argue with me. However, if this health condition is possible, or this world/dimension we live in does not actually exist, then in the eyes of the universe, then yes my statement would be false. Because as far as us humans are aware at this point, there are currently no beings we can verbally communicate with on the planet other than our own species, to go into a discourse on whether or not something physical exists every time you refer to an object would be mind-numbingly tedious, and would, ironically, inhibit our ability to learn more about the world by taking up all of our time discussing something it isn't currently possible for us to understand. So while it may very well be inaccurate to say that we "know" an object is purple, or round, or mooing, I also don't see anything wrong with it. I think a lot of people are aware of the fact that we can't possibly know everything, and wouldn't attempt to pretend that they did.

Now, the reason I think this same issue comes into play when people are discussing or debating abstractions, is that they have become so conditioned through repetition to do the above that they extend such practices to debates on the intangible also. If you're going into details about something philosophical or religious, but no one yet has been announced to you or anyone else in the world as being "all-knowing" on the subject (i.e., the person in the debate is not actually God, Jesus, Buddha, etc, or any other deity-like being sent by them), then a lot of people will approach the discussion with the assumption that everyone involved in it is a human, and is privy to many of the same standards of comprehension. And while there are a lot of people who think more philosophically and approach such subjects more openly, there are also a lot of people who treat such debates the same way they would treat a normal conversation, and will either assume that everyone in it understands that we can't actually "know" everything, or else act as though all humans (or at least they themselves) can. In either case, the actual value of what is said depends on the purpose of the debate and how it will affect society, as well as how it will affect the other individuals in it. If the other individuals in the debate do, in fact, choose to believe that this one person "knows" the thing they have mentioned, without proof, then that is their choice; but as long as it's not harming anyone or anything in particular, then I don't really see a problem with people using such terms; I usually just give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that when they say they "know" something that they understand that this world itself may not even be real or what they think it is :wacky: And, if they are in fact omniscient, then I figure I can always apologize to them at some point in the future if/when I myself find that to be true.
 
Alright, so the basis of this thread is basically this: Everything is false until proven true.
Just because you don't know a given thing doesn't mean it is isn't true. To say that nothing is real is the most fundamental lie that can exist.
If something isn't real, nothing can be. And vice versa. People let the idea of perception get to their head. Yes, life can be argued as being purely perspective, but everything you perceive is real. Sometimes, we just get the facts wrong and something turns out to be different than it was originally perceived to be.
Where this existence stemmed from is yet to be determined. But if there is any one thing that is relevant and true to the heart, it's the fact that the universe is real.
Even if we are just a daydream in God's head as he strolls through the garden, we are still real. There is simply no way around that fact.

People would do alot better if they eliminated what isn't true instead of proving what is_
 
Because as far as us humans are aware at this point, there are currently no beings we can verbally communicate with on the planet other than our own species, to go into a discourse on whether or not something physical exists every time you refer to an object would be mind-numbingly tedious, and would, ironically, inhibit our ability to learn more about the world by taking up all of our time discussing something it isn't currently possible for us to understand. So while it may very well be inaccurate to say that we "know" an object is purple, or round, or mooing, I also don't see anything wrong with it. I think a lot of people are aware of the fact that we can't possibly know everything, and wouldn't attempt to pretend that they did.

I agree with the use of language, but the problem is people developing a fallacy whilst misinterpreting the concept and fully believing they could know without realising that all it is is a declaration of faith in reference, rather than knowledge itself.
:wacky: And, if they are in fact omniscient, then I figure I can always apologize to them at some point in the future if/when I myself find that to be true.

Haha I agree. :wacky:

Alright, so the basis of this thread is basically this: Everything is false until proven true.

Almost. It's the basis that truth is immeasurable, whilst making no assertion of whether or not it exists.

None of us can perceive truth without infinite reference. We need to know that there is no alternative, that there is no beyond or dimension which would warp what we perceive to be reality before we would ever be able to measure truth. We can't achieve that goal in our current states, therefore we cannot know.

...If that makes sense. :hmmm:
 
Last edited:
Why do you have to bring god in as a point of reference?

Here is where my problem lies with your point.........The Universe, as i everything we can see is observable.......figments of primitive mans way of explaining the "mysteries of the world" cannot be, when most of them have been been explained by science.
Apparent ignorance of a thing is just anew path to discovering "WHY", everything is quantifiable.

You cant dictate what and how people perceive to be truth, lt is a concept as individual as we all are, ATM there 6,697,254,041 individual POV on the Earth, some strongly believed others failing, some just emerging others suddenly ended.

One singular truth that encapsulate everything is not possible:

Take a single Event anywhere on earth, there are 5 people there who witness this event,
some of the actions there will labelled as fact because some thing are undeniable. Only 60 to 80% of the event will be remembered by each individual.........the other minor percentage is based on how it effects themselves , there own interests in the event and other analytical nuances of there minds.

Events that happen are fact. Witnessed or not they are still fact.We can do our best to understand "WHY" even if we are not there "WHEN"."WHY" may not be thought of as truth by some but when evidence suggest it is by repeated observation it must eventually be considered true or at least on the path to being true.

An Event occurred In the Large Magellanic Cloud 192,000 years before the conception of any Deity on earth, It was only observed in 1987 which is why it came to be known as SN1987A, from what I believe to be true this happened at a time when Humans were the second of shoot of homo sapiens, not the 1st, this has been concluded by study over time lines.

I dont want to turn this into a religious thing but FACT is true whether understood at the time, it just exists in a different terms such as assumption & conclusion, like different stages of life, they all lead to FACT.

FAITH however is not FACT, it is a persons choice or chosen way off life that leads to FAITH, its not a bad a thing unless used to that end, and large groups of people hold FAITH to be true, and it might be audacious of me to generalise, but its not.......it cannot be proven over time either because it has no evidence from an initial event.

Belief in either FAITH or FACT is a choice and no one person can tell others how to perceive.........especially not one so obviously biased in favor of 1. Im not telling Believers how to act here merely that from my POV there wrong which is my right.

As it there's to say to me.
 
Why do you have to bring god in as a point of reference?

I hadn't presented God as a definate, only as a qualifier on why I believe what I believe on infinity which is fully relevant to the topic at hand.

Here is where my problem lies with your point.........The Universe, as i everything we can see is observable.......figments of primitive mans way of explaining the "mysteries of the world" cannot be, when most of them have been been explained by science.

This is why this thread was created.

Firstly, Science has only provided reference. What would seem to be evidence and/or proof is in fact reference, because none of us can discern reality and truth. The original post and several after explain this point extensively.

Science provides reference, you then decide whether or not to believe in that assertion.

Apparent ignorance of a thing is just anew path to discovering "WHY", everything is quantifiable.

I would say ignorance is always true until humans can transcend mortality and become infinity. Ignorance and truth cannot run parallel, they are polar opposites. Truth is an absolute and can only exist when there is absolutely no ignorance.

You cant dictate what and how people perceive to be truth, lt is a concept as individual as we all are, ATM there 6,697,254,041 individual POV on the Earth, some strongly believed others failing, some just emerging others suddenly ended.

But I do believe that there is a truth and that truth in itself isn't subjective.

One singular truth that encapsulate everything is not possible:

What makes you say that? Surely it's contradictory to suggest that there cannot be a singular truth as a singular truth?

Take a single Event anywhere on earth, there are 5 people there who witness this event,
some of the actions there will labelled as fact because some thing are undeniable. Only 60 to 80% of the event will be remembered by each individual.........the other minor percentage is based on how it effects themselves , there own interests in the event and other analytical nuances of there minds.

But what happened happened. I understand what you're saying, but I believe in judgement so I believe what has happened is an exact, albeit not perceivable as an exact by man.

FAITH however is not FACT, it is a persons choice or chosen way off life that leads to FAITH, its not a bad a thing unless used to that end, and large groups of people hold FAITH to be true, and it might be audacious of me to generalise, but its not.......it cannot be proven over time either because it has no evidence from an initial event.

Faith is the nearest thing to truth human beings can conceptualise. Everyone holds faith to be true because everyone has faith. Faith is opinion. Faith is personal.

You have demonstrated faith in Science. You have demonstrated faith in facts, proof and evidence. That is the fallacy I am talking about.

You would need infinite reference to be able to use the concepts fact, proof and evidence accurately. You do not have infinite reference therefore your faith in those isn't fully qualified.

What if this world doesn't exist? What if we don't exist?

You and I don't know the answer to these questions, therefore we cannot ascertain truth. All that is left is belief in the reference our senses provide us with.

Belief in either FAITH or FACT is a choice and no one person can tell others how to perceive.........especially not one so obviously biased in favor of 1. Im not telling Believers how to act here merely that from my POV there wrong which is my right.

As it there's to say to me.

It's not bias. There's no sides here, I'm not against fact.

I only wanted to express a theory which has been around for a very long time in Philosophy that I felt most members on these forums would benefit from. The common flaw in most people's debate would be an assertion of a fact when the only way they could perceive it was as reference.
 
Im glad to hear you are open to other points of view Harly........I dont agree with all of your counter points but at least you were open minded enough to hear mine and respond with fair and reasonable points.

I appreciate that part of your retort.

You would need infinite reference to be able to use the concepts fact, proof and evidence accurately. You do not have infinite reference therefore your faith in those isn't fully qualified.

This is dont agree with blatantly, science doen not claim to have all the answers but it holds more potential to do so than a group who postulates there Deity is infinity itself?

none of us can discern reality and truth.

How can you say that for other people?
I explained this before "TRUTH" is an individual concept and you just stated that nobodies self truth is discernible? Holding people to it or not you have just made a exhausting generalisation.

Harmless as it may be from your POV, what you just said may be the most offensive thing I have heard in my life.

What about self determination? self discovery? Is all for naught if your point is taken literally because those things go along way to making us the people we are.

Innocent statements, but damning in there execution.
 
Back
Top