4000 posts

[Solnath]

How can anything be validated and what makes that validation valid?

[Tacolicious]

The logic on which the validation is built is what make it valid or invalid. This is not to say that it is absolutely valid, however for so long as it's core logics remain valid it remains valid as well. There is always going to be a perspective from which any valid arrangement of logic could be seen as invalid, but who's to say the perspective itself is not flawed instead of the flaw being in that which is perceived.

[Solnath]

Cookies?

[Tacolicious]

Cookies would go nice with victory... thanks kindly 

[Algerianbania]

That is not a valid statement.

[Solnath]

Anyway, the validity of the perspective is inherently tied to that of the subject at hand as the viewpoint defines the object, rather than presenting it.

[Tacolicious]

The viewpoint only revels the perception of the object, rather then the object itself

[Solnath]

How are the perceptions different from the object itself?

[Tacolicious]

If you look at an egg straight from the bottom it's round, if you look at an egg from the side it's elliptical. So if someone who had never seen an egg before were to be shown eggs with the bottom facing them in their reality eggs would be round.

It's also like people used to believe the sun revolves around the earth... just because you perceive a thing to be a way doesn't make it true.

[Solnath]

Meh, this as good a thread as any for post 5000.

If you look at an egg from one angle, is it the same egg when observed from another? Perceiving something makes the observation true as far as validity can be concerned. It is entirely up to the viewer to deduce what they are observing.

[Tacolicious]

It doesn't make it true though, because the person considers the object to be a round egg because that's all they can see of it. You parents aren't the people you thought you knew as a kid, but to try and convince a kid of that is nearly impossible because they can't separate their perception of a thing from the "reality" of a thing. When you observe something you're not seeing the object itself, your seeing what your mind tells you is there... so where's the truth?

[Solnath]

It makes it true for them and that makes it true. Just because we learn to see things from many perspectives doesn't mean that they were as complicated as they are now when we couldn't. By perceiving detail, we add detail, even if only subjectively. The closest we have to an objective truth is the sum of subjective truths.

[Tacolicious]

And yet for all the massive size of the universe we only have 5 (or 6) senses with which to experience it. Seems to me like there's a lot we're missing out on and even the senses we do have are highly limited... infrared anyone? So if all we're seeing is this tiny fragment then where is the truth?

If you heard a lie and perceived that lie to be truth it wouldn't make it true no matter how much you wanted it to be so. Something isn't true or false by force of will, things are true or false by the accuracy of our understanding to the form of whatever we're trying to understand.

[Solnath]

If I held true that every morning the Sun rises from the West, it would be true for me, regardless of its validity in comparison to my observation to the physical world. It would be an invalid estimation, but it would still be true.

As for senses, we have only a handful of senses at the moment, but that does not mean that we could not have more inactive or potentially. Those we have now are mostly due to pressure of natural selection, not from purposeful research and development.

[Tacolicious]

It's not true that the sun rises from the west... Just believing something is not what makes it true. The sun doesn't even rise from the east, the sun APPEARS to rise in the east. Truth is not just some concept to be applied willy nilly  and then modified at a moments whim, truth is something to be respected.

Have you ever heard of the Allegory of the Cave?