From: Patrick van den Berg (cirandar@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 12:32:19 BST
Hi Mark,
--- Valuemetaphysics@aol.com wrote:
> Forum,
> Truth is closely connected, perhaps inseparable from reason and
> rationality.
> This being the case, would it be helpful to view truth as an
> instrument?
> Truth is valuable as a methodology; there appear to be a great number
> of rational
> methodologies from which to choose.
> Does this indicate that reason is value driven?
I think so, yes. And truth is indeed inseparable from reason and
rationality, but to see truth one perhaps needs more ingredients, such
as intuition. We have Goedel's theorem saying that (logical) truth can't
be caught in a finite net. A minority of scientists has used this
theorem to argue that because humans can see truth in mathematical
statements and more, we're not bound to rational rules.
This is a statement that is contested by many, in the AI field, and here
on the MoQ-forum also. I don't care to bring up this discussion again,
but there are two related assumptions that are either explicity or
implicitely made in the discussion. a) some people assume that seeing
truth is a cognitive quality by itself (based on but not determined by
logical steps), as opposed to people who see truth as merely a
pragmatical convention when a certain theory works (in the mind or in
reality). b) Some people assume that the basis on which we found truth
is on the conscious side, others assume that there is unconsious
processing that biases or even creates on the conscious side the feeling
or judgement of truth.
The two assumptions, whether held 'true' or 'untrue', are related in the
sense that once you assume that humans can't see truth based on
consciously laid bare assumptions and logical steps, but assume that
truth is processed partly unconsious or even pulls a joke with the
informational content of our brain which is conscious, indeed the best
we can say about truth is that it is that which 'works'. (Sorry for this
long sentence).
I think there's not only on the process of seeing concrete logical
steps, but also the process of intuition. Intuition is like seeing
vaguely a whole perceptual field, concrete rationality is like seeing
sharply only an isolated part of the field. You can assume that
intuition is just not seeing what 'is out there' good enough, but that
what is 'out there' is defined and precise nevertheless. This relates
very much to the assumptions of SOM. You can take intuition as being a
form of quality by itself, not subdued by an objective world out there,
but simply as a way of apprehending certain features of reality (that
goes beyond the subject-object split).
Anyhow, it could be the case that the act of choosing methodologies is
an intuitive process, unless you assume that there can be found a
methodology to choose the best methodology!
Hope this makes sense a bit. You incidentally hit upon something that
intrigues me a lot. With some things often brooding in one's mind, it's
sometimes hard to bring it out and put it into words... there's a lot
more to be said about this. Wonder what Moq'ists have to say about these
matters.
Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 20 2003 - 12:35:14 BST