The nature of certainty...

[miss fortune]

he he... on the whole thing about what we sense is OUR reality I'm going to quote myself from another thread!

Here- for another example I'll quote one of my favorite books- this is from Tim O'Brien's book The Things They Carried

"If Rat told you, for example, that he'd slept with four girls in one night, you could figure it was about a girl and a half. It wasn't a question of deceit. Just the opposite: he wanted to heat up the truth, make it burn so hot that you would feel exactly the way that he felt. For Rat Kiley, I think, facts were formed by sensations, not the other way around..."

Is Rat lying? Or is he telling the truth? I would say that it was HIS truth, since that's the way that he experienced it, but the author says that it's a lie since it's not "the truth."

since we can't prove anything beyond what we experience- what we experience is OUR truth- it's what we have to base things off of! that's how I've tended to operate anyways- our lives and experiences and perceptions are all that we have to work with realistically and that's generally what we end up applying to our everyday lives when we make decisions- sure you may refer back to something you read somewhere or a theory- but it must have appealed to you because it worked along with your life experiences well in the first place!

 

[Kiddo]

he he... on the whole thing about what we sense is OUR reality I'm going to quote myself from another thread!



since we can't prove anything beyond what we experience- what we experience is OUR truth- it's what we have to base things off of! that's how I've tended to operate anyways- our lives and experiences and perceptions are all that we have to work with realistically and that's generally what we end up applying to our everyday lives when we make decisions- sure you may refer back to something you read somewhere or a theory- but it must have appealed to you because it worked along with your life experiences well in the first place!

Then there are as many different truths as there are people, because everyone experiences life differently. Don't tell that to an objectivist or religious person or they will run you out of town with torches and pitch forks. They believe there is only one ultimate truth, whether it is derived by human reason or from God.

 

[zarc]

Take it up with those who write the descriptions.

I am. Slowly.

That actually directly contradicts the descriptions. Although it really doesn't have much to do with the topic of this thread.

It doesn't contradict, actually, though I won't explain as it's not relevant here. I shouldn't have stepped in as it was long ago that you said it. It was inappropriate of me. Rather, it was me venting due to excessive amounts of Type-steroetypes I'm witnessing lately and trying to corect. I'm sorry if you were offended if my tone implied anger towards you.

 

[Kiddo]

I am. Slowly.



It doesn't contradict, actually, though I won't explain as it's not relevant here. I shouldn't have stepped in as it was long ago that you said it. It was inappropriate of me. Rather, it was me venting due to excessive amounts of Type-steroetypes I'm witnessing lately and trying to corect. I'm sorry if you were offended if my tone implied anger towards you.

Not at all, I'm just enjoying this discussion and I didn't want to risk it getting derailed on the topic of type stereotypes.

 

[spirilis]

I think what you are actually experiencing here is the reality that logic is one of your personal values and the subsequent certainty you have placed in it to provide you with secure answers. Reasoning is an important tool, but it is an assumption that reason cannot be influenced by your limited perception. In fact, it is often the case that two perfectly reasonable people, with different perceptions, can correctly reason out two entirely different conclusions about the same thing.

I guess the beauty of your argument here is that, in effect, you can argue almost any point into a veil of truthfulness by leveraging the "personal bias" status against it.

 

[Kiddo]

I guess the beauty of your argument here is that, in effect, you can argue almost any point into a veil of truthfulness by leveraging the "personal bias" status against it.

You are forgetting what I said on my first post.

"It is then arguable that the perfect amount of certainty lies in between, and so we conceived that it would always be wise to question certainty. Not question as in doubt certainty, but as in to "know why you know what you know." After all, isn't that the fundamental idea behind science? Science is the testing and retesting of established beliefs in an attempt to disprove them for the sake of increasing our confidence of certainty. And of course, science is the means by which humans have made progress."

Perception without evidence is purely relative and thus meaningless, the key is to collect as many perceptions as possible to extrapolate what is most likely true for the most people.

If you have a means of defining certainty better than methodology then I would love to hear it. However, man did not make progress on faith and logic alone; the reality is he had to devise systems of trial and error with which to test his assumptions and ensure he was not unwillingly biased in his conclusions. Faith and logic are important values and tools, but they are not an end unto themselves.

 

[cafe]

Then there are as many different truths as there are people, because everyone experiences life differently. Don't tell that to an objectivist or religious person or they will run you out of town with torches and pitch forks. They believe there is only one ultimate truth, whether it is derived by human reason or from God.

Kiddo, do you really believe that about all religious people? Do you really think that I am going to come after whatever with torches and pitch forks because of the way she sees things? Or do you discount uncertain people as being religious?

For all your dislike of certainty you sure like to express a lot of negative certainties about people you think have certainty.

 

[Kiddo]

Kiddo, do you really believe that about all religious people? Do you really think that I am going to come after whatever with torches and pitch forks because of the way she sees things? Or do you discount uncertain people as being religious?

I only believe that about religious/objectivistic people who are certain about there beliefs. And by certain, I mean they accept their beliefs as absolute truth.

For all your dislike of certainty you sure like to express a lot of negative certainties about people you think have certainty.

I'm very prejudiced towards people who believe they know absolute truth. I'm learning to become tolerant of such people. But I've accepted that by their own beliefs, they will never be tolerant of me.

 

[cafe]

I only believe that about religious/objectivistic people who are certain about there beliefs. And by certain, I mean they accept their beliefs as absolute truth.

I'm very prejudiced towards people who believe they know absolute truth. I'm learning to become tolerant of such people. But I've accepted that by their own beliefs, they will never be tolerant of me.

That's a pretty broad and certain brush.

 

[Kiddo]

That's a pretty broad and certain brush.

I said I was trying to become more tolerant of certain people. That shows I'm questioning my certainty.

 

[redacted]

What many of them don't realize is that logic is, in and of itself, a personal value and a limitation on perception.

i think it's the other way around. you have to choose to limit your perception before you can use logic. if you define a frame with terms and formulas for relationships between laws, then logic is absolutely true IN THAT FRAME. logic doesn't mean anything without a predefined frame, though.

 

[Kiddo]

i think it's the other way around. you have to choose to limit your perception before you can use logic. if you define a frame with terms and formulas for relationships between laws, then logic is absolutely true IN THAT FRAME. logic doesn't mean anything without a predefined frame, though.

Read on dude.

 

[redacted]

Read on dude.

i just did. what did you think i would see?

and i stick by what i said. like in the base 10 human defined number system, 1+2 = 3. it just does, by definition. it's absolutely true in that frame.

now, most frames are broader and less defined, or maybe defined differently by different people. and that's where uncertainty comes in. i'm often uncertain about which frame i'm in, or which frame others are in. i'm also uncertain that i know all the logical rules of the frame. or maybe the frame i define is based on faulty premises. or maybe i apply logic incorrectly to the rules i've defined. etc. or maybe the frame is so complicated that it's impossible for the brain to process it all at the same time.

the thing is, human perception can only work in frames. it can never see outside. so i can never be certain about what's objective and what's not, because humans are subjective by definition.

in conclusion, i agree that certainty is limiting in many circumstances, because of all the possible misapplications i listed above. if you're sure you never get anything wrong, you're probably wrong, and you're certainly closed-minded. but that doesn't mean certainty is bad in all cases. i am certain that 1+2=3 in our number system, and i'm totally fine with that -- i don't think anyone will ever convince me otherwise.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

One thing to consider is that certaintly in another person can be somewhat misleading. INxJ's tend to be less certain than they first appear to other people, while IxxP's tend to be more certain than they appear. One thing you can't be certain of is another person's level of certainty.

 

[Kiddo]

i just did. what did you think i would see?

and i stick by what i said. like in the base 10 human defined number system, 1+2 = 3. it just does, by definition. it's absolutely true in that frame.

now, most frames are broader and less defined, or maybe defined differently by different people. and that's where uncertainty comes in. i'm often uncertain about which frame i'm in, or which frame others are in. i'm also uncertain that i know all the logical rules of the frame. or maybe the frame i define is based on faulty premises. or maybe i apply logic incorrectly to the rules i've defined. etc. or maybe the frame is so complicated that it's impossible for the brain to process it all at the same time.

the thing is, human perception can only work in frames. it can never see outside. so i can never be certain about what's objective and what's not, because humans are subjective by definition.

in conclusion, i agree that certainty is limiting in many circumstances, because of all the possible misapplications i listed above. if you're sure you never get anything wrong, you're probably wrong, and you're certainly closed-minded. but that doesn't mean certainty is bad in all cases. i am certain that 1+2=3 in our number system, and i'm totally fine with that -- i don't think anyone will ever convince me otherwise.

I'm not disagreeing with you bud. I said in my first post that we need the perfect amount of certainty...not too much...not too little. I'm also not disagreeing with your perspective on logic.

However, my argument still stands.

1. Values, the ideas which we have accepted from experience, are our fundamental limitations on perception.
2. Logic is a value.
3. Therefore logic is a limitation on perception.

The fact that logic is also limited by perception doesn't disprove that it is also a limiter on perception.

One thing to consider is that certaintly in another person can be somewhat misleading. INxJ's tend to be less certain than they first appear to other people, while IxxP's tend to be more certain than they appear. One thing you can't be certain of is another person's level of certainty.

True, it's difficult to tell exactly how certain someone is. That being said, usually when they start telling you that you are irrational or ignorant because you don't accept their beliefs, you get a pretty good idea.

 

[redacted]

However, my argument still stands.

1. Values, the ideas which we have accepted from experience, are our fundamental limitations on perception.
2. Logic is a value.
3. Therefore logic is a limitation on perception.

i can see how logic would limit your perception, as you assume everything makes logical sense. but it could also just be that you're using an old frame's logic and falsely applying it to a new frame.

i believe (faith) that logic always applies if you set the frame correctly. setting the frame correctly is the real problem.

i disagree with your first premise, therefore i disagree with your conclusion.

 

[Kiddo]

i disagree with your first premise, therefore i disagree with your conclusion.

Well I disagree with your disagreement of my first premise and thus with your disagreement of my conclusion.

Would you care to tell me why you disagree with my first premise, so I know why I'm disagreeing with you?

 

[redacted]

Well I disagree with your disagreement of my first premise and thus with your disagreement of my conclusion.

Would you care to tell me why you disagree with my first premise, so I know why I'm disagreeing with you?

eh, no. you're right. i wrote that post in a hurry, and i didn't want to believe your conclusion for some reason.

logic would limit your perception if you are 100% sure that everything is logical. since i'm pretty much 100% sure that everything is logical, i DO have a limited perception. it just makes so much sense to me...

but yeah, your argument is fine.

 

[Kiddo]

eh, no. you're right. i wrote that post in a hurry, and i didn't want to believe your conclusion for some reason.

logic would limit your perception if you are 100% sure that everything is logical. since i'm pretty much 100% sure that everything is logical, i DO have a limited perception. it just makes so much sense to me...

but yeah, your argument is fine.

Oh dear god, an INFJ philosophical realist. I rue the day.

My arguments against pure reason are apparently those found in Kant's transcendental idealism.

After arguing with INTJs for weeks about objectivism, I feel nothing but pity for those who suffer from being logically limited.

 

[redacted]

philosophical realist, eh?

now i have to read the definition, blah.

the only philosophy terms i know are determinism, reductionism, and functionalism...all of which i align myself with. are those compatible with philosophical realism?

p.s. are you a philosophy major or something?