You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I enjoyed it very much, although I do not have time to add much commentary at the moment.

I would like to point out in the meantime that my original comment to which you replied was not meant to be a rigorous or coherent inventory of current thought. It was highly rhetorical and made from "pathos" more than anything else. But I tend to enjoy that form of writing very much.

I would point out superficially that the epistemological question you touched on, as far as the accessibility of truth by the human mind, very much depends on the rationalist debate with empiricism. Science was an attempt to bridge this gap as a hypothetico-inductive type of method by which we probe the black box, only first by prying it with pure human reason. We have to rely at base on the primitive ability of human reason to even trust that what it is capable of representing - to be tested - bears some truth value or all reality is simply nonsense.

Along the lines of pure human reasoning's ability to access truth, if it can or ever does, I believe Godel's theorems demonstrated that it does not occur by a formally logical mechanism of understanding, as any theory must rely on assumptions which are themselves only provable by weaker theories.

All that to say human understanding appears to be something other than computation in the pure sense.

At the end of the day, I agree with you on the nature of truth. I tend to believe that the error itself is linguistic in nature and comes from the way that we use the term. It has the same type of issues as words such as "perfection" do. These are language games in the Wittgenstein-ian sense.

I am also not entirely confident in the Popper paradigm of scientific truth that says truth must be testable and falsifiable. Of course both of those criteria already limit truth to the exclusion of mental phenomenology. Some of those things which common sense would take as the truest possible ideas simply are not testable, taking for instance certain as-yet-unsolved philosophical problems such as "other minds". Devise a test for their existence or which could falsify the fact, and you'd be a famous man indeed.

I just wanted to be very clear that my original comment was not based on real happenings. The videos I am referring to are hypothetical, not real. I was being more literary than literal.