Truth (like falseness) is a quality of a statement or assertion about
reality - based on a mental construct or model of reality, which is the only
possible basis for an assertion (using language or symbols, which is based on
concepts, which are mental representations).
I like this description of truth. So what you are saying is that 'absolute truth' does not exist,
only a relative value based on its assertion? are you saying that truth
does not exist if it is not asserted as such, ie not expressed with
language or symbol?
if so, can the same be said of reality? Ie, that reality is defined by the point of view of its observer?
Tat Sat in Sanskrit.(what is=absolute truth)
But we have to define reality for some practical
purpose, like writing a chapter , or giving a lecture or designing a
system etc. 'what is' must be defined a bit more narrowly
Statements about it, and the concepts associated with
them, are true or false (or somewhere between, if we allow for fuzzy
logic).
I agree that in general terms, making statements about reality can
become highly speculative. However my statement 'reality is what is
true' is indeed related to the need to make a declaration about a
system. whithin the system what is true should be modelled
In an ontology, when something is true is part of the reality and should not be ignored
A mental representation of reality will NEVER be in full one-to-one
correspondence with reality, so it can never encompass all possible truths that
could be asserted. But a statement of supposed fact can be considered to have a
truth value (not necessarily completely true or false, if one allows fuzzy
logic).
yes, thats what I mean
The question of whether the representations must be consciously perceived
or only phenomenologically functional takes the question to another level.
Animals respond on the basis of representations of reality in their brains that
could be said to have a level of truth or falseness - in fact, representations
that have meaningful falseness would be selected against.
This is the next interesting point. Our ability to perceive determines what we consider true or false,
Given the great complexity of the world and our brains, we
inevitably maintain some false representations - sometimes they'll be corrected
as we learn. Learning or development of our brains can also extend the scope of
our representation of reality - increasing the scope of "truth" that can be
considered to be in our brains - and sometimes also the scope of falseness,
insofar as the representations incorrectly represent the reality.
Yes. I dont think human brain is designed to grasp absolute truth in
its completeness, as our physical and neurological constraints allow us
only to process a given number of signals, thus showing that we can
only see part of the picture at any given time
Another level could be considered to be in societal-level representations -
such as how organizations collectively represent and respond to the reality they
deal with.
yes
cheers
PDM
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx