The Imperfection of Perfection?

If you cannot perfectly comprehend the criteria which you specify, you cannot percieve perfection.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps, PJ, you could explain how you differentiate between the concept of truth and the concept of reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Onefinity:

I'd be more than happy to.

I see the two as fundementally united, with the designation of the two being that reality being that which is real and seperated into two categories of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence) and various subcategories, whilst truth is knowledge of this reality. Since reality is absolute, so too is truth in content. Why I object, however, in speaking of "there being no truth without experience" is that, as mentioned above, the content of truth is absolute, and thus to speak of of the contents of truth being dependent on experience is improper.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could you define the term "real" for me?

 

Onefinity:

Actual, existent (or in the case of nothingness, non-existent), the opposite of phantastical (although the imagination is real, the thought is real, et cetera). To be real is to "be what is".

 

Mr. James, would you please tell the court, under what types of circumstances do you see a difference of conviction about what is real?

 

Onefinity:

Might you rephrase the question?

 

In what types of cases do people seem to disagree about whether something is real or not?


A second question that I have is: how do you define knowledge?

 

And we must nevertheless remember that perfection comes from imperfection, which makes it all perfect by default and thereafter

 

We - the humans - have defined perfect to be the best of something, the ultimate. If something is not evolving, than it might be a perfection of a half-good thing, because that's the very best half-good thing. But for something to be perfect in the way we use the word it has to be not good, but best. But we could also see as everything is perfect, because everything is the best of themselfs...

Hope you got it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Onefinity:

New fields of science, or old fields of science that conflict with irrational belief systems (evolution v. creationism) tend to be controversial. Religion is another big source of disagreement, as are ethics and metaphysics. In recent years, even epistemology has been challenged.

Apprehension of what is real or false, rooted in justified true belief. In essence, being in possession of truth.

devils_reject:

How does perfection come from imperfection?

Victor E:

Check out my theories of the three forms of perfection.

 

(1) Mr. James, please tell the court whether these qualify as knowledge:

"I know that the sky is blue."
"I know that it is cold outside."
"I know that cats walk quietly."
"I know that my friends will help me if I am in trouble."
"I know that my teacher is mean."
"I know that murder is bad."
"I know that God helps me when I pray."
"I know that I will get paid in two weeks."
"I know that the floor I'm walking on is solid."

(2) Does a centipede have knowledge? Does a centipede have belief?

(3) Does a tree have knowledge? Does a tree have belief?

 

Onefinity:

Yes. Assuming it is daytime and the cloud cover doesn't prevent seeing the sky.

If experienced or judged by a thermometer or another valid means, yes. If not, no.

Under normal conditions, this is an empirical observation, yes.

No. This is an assumption, which, even if more than likely true, is not -necessarily- so.

It would be best to say "mean to me", or "mean to other people I know", but yes, this is valid.

Depends. Does he mean society says it is bad? That the laws say it is bad? Or is he trying to assert that murder is wrong under an objectively-based ethical system?

Assumption.

Assumption.

If it is, in fact, solid, then yes.

Yes. All beings of the kingdom animala (at the very least) have intelligence to varying degrees, although I am not sure how philosophically minded centipedes are.

Do they have sensory preception? If so, yes. If not, no. In order to be intelligent one must sense.


Possibly.

 

Where is color located?

If I live in Greenland, but you live in Florida, is it cold when it's 40 degrees Fahrenheit (measured empirically) outside? Can the person from Florida know that it is cold, while the person from Greenland knows that it is not cold?

Can you think of organisms to whom the cat's walk might not be quiet, but rather loud? If so, do I still know that cats walk quietly?

What if it is only my impression that the teacher is mean? What if, in the eyes of another child, the teacher is only strict? What if in the eyes of the principal, the teacher is kind? Do I still "know that the teacher is mean to me"?

If air and water can pass through the floor, do I still "know that the floor is solid?"

Does intelligence mean that there is the capacity for belief? If so, does a centipede hold only true beliefs, or could the centipede have false beliefs?

What is sensory perception, and by what criteria would you decide that a tree has sensory perception?

 

Onefinity:

Colour is rooted in specific frequencies of light and is discerned by the individual. When we say the "sky is blue" we mean "the sky reflects blue-light under clear daytime conditions".

Yes. Cold is a relative judgement rooted in the production of thermal energy (or the lack of such production) compared to what is perceived as a comfortable norm by the individual. When one says "it is cold out" one is saying "to me it is cold".

To say "the cat walks quietly" is to say "the cat walks quietly to human ears".

Meanness is discerned subjectively. If that person is mean to you, they are mean subjectively. If to another they aren't, then they aren't mean to them. Are both realities? So yes, no matter what other people think, one can still know the teacher is mean to oneself.

Yes. Permeability is an acceptable attribute of solidity. Solidity, liquidity, and gaseousness are determined by the prevailing state from atomic and molecular construction.

Intelligence means that there is a capacity for "thought", which in turn, would lead to the capacity for "belief". The centipede, if capable of fantasying, can hold poor beliefs, or come to ludicrous beliefs through superstition and other such things (if capable of that).

Sensory preception is the capacity to gain and compute information from an exterior source when a certain stimuli is present, usually through the means of an organ(elle). A tree would have to show the capacity to react to sensory stimulation via demonstrating a reaction to touch, sight, hearing, smell, or taste (the five senses of which we could know of) which cannot be explained by natural laws (such as the tree dying if it had no food or water).

 

First step. Non-Functional Prefection. Perfection does not necessarily imply functionality. A perfect sphere is non-functional. It doesn't change into an ellipsoid, or walk about performing miracles. It just is a perfect sphere. And a perfect cube is perfect too. I wasn't referring to the idea that the circle and the sphere are perfect figures due to their symmetry.

The second step. Mechanical Functionality. A perfect machine is perfect if it performs its function without mistakes. The fact that it has to move doesn't mean that it is imperfect. Movement is a change, but it's not a change in the fundamental properties of the machine. And it's not an improvement. Mechanical Functionality can meaningfully exist only if there is someone who has designed the machine and intended a function for it.

Third step. Intelligent Functionality. This is where I have to think more. The problem here is deciding about functionality. The function of the intelligent being is not to serve the purpose of any other higher being, as in the case of a machine serving its creator. The being only serves itself, at the most fundamental level, that is. I don't hold the view that you are perfect only if you know everything. I suspect multiple definitions are possible, as is usually the case when dealing with intelligent life. For myself, I think I can say I'm perfect if I'm as happy as is physically possible for my particular system.

Your first sentence is correct. However, the rest is wrong. The second statement does not follow from the first. Consider a perfect sphere. If you hit it hard enough, you cause a dent in it, and it isn't perfect anymore. What I'm saying is that perfection can be temporary. It does not have to last. The only requirement is that it cannot be improved. This does not imply that it cannot be degraded. From the rest of your post, I gather you were, unconciously or otherwise, talking mainly about intelligent creatures. As I said, I've to think a bit more about the definition of perfection applicable to this case. We cannot proceed before we completing this.

 

Prince:

That is a piece of the building of color. For me to "know" that the sky is blue, don't forget two additional pieces: that frequency must be registered by the structures in the eye, and I need a mental/cultural construct of "blue" - much of which is culturally universal, but there are exceptions (like the Japanese word "aoi"). In other words, knowledge of color is partly built into the structure of the organism - the subject - and subjects differ.

So is it your knowledge that it is cold, or not?

But I didn't say that. I am four years old, and I said "I know that cats walk quietly." Is this my knowledge or not?

But do you actually know that they are mean to you, or is only your perception that they are mean to you?

So is the floor that is solid to walk upon also necessarily solid to an airborne virus? Considering that atoms consist mostly of empty space, do you know that the floor is solid?

If we can assume that the centipede doesn't fantasize, but has some rudimentary thought, then can all its beliefs equate to truth?

You would use the five human senses as a standard for perception of environmental conditions of other complex organisms that for millions of years prior to human life attuned to and evolved in response to subtle conditions around them?

Let's take the plant whose lean follows the sun throughout the day. Let's assume, however, that the plant has nothing like what we'd call "thought." Does that plant have knowledge?

 

Onefinity:

Agreed that light requires the eye to discern it as a specific colour in order to be a specific colour, but the colour relates to a reality of frequency, and thus can we speak of its correspondence to a reality aside from our eye's perception. As to your second assertion, the notion of "blue" being culturally constructed to a very minor degree is true in its various shades, but we are perceiving the same colour based on frequency.

The statement "it is cold out" is valid if it corresponds to the perception of cold by oneself. It is knowledge, yes.

If you are saying "they walk quietly to all manner of beings in the universe", then no. That would be an assumption.

If you perceive they are mean to you, then they -are- mean to you. It is a subjective assessment. So long as oneself is not confused as to what one feels, and can strongly state one thing or another, one is what one feels.

Well, technically not "empty space", but yes, there is a great divide betwixt protons and electrons, but assuming the virus ascertains solidity, liquity, and gaseousness based on the same scientific criteria as we, then yes, he'd call even a permeable substance "solid".

He could still be deceived by various tricks of light, hallucinations, and other such things. For instance, the centipede might think a straw really bends when placed in a glass of water. He'd be in error.

Whilst there exists no certainty that all forms of life must have a maximum of five senses such as we, the definition of sense is broad enough to include any variation, and since we have never come upon something which reeked of "another type of sense", we can safely assume for the time being that our five senses might correspond categorically to all sensory stimulation as experienced atleast on Earth.

If the plant makes a conscious decision to do as such, and that is a sensory preception, then the assumption that it has no "thought" is invalid. But if it doesn't have "thought", then "knowledge" is impossible to have. One cannot have knowledge without thought, as thought is the substance from which knowledge is weaved.

 

I am not sure of how this is relevant however:

A tree will seek and sense the presence of water , it's roots growing towards a source of water. [ blocked stromwater drains comes to mind]
Flowers will sense sunlight and open in the morning and close at night.
Carnivorous plants will trap their captives after sensing their presense by closing.
The oceans sense shifts in the moons position causing a rise and fall of water levels. [tides]

Is gravity sensed by just about everything?

Is this expansion of the definition of sensed toooo abstract?

 

Quantum Quack:

These plant-movements seem to indicate some sort of consciousness in plants, but the ocean's tides are not moved by itself, but by gravitational tugging.