Conference back40::soapbox

    yes...

	I agree with chip

    
    It's a matter of data types.  For type Boolean (True or False),
    there is absolute truth.  True : Clinton won the 1992 presidential
    election.  But for most natural language statements, no, there is
    no such thing as "absolute truth" because truth is a floating point
    value, which varies not just with content, but also context.  Thus,
    there is nothing wrong with the construct, "How true would it be to
    say that you support Bill Weld ?"  or, "Yes, the statement was true
    in the context in which it was uttered, although not generally."
    
    Worse still is the idea of a "true man", "true love", "true witness",
    "truly evil".  You wind up chasing ghosts, looking for certainty which
    is beyond human powers.
    
    True enough.  bb

    In eternal matters, I believe there is absolute truth just as there are
    moral absolutes.  You can deviate or manipulate the truth as you
    like...but truth is still truth.
    
    -Jack

    re: .0  [yes....though we are looking for it through a murky glass]
    
    As reality is defined, so is truth.  Though perception of reality can 
    vary amoung humankind, that does not mean actual reality is
    variable...only perception of that reality.  The same can be said of
    truth.  There is an absolute, but we will never agree on any absolutes
    as we each perceive truth and reality differently. 
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    Example of absolute truth... Water is wet
    
    
    Yup, there is absolute truth.
    
    Example of truth, yet not absolute... ice is frozen water.
       There could be all kinds of little micro-organisms in there too.
    
    There's a fine grey line there somewhere.
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    two absolute truths. 
    
    1. bring nothing with you when you are born. 
    2. take nothing with you when you die.
    
    self-explanatory.

    
    
    RE: .7   Nope....you take your spirit....
    
    
    Terrie
    

    I don't know about absolute truths, but there are absolute
    lies:
    
    1. The check is in the mail.
    
    2. (You know what the second is...)
    
    -b

    
    re: thats what you believe, but it is not an absolute truth.

    
    
    RE: .9
    
    Would that be "If you love me, you will..." ??  :*)
    

    
    RE: .10  Yours has not been proven either, and therefor is not an
    absolute truth.  I didn't say my beliefs were an absolute truth, only
    that your response was not.
    
    
    Terrie
    

    No, I think its "I'll still respect you in the morning!"

    
    
    Ok, so I guess there's three then, huh Jack?  :*)
    

    jack-don't bother, that way we can sleep till noon :-)
    
    jeff-what do you refer to when you say truth?  if you
    mean in a spiritual sense, I'd say yes.  Otherwise, I
    think 'truth' is very subjective.  I can tell you what
    went wrong in my marriage, my husband can also tell 
    you and the two will differ drastically.  the 'truth'
    of the situation lies between the two.

    Um, not exactly. I'll only say that it involves a promise
    not to disperse liquids to certain cranial cavities and
    leave it at that.
    
    -b

    Geesh you people type fast... .16 was in response to Terrie.
    
    -b

    
    re: .12  
    
    you are asking me to prove a negative. I said you take nothing with
    you. If you disagree burden is on you to prove that you take somthing
    with you. You offered your belief, hardly an acceptable proposition.

    
    
    We're talking 'absolute' truth.  There is no absolute truth
    to any statement that can be argued but not proved.
    
    You said that your statement was an 'absolute truth'.  I was
    merely pointing out that it isn't.
    
    (For the record, I do not believe that you take your spirit with you
    when you go.  It was used only as an example of my point.)
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
>    jeff-what do you refer to when you say truth?  if you
>    mean in a spiritual sense, I'd say yes.  Otherwise, I
>    think 'truth' is very subjective.  I can tell you what
>    went wrong in my marriage, my husband can also tell 
>    you and the two will differ drastically.  the 'truth'
>    of the situation lies between the two.
    
    	I think you have answered the question positively with a comment
    that our perceptions of the truth may differ.
    
    jeff

    jeff-thanks little buddy :-)
    
    you are right, that is what my point was, but I wasn't
    sure if that was what you were trying to get at.

re: Jeff, 'Tine

Ah, but I beg to differ...  If you were to ask IF the marriage fell apart,
then yes, there is a "truth" here.  But just because 'Tine and her NSO
will give different "truths" at to why, it does not hold that there is
an objective "truth" that is the real "truth," just waiting to be discovered.

As an example:  Is this <a colored swatch> a pretty color?

Some people say yes, and they're being truthful.  Some will say no, and
they're also being truthful.  And, by golly, there is no REAL truth that
says whether or not it's a pretty color.

So, is there a real truth?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Depends on context.

\john

    John:
    
    Are you saying this with your mod hat on or off?!

NSO?

    You would be right of course.

	Truth is no relative of mine!!! :-)

    You know if you're right by exposing evil.

	Glenn, aren't you exposing yourself everytime you drop your pants? R U
EEEEEEEVILLLLLLL????????

    No, just remarkably silly.

	You know, the evil thang might explain your other selves.....

    Pretty soon I'll have to call myself legion for I will be many.

    Quatum mechanics says no.
    
    You can get a pretty good idea as to where truth lies but it is
    impossible to know the absolute truth.
    
    just like the previous reply about water being wet ... if you couldn't
    break the surface tension of the water would you know that ?
    
    or is water wet to the hydrgen atom that is in it....probably no more
    so than hydrogen on the surface of the sun.
    
    Brian V
    
    I am my truth
    my son is my sanity
    

    >>POLAR::RICHARDSON "Ungird thou thy loins"
    
    >>Pretty soon I'll have to call myself legion for I will be many.
    
    
    "Pretty soon" and "will be"?  I think you should rework this sentence
    into the PRESENT rather than the FUTURE tense 8^)))).
                                     

    .6
    
    > Example of absolute truth... Water is wet
    
    no, it's not.  when it is a solid, it is not wet.  when it is a gas, it
    is not wet.

    Well, 19 <> 1000.

    
    I want to watch you come up with 981 more personalities.

(<groan> Now we're in for it .  . . . .)

    What's the matter, afraid I might have a hand full of Jacks?

    
    Possibly, the only instances of absolute truth are tautologies.
    
    
    To demand truth "agree with final reality" (re .0) is dangerous,
    we don't know enough about reality. We don't communicate reality,
    we communicate words, words often represent concepts. Concepts differ
    from individual to individual. And, words derive their meaning from
    the object/concept they describe. This means we're into discussing
    tautolgies again.
    
    Example:
    Wise Guy: The hydrogen atom has one proton. 
    Fool    : What is hydrogen ?
    Wise Guy: An element.
    Fool    : How does hydrogen differ from other elements ?
    Wise Guy: Elements are identified by the number of protons.
    Fool    : Which number of protons defines a hydrogen atom ?
    Wise Guy: One proton.
    Fool    : Let me recall - That specific atom, which is identified by
              having one proton in its nucleus,  has one proton.
    Wise Guy: Yes, that's the truth.
    
    Heiko
    

    
    
    
    Folks, I have summed up the responses so far.  And I have taken the
    liberty of speculating what a non-respondents answer would be.  These
    speculations are noted with a question mark. Please don't be offended
    in any way if I haven't included your name and you are a regular
    contributor.  I can think of one even now (Sacks) whom I did not
    include. I'm sure there are a few others.
    
    Non-Responders: Will you take a moment and correct or confirm my 
    speculation?  I, and others, would appreciate it!  Thanks!
    
Benson: 	yes
Binder:		no?
Braucher:	no, but possibility exists
Chelsea:	no?
Covert:		yes?
Delbalso:	no?
Desmaisons:	no?
EDP:		yes?
Girouard: 	yes
Guillermo:	yes?
Harney:		no, but possibility exists
Hays:		no?
Jennison:	yes
Kelly:		yes
Komar:		yes?
Kraweiki:	yes?
Lauer:		yes?
Leech:		yes
Levesque:	no, but possibility exists?
Licea-Kane:	no?
Maciolek:	no?
Marison:	yes?
Markey:		doesn't know
Martin:		yes
Morales:	yes?
Olson:		no?
Oppelt:		yes?
Percival:	no?
Ralto:		yes?
Richardson:	no?
Rosch:		no
Silva:		yes
Van Valkenb	no
Verma:		yes
Wannamacher:	no, but possibility exists?
Woodford:	yes
Yannekis:	no?

(Geeziz - he's got me down for a "no" when I didn't even understand the
 question . . . .)

	I'd like to know, just for yucks, how you arrived at these
	"speculations".  


	Diane DesMaisons, who is envious of Mr. Sacks

	

	Lady Di, your note made me chuckle for sure! :-)

    
    Diane:
    
    I drew a tentative conclusion based upon my reading of your notes over
    the years.  But as you've told me several times, I'm often wrong and
    interpret poorly.
    
    I'm a bit puzzled why you will write a sentence asking me why I
    speculated your answer but won't enter a one-word-answer to the 
    question itself.
    
    jeff

    
>>    I drew a tentative conclusion based upon my reading of your notes over
>>    the years.

	well, no kidding, but how?
    
>>    I'm a bit puzzled why you will write a sentence asking me why I
>>    speculated your answer but won't enter a one-word-answer to the 
>>    question itself.

	i'm funny that way.

    
      The problem, Jeff, is that many of us feel uncomfortable with a
     question we view as unsophisticated.  "Truth" as a property of
     linguistic statements, is not, in general, of data type Boolean.
    
      It is like asking if you believe in "absolute" pain.  This, too,
     is a difficult question to answer True/False.
    
      I always did better on multiple choice, myself !
    
      bb

    
    If absoulte truth didn't exist, one could not answer with yes or no.
    Its a paradoxon (over to you, Gilligan)
    
    Heiko

    SKIPPEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
    SKIPPEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

    .43
    
    take me out of the no? column and list me among the abstentions.

    Yea verily shall I be numbered with the abstentions.

    
>      The problem, Jeff, is that many of us feel uncomfortable with a
>     question we view as unsophisticated.  "Truth" as a property of
>     linguistic statements, is not, in general, of data type Boolean.
 
I appreciate this but doubt it is a likely explanation for most 
non-respondents' silence.  Furthermore, we attempt to respond in the normal
course of a day to many questions which may be deemed unsophisticated.
    
>      It is like asking if you believe in "absolute" pain.  This, too,
>     is a difficult question to answer True/False.
 
I didn't limit the answer to true or false.  Would you feel more comfortable
if the question was, "do you believe there is such a thing as truth?".
   
jeff

    
    Yes, I believe that there are things in this world that can be
    objectively described as either completely true or completely false.
    
    
    But I also believe that there are many MANY more things that are 
    completely subjective.
    
    
    So where does that put me?  Have you got an "it depends" column?
                         

    
    Sokay Jack.  He's got me down for a no and I haven't even replied to
    the topic. :')
    
    
    Mike

    
    that places you in the "yes" column (with comments).
    
    I was fairly certain that a great peecan pie baker, having eaten really
    bad pies at one time or another, would believe in a thing called truth.
    
    jeff

    
    The statement that I am a great pecan pie baker is unarguable truth
    8^).

    
    I prefer an "absolut" and tonic myself.

    You like Absolut?  Try FR�Z.

	>>Try FR�Z.

	thought it was spelled with an "s".  no?

    probably is.

RE: 320.43 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

> Hays:		no?

Wrong.

And while we are at it,  Jeff,  isn't it dishonest to claim that
Creationism is science?


Phil

      Sin and righteousness are absolutes and are mutually exclusive.

    .64
    
    define sin.  as an absolute, not with relation to any morality system.
    
    define righteousness.  as an absolute, not with relation to any
    morality system.
    
    if you cannot provide these definitions, your statement collapses under
    its own weight.

    Sin - An Archery term to miss the bullseye.  The distance from the
    bullseye and where the arrow lands is called sin.
    
          Missing the mark of Gods perfection.
    
    -Jack

I absolutely must go to a meeting right now.

    .66
    
    > Missing the mark of Gods perfection.
    
    atheists have no god.  your definition is invalid for them, and for all
    others who do not buy the christian "be perfect as god is perfect"
    idea.

    On the planet where we come from, this is a snarf.
    
    
    
    Glenn/Deirdre/Pamela/Franny/Ned/Dierdre/Anton/Sean/Alice/Jimi/Pauline/Rex/
    Nathan/Melanie/Ursula/Hildegard/Nigel/Boutros Boutros/Leslie
    

    .7 "take nothing with you when you die". Want to bet? I am having all
    of my personal belongings cremated and put in urns to be placed in my
    coffin when I die. No one is getting my bolo tie collection! 

    Truth is still truth though.  How we perceive truth is subjective.
    
    We can worship a stone behind our house as God.  But truth is that it
    is merely a piece of stone.

    > We can worship a stone behind our house as God.  But truth is that it
    > is merely a piece of stone.
    
    wew can worship the lord our god in his heaven.  but truth is that for
    more than half of the world's population he is just a figment of the
    imagination.

| <<< Note 320.72 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| We can worship a stone behind our house as God.  

	Is that Sharon Stone Jack???? :-)

| But truth is that it is merely a piece of stone.

	Wow.... what a set up!

>    wew can worship the lord our god in his heaven.  but truth is that for
>    more than half of the world's population he is just a figment of the
>    imagination.
    
    In our perception, we see God as the authority on truth.  Just because
    some believe He does not exist (their perception of reality), does not
    mean He does not exist.  Just because we believe he does, does not mean
    he does.  There is a truth...and one view or the other has to be right. 
    Either God exists or He doesn't.  Truth cannot be relative to
    perceptions.
    
    -steve

    After reading the last few notes I have come the the conclusion that
    truth is what ever you want it to be.
    
    joan

    no
    
    ric

	of course there is such a thing as truth.
	Superman(tm) FOUGHT for it!
	and justice. and the american way. what's the american weigh?
	about 140 lbs.

    
    truth snarf

	Why snarf a 79???

It's no more stupid than any other snarf.

	True, but the other snarfs usually have a meaning behind the number.

 .82

 rendering them infinitely more clever, right?  sure.

    .75
    
    > There is a truth...and one view or the other has to be right.
    > Either God exists or He doesn't.  Truth cannot be relative to
    > perceptions.
    
    i disagree.  it is possible for god to exist for those who believe in
    him but not exist for those who don't.  his existence for the former
    group would be a thing of the mind.  and things of the mind, being that
    they are in fact arrangements of electrical impulses that can be
    measured, are real; hence, god is real.  for the latter group, the
    electrical impulses don't represent god, so - although the impulses do
    exist - god does not exist.

    
    There is obviously equivocation on the meaning of the term "exist". 
    Come to agreement on the definition of existence and then argue. 
    Otherwise, Binder will bluster all day long.
    
    jeff

Absolute truth exists. 

But it's dependent on the value of n variables.

    .86
    
    ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your argument.  you asked for a
    philosophical discussion.  you're getting one, and you're finding it
    too hot for you to handle.  not my problem.

    
>    ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your argument.  you asked for a
>    philosophical discussion.  you're getting one, and you're finding it
>    too hot for you to handle.  not my problem.
    
    I made no argument.  I don't recall asking for a philosophical
    discussion.  Philosophical arguments must use logic.  Definitions must
    be clear and agreed upon.
    
    Specifically, you are equivocating on the term "exist" which results
    in an invalid argument. Steve was talking of existence as actuality, you 
    respond with existence as imagination.  The two meanings are
    contradictory.
    
    jeff

So,  Jeff,  isn't it dishonest to claim that Creationism is science?


Phil

    Boy, I didn't know what I was getting myself into...

    .89
    
    > don't recall asking for a philosophical
    > discussion.
    
    maybe this line from the basenote will refresh your memory:
    
    > Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
    
    if that's not a philosophical question, i don't know what is.  by its
    very nature, it invites discussion, and you knew as a regular
    participant in this forum that it would elicit discussion.
    
    > Specifically, you are equivocating on the term "exist"...
    
    no, i'm not.  i am pointing out that existence, in relation to
    metaphysics, is not an axiom.  or have you never heard of solipsism?
    
    if we, the participants in this discussion, can agree to accept
    physical reality as we understand it as proof of physical existence,
    well and good.  but physical reality does not ex eo prove spiritual
    existence.  the existence of god cannot be proven; hence, you cannot
    use the putative existence of god as evidence to prove anything
    whatever.

    
    > Specifically, you are equivocating on the term "exist"...
    
>>    no, i'm not.  i am pointing out that existence, in relation to
>>    metaphysics, is not an axiom.  or have you never heard of solipsism?
  
    Yes, you are Dick, your protestations notwithstanding.  Metaphysical,
    actual existence, in relation to Steve's statement, was *clearly*  
    axiomatic.  
    
    >if we, the participants in this discussion, can agree to accept
    >physical reality as we understand it as proof of physical existence,
    >well and good.
    
    Why don't you simply agree at this point that exist means "exists in 
    actuality" and will be assumed unless one uses "exists in the mind"
    explicitly.  This is much cleaner.
    
    jeff

    .93
    
    steve is the one who brought about the question as to whether "exists"
    is a valid construct by his citation of god, whose existence is not at
    all axiomatic.  you cannot assume "facts" not in evidence and then use
    those "facts" to make a case.  i pointed that out, and you appear not
    to be capable of accepting what i have demonstrated.
    
    the fact is that "truth" is not a concrete object.  it cannot be
    weighed, measured, photographed, or painted.  its existence, if actual,
    must be discovered - proven or disproven - by other means.  but not by
    something whose own foundation is based on sand.

Jeff:

Is this statement true or false:

"Is it dishonest to claim that Creationism is science?"


Phil

    really, now, jeff, phil would like to know.  so would i, actually.

    an absolutely true-------->

    SNARF

	don't worry, you are. anyone that knows of wine in a carton has gotta
be cheap

	You don't have sex?

RE: 320.102 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

> I abstain

What?  From wine in a box?  Or from cheap snarfs?


Phil

| <<< Note 320.104 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>


| What?  From wine in a box?  


	Phil, I think Jeff whines real good in the box, so it can't be that.
:-)

RE: 320.105 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

So what's the problem,  Jeff?  It is a simple question,  after all.  As
Creationism _is_ based on the Bible,  Creationism _isn't_ based on empirical 
observations and on deductions from these observations.  Right?

To claim that Creationism is based on empirical observations,  when
Creationism isn't based on empirical observations,  is dishonest,  right?

So what's so tough about that?  It's just a matter of telling the truth, 
Jeff.


Phil

>So what's so tough about that?  It's just a matter of telling the truth, 
>Jeff.
    

    
    >what is truth?
    
    Something that can't be shown to be false?   :^)
    

    BTW, if anyone cares, Jeff is right about my use of the word "exist". 
    I don't really care to go down the road Binder is paving, especially on
    Friday afternoon.  8^)
    
    Either God exists or he doesn't.  Either the atheists are right or
    those who believe God exists are right.  Both groups cannot be right, 
    else there would be no absolute truth...it would all be subjective by 
    what each of us believe.  Reality shows that many beliefs are wrong
    (and I don't even have to go into religious realms to pull evidence of
    this).
    
    
    
    -steve

    
    I have changed my mind. (Just as if anybody cared).
    
    There is absolute truth. It exists. It has to. 
    
    As I have already pointed out, argueing from the pure logic of the
    matter, the opposite would lead to a paradoxon.
    "There is no absolute truth!" could not be regarded as true, as it
    would contradict itself. But that argument is boring.
    
    There has to be absolute truth, albeit most truth are only perceived as
    truths, based on the fact that our language is based on events and
    objects in nature and thus inherit their 'truth' from their very
    definition. 
    
    

    Steve,
    
    Both groups could be partially right as in the existence of a higher
    being that had nothing to do with Jesus, the bible and all of the
    religious fervor over the last few thousand years.  
    
    Glen, thanks for brightening my Monday :-)

    .112
    
    >I have changed my mind. (Just as if anybody cared).
    
    Sir, I care!  And even if I didn't care, I'd have to applaud your
    courage in both changing your mind and stating so publicly in this
    conference.  I don't believe I've ever seen this occur here.
    
    jeff

    .115
    
    So, Jeff, is calling Creationism "science" truth?

	Jeff, I think you changed positions once.....

    
<    There is absolute truth. It exists. It has to. 
    
>    As I have already pointed out, argueing from the pure logic of the
>    matter, the opposite would lead to a paradoxon.
>    "There is no absolute truth!" could not be regarded as true, as it
>    would contradict itself. But that argument is boring.
    
 
     This is an important statement.  Logic is the tool to establish
     correct reasoning and destroy false reasoning.  Our society is woefully
     ignorant of this and thus argument today is not about truth based upon
     correct reasoning but on emotion and manipulation of the language.

     While you may find this boring, some may not be aware exactly why the
     proposition "there is no absolute truth" is self-defeating and thus
     false.  It is self-defeating because the proclaimaint of the above 
     statement is appealing to absolute truth as a basis for making the
     the statement that there is no absolute truth.  The statement implies
     knowledge about absolute truth in order to deny the possibility of
     any knowledge of absolute truth.  The proposition is self-defeating.
     One may safely dispose of the idea/belief that there is no absolute
     truth.

     Furthermore, many such statements are self-defeating and thus false.
     Maybe you've heard people say in argument, "you can't prove a negative"
     especially when dealing with issues of existence.  But what you may
     not understand is that such a statement cannot be proven true because
     it is *false*!  You need not hold onto the idea once proven false with
     logic and the logical opposite must be considered as viable truth.

     jeff

    
    Don't see the logic.  How can you prove this negative :
    
      "There are no two-headed humans."  I suspect this is true, but
    suspect doesn't count.  If you search the world, how do you know
    they aren't hiding ?  If you appeal to design or science or religion,
    or even definition, I can point to cases where these were wrong before.
    Go ahead, prove it.
    
      As to a paradox, not really.  If truth were relative, then the
    statement, "There is no absolute truth," would only be relatively
    true, as would any statement.  It makes the universe a strange place,
    but not an intrinsically illogical one.
    
      bb

	I have met bb. He is cool. He is FAR from boring. :-)

    There was a scene in the movie "Dark Star" where the captain is
    discussing existentialism with the planet-destroying-bomb.  Truth was
    discussed in depth during the conversation, as well or better than
    anywhere else that I've heard.
    
    Of course, in the end the bomb turned out to be nuttier than a
    fruitcake, decided he was God an blew the whole lot of them up.  It's
    last words were "Let there be Light!"
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    On the lighter side, a persons belief set determines truth for that
    person.  In addition, a persons mind will invent circumstances to
    maintain a belief system.  What'd the doobies ong say...
    
    ...no wise man has the power to reason away what seems to be...
    
    Got a grammy for it, if I recall.
                                  

    1).  Everyone living was born.    (*)
    2).  Everyone born will die.  (*) 
    
    3).  The trash taught by religion is all an after thought made up
         by self-serving zealots who cannot come to grips that (1) and
         (2) are the only absolutes in the world.   
     
    4).  Religion has done more to screw the world up then help it.

      4).  Religion has done more to screw the world up then help it.
    
    I agree.  Which is why my faith is in God, not religion.

nice answer! :-)

    Religion is a man made vehicle for attempting to reach God. 
    Fortunately, contrary to religion, God reaches down to us!

>    Religion is a man made vehicle for attempting to reach God. 
>    Fortunately, contrary to religion, God reaches down to us!

     ..and some slap His hand.





 Jim

    >>    Religion is a man made vehicle for attempting to reach God.
    >>    Fortunately, contrary to religion, God reaches down to us!
    >
    >     ..and some slap His hand.
    
    Over in another conference there was a brief discussion of what
    question you'd ask whatever power of the universe you imagine might
    personify itself in front of you, not in these words, but more-or-less
    this was the topic.  My thought is, if any being had the gall to claim 
    it was "responsible" for this world it's got one helluva lot of explaining 
    to do, and a slap on the hand would be light punishment indeed.  Spat
    at in the face is more likely.
    
    But this isn't really an issue for me, I've long since concluded there
    isn't any such being likely to personify.  Truth.
    
    DougO

     >Religion is a man made vehicle for attempting to reach God.
     >Fortunately, contrary to religion, God reaches down to us!
    
    Sounds like your god needs some organization.

    A clear example of humanity not taking responsibility for its own
    actions!
    
    -Jack

 re .127



 He's explained it, but folks don't wish to accept the explanation.



 Jim

    The good things god does, because he's so good.
    The bas things man does, because he's sooooooooooooo bad.
    
    Hehehe