Truth and lies

[Lozzer]

If an uttered truth can alter reality, and lies can too, then surely both truth and lies are mutual? Or possibly, both are irrelevant as only 'utterances' effect the world we live in. And if truth and lies are pretty much the same thing, then why does truth matter?

This kept me awake all night

[CJ]

If an uttered truth can alter reality, and lies can too, then surely both truth and lies are mutual? Or possibly, both are irrelevant as only 'utterances' effect the world we live in. And if truth and lies are pretty much the same thing, then why does truth matter?

This kept me awake all night

Why and how can an utterance of any kind alter reality? It can alter one's perception of reality (which may have been right or wrong in the first place). Also if truth = a correct understanding of reality and if lies = a deliberately misconstrued representation of reality, then truth improves our understanding while lies distort our understanding of reality then I don't understand why would one would consider truth and lies are pretty much the same thing. Interesting question.

[Animavore]

Its like; which is better? Your parents maintaining the lie that they're your real parents unbeknownst to yourself or; learning the truth that you are in fact adopted?

Well I guess in one instance it wouldn't harm you to never know that you were adopted. On the othe, it would explain why your parents are a different colour to you.

I guess its relative. Some people need to be told the truth (alá Pop Idol) where as some need to be fed lies (No. Your ass looks fine).

[Lozzer]

If an uttered truth can alter reality, and lies can too, then surely both truth and lies are mutual? Or possibly, both are irrelevant as only 'utterances' effect the world we live in. And if truth and lies are pretty much the same thing, then why does truth matter?

This kept me awake all night

Why and how can an utterance of any kind alter reality? It can alter one's perception of reality (which may have been right or wrong in the first place). Also if truth = a correct understanding of reality and if lies = a deliberately misconstrued representation of reality, then truth improves our understanding while lies distort our understanding of reality then I don't understand why would one would consider truth and lies are pretty much the same thing. Interesting question.

Tony Blairs utterances got him made Prime minister. Hitler declared war on Poland with an utterance. Words have effects, thus they have the capability to alter things. But if your definition of truth is correct, and truth is understanding of the reality, and truth can also be incomprehensible and no one can understand such a truth, then why can't this truth be the same as a incomprehensible lie?

[CJ]

If an uttered truth can alter reality, and lies can too, then surely both truth and lies are mutual? Or possibly, both are irrelevant as only 'utterances' effect the world we live in. And if truth and lies are pretty much the same thing, then why does truth matter?

This kept me awake all night

Why and how can an utterance of any kind alter reality? It can alter one's perception of reality (which may have been right or wrong in the first place). Also if truth = a correct understanding of reality and if lies = a deliberately misconstrued representation of reality, then truth improves our understanding while lies distort our understanding of reality then I don't understand why would one would consider truth and lies are pretty much the same thing. Interesting question.

Tony Blairs utterances got him made Prime minister. Hitler declared war on Poland with an utterance. Words have effects, thus they have the capability to alter things. But if your definition of truth is correct, and truth is understanding of the reality, and truth can also be incomprehensible and no one can understand such a truth, then why can't this truth be the same as a incomprehensible lie?

If the utterance were incomprehensible one could not tell what it meant therefore it would be ignored simple because it was incomprehensible e.g Fringes run rabidly around the garden, is incomprehensible so it may be truth or a lie or simply word salad, nobody can tell.

Words can have effects, having worked in sales and marketing and buying I understand what you are saying.

[Lozzer]

If an uttered truth can alter reality, and lies can too, then surely both truth and lies are mutual? Or possibly, both are irrelevant as only 'utterances' effect the world we live in. And if truth and lies are pretty much the same thing, then why does truth matter?

This kept me awake all night

Why and how can an utterance of any kind alter reality? It can alter one's perception of reality (which may have been right or wrong in the first place). Also if truth = a correct understanding of reality and if lies = a deliberately misconstrued representation of reality, then truth improves our understanding while lies distort our understanding of reality then I don't understand why would one would consider truth and lies are pretty much the same thing. Interesting question.

Tony Blairs utterances got him made Prime minister. Hitler declared war on Poland with an utterance. Words have effects, thus they have the capability to alter things. But if your definition of truth is correct, and truth is understanding of the reality, and truth can also be incomprehensible and no one can understand such a truth, then why can't this truth be the same as a incomprehensible lie?

If the utterance were incomprehensible one could not tell what it meant therefore it would be ignored simple because it was incomprehensible e.g Fringes run rabidly around the garden, is incomprehensible so it may be truth or a lie or simply word salad, nobody can tell.

Words can have effects, having worked in sales and marketing and buying I understand what you are saying.

My last post regarded truth as opposed to uttered truth, though I agree with your reasoning.

[AshtonBlack]

If an uttered truth can alter reality, and lies can too, then surely both truth and lies are mutual? Or possibly, both are irrelevant as only 'utterances' effect the world we live in. And if truth and lies are pretty much the same thing, then why does truth matter?

This kept me awake all night

Why and how can an utterance of any kind alter reality? It can alter one's perception of reality (which may have been right or wrong in the first place). Also if truth = a correct understanding of reality and if lies = a deliberately misconstrued representation of reality, then truth improves our understanding while lies distort our understanding of reality then I don't understand why would one would consider truth and lies are pretty much the same thing. Interesting question.

Tony Blairs utterances got him made Prime minister. Hitler declared war on Poland with an utterance. Words have effects, thus they have the capability to alter things. But if your definition of truth is correct, and truth is understanding of the reality, and truth can also be incomprehensible and no one can understand such a truth, then why can't this truth be the same as a incomprehensible lie?

The key, I think, is testability. People uttering lies to motivate others to perform an action, rely on that lie not being testable (or at least, they will minimise the chance). So to those who are motivated to perform this action believe it is the truth and may or may not test it. Hence a lie IS the same as a truth that has not been tested.

If I told you I was a male, you would have little chance to test it without direct observation of my genitalia, but chances are you would believe me. This assertion could STILL be a lie.
But if I told you I was a space alien, being the healthy skeptic you are, you would probably not believe me and peg me as a liar. This assertion could STILL be the truth.

When I talk about truth, I define it as assertions that have not been disproved or are in my judgement (this includes a belief in the scientific method), most probable.

Of course, when we look at counter intuitive assertions or assertions that we, in our lifetime, would never be able to test, such as quantum entanglement and the super position of particles, we must rely on another's judgement.

This leads us back to explaining why a lie can motivate others.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Truth is a point of view - Darth Sidious.

I have never heard a more concise and precise definition.

[Lozzer]

Truth is a point of view - Darth Sidious.

I have never heard a more concise and precise definition.

But if truth is confined to the subjective opinion of individuals and no one can consent to a universal definition, then how can truth exist?

[AshtonBlack]

Truth is a point of view - Darth Sidious.

I have never heard a more concise and precise definition.

But if truth is confined to the subjective opinion of individuals and no one can consent to a universal definition, then how can truth exist?

Truth doesn't exist as in an apple or water exists. But as a concept in the mind of humans and because of that simple fact it is subjected to all the foibles of our minds. (Perception, delusion and ignorance are just a few examples.)

[Lozzer]

Truth is a point of view - Darth Sidious.

I have never heard a more concise and precise definition.

But if truth is confined to the subjective opinion of individuals and no one can consent to a universal definition, then how can truth exist?

Truth doesn't exist as in an apple or water exists. But as a concept in the mind of humans and because of that simple fact it is subjected to all the foibles of our minds. (Perception, delusion and ignorance are just a few examples.)

But if there can't be any consensus on its meaning in the first place, then how can it be subjugated to alternative perceptions, delusions and ignorance?

[AshtonBlack]

Truth is a point of view - Darth Sidious.

I have never heard a more concise and precise definition.

But if truth is confined to the subjective opinion of individuals and no one can consent to a universal definition, then how can truth exist?

Truth doesn't exist as in an apple or water exists. But as a concept in the mind of humans and because of that simple fact it is subjected to all the foibles of our minds. (Perception, delusion and ignorance are just a few examples.)

But if there can't be any consensus on its meaning in the first place, then how can it be subjugated to alternative perceptions, delusions and ignorance?

Because as we discussed on that other thread there is a mainstream definition, that is short hand for other concepts we do agree with. (Truth = Reality).
As you know, that is simplified, but practical for those who don't follow it through to it's logical conclusion.

[Lozzer]

Truth is a point of view - Darth Sidious.

I have never heard a more concise and precise definition.

But if truth is confined to the subjective opinion of individuals and no one can consent to a universal definition, then how can truth exist?

Truth doesn't exist as in an apple or water exists. But as a concept in the mind of humans and because of that simple fact it is subjected to all the foibles of our minds. (Perception, delusion and ignorance are just a few examples.)

But if there can't be any consensus on its meaning in the first place, then how can it be subjugated to alternative perceptions, delusions and ignorance?

Because as we discussed on that other thread there is a mainstream definition, that is short hand for other concepts we do agree with. (Truth = Reality).
As you know, that is simplified, but practical for those who don't follow it through to it's logical conclusion.

But referring to the other thread again, how can "Truth = Reality" if there is only fractions of truth? This may seem like pragmatics to you, but is there such a thing as fractional reality? And if you can only observe such a small part of truth and reality, then how can you make any judgement on it? It's all very well making presumptions when met with these part truths, but presumptions are often ill founded, and when one has to make a presumption on a minuscule section of reality, can't you admit your assumptions are more likely to be wrong as opposed to correct?

[AshtonBlack]

How do we make judgements on reality?

I think the best way, that humans have come up with, for testing reality is the scientific method.
It's not perfect and still flawed, but it's the best we can do, because without it, we wouldn't be able to make predictions about reality.

This chap nailed it, IMHO: Karl Popper

[Lozzer]

How do we make judgements on reality?

I think the best way, that humans have come up with, for testing reality is the scientific method.
It's not perfect and still flawed, but it's the best we can do, because without it, we wouldn't be able to make predictions about reality.

This chap nailed it, IMHO: Karl Popper

Touché