What does it mean to say that you know something to be true?
According to reductionism, your knowledge of the truth is a perceptual approximation of the truth in question. This is clearly false, since a priori truth does not depend on perception. It is possible that you can arrive at a truth without having any kind of experience of it. Again, see mathematics, your characterization of which as a series of aporoximations shows a gross misunderstanding. Theorems about generalizations to R^n, according to reductionism, aren't truths, since you can't experience anything past the third dimension. You shouldn't be saying stuff like that with a straight face, especially to a mathematician (KEK).
I also never argued that objective perspective is possible. The argument was a counter argument to the notion that since we can never use our perception to have an objective experience, that we should discard perception as a means to attempt reaching objectivity. While it's true that the limiting value of reaching objective truth through perception is 100%, our best approximations towards that limit are not invalidated.
Your cat example does not invalidate the perceptual approach in attempting to reach at objective truth. In fact the example is exactly Thomas Nagel's argument (replace bat with cat), which demonstrates the hard limitations of reductionism. Your example ironically supports postions against physicalist philosophies. The philosophy of reductionism is holistically untenable.
It's ok, you can let reductionism go. You'll be fine.
1. I didn't say truths don't exist, but how they get sorted, compartmentalized, understood are how things become objective. Give raw information download to the mind of a scientist, and their opinions are subjective. They aren't blank ai. Give it to a thug or a nig, and you will have different outcomes. Knowledge is an ingredient in something that isn't a blank slate. And what a computer knows is different when it is at a 25% download than a 100% download.
You can say, although completely accessing of the objective that knowing everything is still subjective in trajectory. Semantically. Reasons why not are also met with reasons why is.
Again, see mathematics, your characterization of which as a series of aporoximations shows a gross misunderstanding. Theorems about generalizations to R^n, according to reductionism, aren't truths, since you can't experience anything past the third dimension. You shouldn't be saying stuff like that with a straight face, especially to a mathematician (KEK).
Precisely, but to imply that a truth is a truth when all we can see is anything in the third dimension is my point. You circumvented yourself by coming to my conclusion believing I was on a different premise. How can we know they're truths?
Why did you put ^ between real and dimension btw?
I also never argued that objective perspective is possible. The argument was a counter argument to the notion that since we can never use our perception to have an objective experience, that we should discard perception as a means to attempt reaching objectivity. While it's true that the limiting value of reaching objective truth through perception is 100%, our best approximations towards that limit are not invalidated.
Of course we can. We can engineer all kinds of things with methodical reasoning. Guns, trains, cars, etc. but, and it's not a cop out, it's just a fact insofar as we can all perceive if we take our forms of logic/ inference/ etc. with merit based on our own empirical understandings of it, that a totally completely enlightened, logical, stoic perception is not possible since we can only map the universe. All information is compartmentalized neurologically in some animalistic, primal, disorganized manner.
For that reason we have seen hypergamy, among other ills.
We are not going to perceive everything in a proper rational order.
Our understanding of deduction in of itself is often safe when we're talking about moving targets. Like how plants interact with water.
I mean reality, ultimately, is all there. To build towers of our own inferences to come to things makes things narrowed. but at the same time this crude tug of war of combining notions, and organizing them are a needed thing for us to continue.
Ultimately we don't have the time, capacity to truly make any of this hold any professional, cosmically divine merit of thought. We're all making underlying assumptions instinctively, or whatever.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN MATHEMATICALLY BE SUMMARIZED, BUT OUR ACQUISITION OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE WILL BE REDUCED OF IN OUR MINDS.
Does it seem trivial? When you have something able to be applied to the science of measurement, I.E. math? There are a few big reasons why not.
Simply put, knowledge that is understood even in raw form means different things to different people. The gravity of primality though will regress back to the mean of where people will probably socket it, and dispense with it.
I mean stephen hawking had to go out of his way to sell books to make a living.
Football players don't. Clearly you can see the prioritization of things.
PEOPLE FORGET KNOWLEDGE, and keep playing their fantasy geek culture games, beer pong, raising families, even when math has been given unto them in grad school/ higher college.
While I agree sometimes reductionism takes the form of ignorance, it can sometimes take the form of prioritization because we are reduced to have certain neurochemicals, hormones, etc. be the driving force behind our brain. Which severely limits the kind of journey we will have in life.
Ultimately even when the INVENTORY of knowledge is there, we're always going to be subpar, ignorant,
So again, if we're going to be tunnelvisioned in life,
And things are often distorted, and some things considered, and nonconsidered because of our priorities. Women, men, independent from the findings of objective INFORMATION will be subjective when it comes to whose fault was what, or what they emotionally feel is proper which distorts their memory, recollection, etc.
And how feelings often pour into what someone things of something as simple as letters, vowels, etc. in language to the point of feeling more enthused to learn a language or disenthused.
And what I am talking about that we should be watchful for is only what I can catch in my time/space snips lapses where I've even thought of them. Many have probably not even occurred to me.
The cosmic structure/ compound as I would call it that even allows me to look at something is a frail coincidence.
To literally anything, verb, is a bold action without a compass for true corroboration. Not with a human mind.
Logic is complementary and exists always in a monistic-dualistic relationship with intuition. And intuition in itself is flawed.
Literally, the human mind, even IF given the right compass to a direction (mathematically measured and certified insofar as we can behold) is like a ghost ship sailing towards a concrete object. It can't really touch it.
Our brains can only map the situation. It can't really have power, control or real grasp around it. Our thoughts, our stray making frailties, etc. It obfuscates a truly objective interconnected outlook with information through one subtle distortion to another.
Objectivity is like a beautiful pearly city near a volcano eruption that is primality in the human mind. Fleeting.
I agree some things can be real, or else I wouldn't attempt philosophy, BUT human factor.
