Exploring Truth: Objectively and Subjectively

[Huckleberry]

I think truth is what happens when one attempts to apply purpose to fact. It implies a subjective nature to an objective reality.

 

[WaveJumper]

However, the little we know about reality and its "structure" is equal to the amount of truth we have been able to ascertain. Through experience we've learned that investigation is the key to the path toward the truth. If investigations into the nature of reality are stopped, the truth becomes much less attainable.

Well said.

 

[JoeDawg]

We aren't sure that science can describe reality.

And yet it describes reality quite well. But describing reality is not Truth. Science relies on observation, inductive reasoning, and probability. When Einstein described gravity as curvature in space, he was using geometry to help explain why gravity works the way it does. This is a huge leap, which is not to say that it hasn't proved a very useful one, but it relies on an intuitive understanding of the underlying nature of gravity. Explanation is an area, where science is on much shakier ground, compared to observation and prediction.

You comment that scientists in the likes of ... were out of their depths was pretty radical for a physics forum.

If science can't describe the 'Truth' of reality, then they are out of their depths. Defining the limits of science is important, both because it let's us know what science can't tell us, but also what it can.

Where role does intuition play...

Intuition comes in when you see connections before you have experimental data, or when you are trying to fill in an unknown part of an equation. Einstein did this. And other scientists have spent years testing the predictions of his theory, even beyond his understanding of it. Intuition was what caused Einstein to formulate his cosmological constant, and then reject it. Intuition is why he rejected QM. Its why any scientist pursues a theory either to prove or disprove it.

Is human intuition helping you understand how...

Yes.

It's very doubtful if scientists are out of their depths. Unless you can build new, better physics from scratch, i'd think you were joking.

That's like saying unless I know how to fly, I shouldn't say that other people probably can't.

 

[WaveJumper]

We aren't sure that science can describe reality.

And yet it describes reality quite well.

This time I am going to be rather honest here -- you don't have even a hint of clue what you are talking about. You need to get off your high horse and get your facts straight before you make such bold statements, unless all you've heard in your lifetime was classical physics which would at least somewhat justify the above Nonsense. While i encourage everyone to participate in the discussion, it'd be extremely helpful if everyone is familiar with at least the major concepts and theories of modern physics.

Do you know why physicists such as Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, Eddington and others turned to mysticism?

It's not because the new physics validated or implied some metaphysical description of reality, but because contemporary physics showed us that the true nature of reality was beyond the reach of physics. Quantum mechanics allows some weak objectivity because it predicts probabilities of observable phenomena in a rather precise and indisputable way. But the inherent uncertainty of quantum measurements means that it is impossible to infer an unambiguous description of "reality" as it really is. Reality is essentially fuzzy and refuses to be pinned down. Whether mysticism provides a direct and valid experience of the true nature of reality is another question, but it's for sure that physics doesn't. If you are itching to know what reality is, other approaches might yield better results. Next time you hear of prominent physicists talking about a veiled reality, you'll remember this conversation. What the veiled underlying reality might be is anybody's guess - a software program, a higher level of existence, some incomprehensible process or God himself. While i am definitely not religious in the traditional sense, i'd say that the 20th and 21st centuries are not the best time to be a hardcore atheist.

But describing reality is not Truth.

Says who? Is this a premonition, a hunch or what?

Science relies on observation, inductive reasoning, and probability. When Einstein described gravity as curvature in space, he was using geometry to help explain why gravity works the way it does. This is a huge leap, which is not to say that it hasn't proved a very useful one, but it relies on an intuitive understanding of the underlying nature of gravity. Explanation is an area, where science is on much shakier ground, compared to observation and prediction.

What should this prove?

 

[JoeDawg]

Next time you hear of prominent physicists talking about a veiled reality, you'll remember this conversation.

LOL. Not likely. You keep going around in circles. Whether you have a grasp on physics or not, you don't seem to understand the philosophy behind science.

What should this prove?

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is about observation and prediction.
Proof is a mathematical concept. People often get that confused. So don't feel bad.

 

[WaveJumper]

LOL. Not likely. You keep going around in circles. Whether you have a grasp on physics or not, you don't seem to understand the philosophy behind science.

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is about observation and prediction.
Proof is a mathematical concept. People often get that confused. So don't feel bad.

Whatever. There is just one point you need to see - scientists have adopted a more humble stance on the idea of a full picture of reality(or a theory of absolutely everything). Physics doesn't(formally) pretend to have anything substantial to say about the intrinsic true nature of the physical world. We hope we can build a full theory of everything that would describe reality, but that's a just hope, if not a dream given the constraints and limitations we are faced with in quantum physics. The same limitations that make QM a statistical field of physics.

 

[JoeDawg]

Whatever. There is just one point you need to see - scientists have adopted a more humble stance on the idea of a full picture of reality(or a theory of absolutely everything). Physics doesn't(formally) pretend to have anything substantial to say about the intrinsic true nature of the physical world. We hope we can build a full theory of everything that would describe reality, but that's a just hope, if not a dream given the constraints and limitations we are faced with in physics.

Uhm, thanks, but I'm well aware of the limits of science.
Science models reality, it is not reality.
I've been saying that sort of thing pretty consistently on this forum.
You were the one talking about TRUTH, not me.

 

[WaveJumper]

Uhm, thanks, but I'm well aware of the limits of science.
Science models reality, it is not reality.
I've been saying that sort of thing pretty consistently on this forum.
You were the one talking about TRUTH, not me.

That's because I believe the Truth is there. Even if science cannot reach it.

Below the indeterminacy of the quantum world, there must be a background underlying reality that would account for the enormous complexity, logic and beauty found in our classical realm of existence. I don't want to quote Einstein for this, but through the cage some of us can "see"(infer) that QM is not the final thing that can be said about reality. Or at least we hope so.

 

[JoeDawg]

Below the indeterminacy of the quantum world, there must be a background underlying reality that would account for...

Welcome to the wonderful world of human intuition.

 

[baywax]

Excellent ideas. I do, however, tend to think that his subjective reality that we all have is merely temporary, until we understand the full picture of true reality, perhaps by the theory of everything or something like it. Just a thought though.

When we understand the nature of true reality won't there just be another level of reality that has not been predicted? The history of science is full of discovery after discovery and each one either builds on or completely obliterates the truths and theories of the last.

 

[baywax]

I think truth is what happens when one attempts to apply purpose to fact. It implies a subjective nature to an objective reality.

Subjectivity is an end-result of objective truths (such as neuro-nets etc)... these true phenomena have produced our awareness and opinions and these may or may not reflect the objective truth of physical existence. Applying a purpose to fact is a fallacy born of the survival instinct. Its a necessary view point in terms of the survival of our species. Purpose is highly subjective whereas truth is the objective actuality of a phenomenon. Sometimes truth can be very "inconvenient", sometimes very helpful.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Feels to me like Truth is just like God, or the meaning of life, or any other concepts that humans can just, and only just theorize about, never completely describing the experience of It all.

My truth is that Truth is simultaneously the only thing and all that exists, beyond however I can define it, however I can experience it but nevertheless available.

Another thought I might have regarding Truth is that it requires my presence to be able to reveal itself… if none of us are here to experience Truth, then it has no purpose and just Is, manifesting itself as an absolute equal to Everything and Unity.


Regards,

VE

 

[baywax]

Hello to all,

Feels to me like Truth is just like God, or the meaning of life, or any other concepts that humans can just, and only just theorize about, never completely describing the experience of It all.

My truth is that Truth is simultaneously the only thing and all that exists, beyond however I can define it, however I can experience it but nevertheless available.

Another thought I might have regarding Truth is that it requires my presence to be able to reveal itself… if none of us are here to experience Truth, then it has no purpose and just Is, manifesting itself as an absolute equal to Everything and Unity.


Regards,

VE

As far as I see it, truth needs no verification nor justification from biological units such as ourselves. We are simply lucky enough to have a glimpse of it... as we are lucky enough to breathe fresh air or drink clean water.

Strapping a purpose to nature is simply anthropocentric and bio-centric sentimentality. Purpose is the kind of concept that has continued our species as a component of nature, yet only applies as a naturally selected trait of a will to survive.

 

[TSfelix]

First, let me apologize for having not read all of the comments, although I did read through a lot of them. But I would like to write a few things (my take on it, if you will).

First, the word 'truth' does not have the same meaning in all contexts. In the most general sense, the 'truth' might connote the way the world is -- irrespective of what anyone might believe about the world. That is the most general sense, but (other than perhaps stating that one does believe there is 'a way the world is') it's fairly vacuous, as there is no 'way the world is not', independent of our beliefs. In that sense of truth, the problem is less about the world being some way, and more about the issue of how we can know the way the world 'really' is.

But to get to a more specific notion of truth, 'truth' can be a property of declarative statements (whether exclusively or not, is debatable...for example, whether a 'theory' is really a good candidate for 'truth). In the realm of statements, what it means for an empirical statement to be true, for example, is different from what it means for a mathematical statement to be true, or an ethical statement or an aesthetic statement (if they can in fact be true). These are very hotly debated topics in philosophy.

Given that this is a physics forum, let's take a basic 'observation reporting' claim for an example:

'That (object) is red'

Now, according to the traditional correspondence theory of truth, that statement is true if in fact the object is red. But, we are immediately vexed with the issue that there might not be 'red' objects in the world independent of observers -- which means that the statement, said all in good faith and in the presence of what appears to be a red object, does not accord with our notion that truth is the way the world really is, independent of our beliefs -- furthermore, if there is no red out in the world independent of observation, then there is literally nothing for the term 'red' to correspond to. This simple notion of correspondence is much too flimsy.

A preferred model, one that I am currently thinking a good bit about, is that what makes these kinds of statements true (statements actually uttered in the seeming presence of objects that the statements are about) is not that necessarily they (although sometimes they might) correspond to some 'thing' out in the world, but that the very meaning of the statement is a product of being in a particular sensory state (having a certain kind of experience...in this case having the experience of red). So, what the term 'red' means, just is having a certain kind of experience. Statements using that term are true when those statements are uttered while undergoing a particular experience.

In terms of corresponding to a world, the following is about as far as I would go. When one makes a statement like 'That (object) is red', something is going on in the world...a 'state of affairs', such that when one is having an experience of red, one is also a component of a particular state of affairs of which some aspects are directly relevant to actualizing the having of such an experience -- when one utters the statement while being a component in this state of affairs (which surely not only includes whatever is going on 'out there' but one's eyes and brain and everything else), then one's statement is true...and we can say that it 'corresponds' to the world.

That is a model, and a plausible one I think, for what it means for very basic observation type statements to be true. But it is also an oversimplified model. It doesn't take into account that even the most basic observation statement presupposes a complex conceptual apparatus available to the speaker...much of that conceptual apparatus not derived from the immediate observation being reported upon...

 

[ValenceE]

Dear Baywax,

Agreed that Truth needs none of my sentimentality to Be, so please don’t assume as to where I’m coming from. If you take a moment to re-read, I only wrote that Truth, without me or you or anyone would just Be... not revealing itself.

Would you have preferred I wrote ‘our presence’ instead of ‘my presence’? , please let me add;

This truth, which I’m sentimentally talking about, is the same one that gave you birth through your parents, and of course being of the human species, you need to breathe air and drink water in order to survive. Being fresh or clean is indeed how Truth has it planned, but unfortunately our world reality, through our detachment and selfishness, is unfolding differently.

Now, I do believe that the impulse given by this life, our lives, is in tune with Truth and in this sense the human purpose, as you mention, is given from Truth’s own purposeful energy.

Hopefully we’ll be able to make ourselves available to a deeper part of Truth which will enable us to become more apt to enact it in our daily lives, making this a better world.


Regards,

VE

 

[baywax]

Being fresh or clean is indeed how Truth has it planned,

I don't think the truth really has the ability to make plans.

Truth’s own purposeful energy.

As I mentioned, "purpose" is a anthropocentric and bio-centric sentiment.

Truth is, quite simply, "the way things really are" as opposed to "the way we think things really are" .

 

[Huckleberry]

Subjectivity is an end-result of objective truths (such as neuro-nets etc)... these true phenomena have produced our awareness and opinions and these may or may not reflect the objective truth of physical existence. Applying a purpose to fact is a fallacy born of the survival instinct. Its a necessary view point in terms of the survival of our species. Purpose is highly subjective whereas truth is the objective actuality of a phenomenon. Sometimes truth can be very "inconvenient", sometimes very helpful.

I think I understand what you mean here, but I disagree with your definition of truth. You describe truth as the objective actuality of a phenomenon. I would call that an undiscovered fact or an unknown variable. This kind of truth is within the realm of science, though I'm not sure why we would need a word other than fact to describe it.

I consider truth to be inseperable from consciousness. Truth gives meaning to facts. It is necessary in the process of drawing any conclusion from our senses. Because of this contradiction we may never be certain of what objective reality is. Truth is the understanding of an objective reality though subjective perception.

Here's an allegorical example. A friend of mine was tripping when he said, "I see a gremlin sitting on your shoulder." I looked at my shoulder and said, "I don't see anything there." Both of these are subjectively true statements, but we both knew that, in fact, there was no gremlin sitting on my shoulder. We both believed it was not objectively true that gremlins exist. I suspect that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science. It is the hopeless (or hopeful, depending on the observer) pursuit of philosophy.

Truth is to fact as understanding is to knowledge.

 

[ValenceE]

baywax, you wrote;

I don't think the truth really has the ability to make plans

Through you it does...


VE

edit: sorry baywax, just realized the b in your name isn't in caps...

 

[ValenceE]

Huckleberry, you wrote;

I suspect that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science.

No wonder we have a hard time meshing the quantic realm with the cosmos...


VE

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm not sure what a quantum realm has to do with truth at all. I can't say that I understand either.

 

[skeptic2]

Reality as we experience it is merely perception.

True but I don't think we'd be willing to accept as reality the perception of a single person. It's only when the perception of a sufficient number of people agree that we are willing to accept them as reality. Unfortunately this definition would probably also have to accept religious beliefs as reality.

 

[baywax]

I think I understand what you mean here, but I disagree with your definition of truth. You describe truth as the objective actuality of a phenomenon. I would call that an undiscovered fact or an unknown variable. This kind of truth is within the realm of science, though I'm not sure why we would need a word other than fact to describe it.

I consider truth to be inseperable from consciousness. Truth gives meaning to facts. It is necessary in the process of drawing any conclusion from our senses. Because of this contradiction we may never be certain of what objective reality is. Truth is the understanding of an objective reality though subjective perception.

Here's an allegorical example. A friend of mine was tripping when he said, "I see a gremlin sitting on your shoulder." I looked at my shoulder and said, "I don't see anything there." Both of these are subjectively true statements, but we both knew that, in fact, there was no gremlin sitting on my shoulder. We both believed it was not objectively true that gremlins exist. I suspect that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science. It is the hopeless (or hopeful, depending on the observer) pursuit of philosophy.

Truth is to fact as understanding is to knowledge.

Perhaps... what I'm trying to rule out is the often incorrect or corrupt interpretation of fact, because this act obviously obscures the truth. Discovery and consciousness are human dependent. Truth, in a perfect sense, stands alone.

 

[baywax]

If the truth was in the forest... and no one "discovered" it, would the truth be there anyway?

My answer is "yes". What's yours?

 

[Huckleberry]

Perhaps... what I'm trying to rule out is the often incorrect or corrupt interpretation of fact, because this act obviously obscures the truth. Discovery and consciousness are human dependent. Truth, in a perfect sense, stands alone.

For certain, people's perceptions and prejudices sometimes obscure the truth, even in the most well meaning person. I feel that I would like to agree with you that a perfect truth stands alone. I'm just not sure. I would be more comfortable if the concept of a perfect truth were defined, if that is possible.

How is perfect (objective) truth distinct from a fact that has yet to be revealed? If they are synonymous then I don't see the need for this mysterious word called truth except to describe subjective perception. If there is a difference then how can we perceive it except by it's absence (knowledge that our knowledge is incomplete).

 

[WaveJumper]

If the truth was in the forest... and no one "discovered" it, would the truth be there anyway?

My answer is "yes". What's yours?

Intuitively i'd rush to say 'yes', i already made a similar statement earlier in the thread. However, a deeper insight would require a full definition of the place 'forest' and we cannot achieve this at present.

What does it mean that a forest exists and if it exists, where does it exist?

Physics cannot answer that, as we appear to live in both a local and a non-local universe at the same time. One or the other model is manifested in different circumstances and we have to swallow the extremely weird conclusion that the distance between Paris and New York is both 6000 kilometers and zero at the same time. Relativity paints a similar picture, time and space are not absolute but relative and even show an ability to disappear in certain frames of reference. So the only thing we can really say about the place "forest" is what we perceive with our senses, but we've already seen that the universe is not like that. We have to concede that the quote "the universe is not stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine" is currently the most we could say about it and the last part of your question - "...and no one discovered it, would the truth be there anyway?" cannot be answered unambiguously, as we lack a basic understanding of what space and location really are(if these are comprehensible at all). The whole concept of Truth becomes as fuzzy, undefined and mysterious as the concept "reality".Back to the old 19 century Newtonian classical physics, the answer to the question would unambiguously be - YES, the truth exists in the forest(the place and location "forest" being precisely defined), even if nobody discovered it.

 

[Huckleberry]

If the truth was in the forest... and no one "discovered" it, would the truth be there anyway?

My answer is "yes". What's yours?

I really don't know, but because I usually enjoy thinking I'll assume that it is.

 

[TSfelix]

Wavejumper:

The whole concept of Truth becomes as fuzzy, undefined and mysterious as the concept "reality".

Only meaningful declarative statements can be true or false. In non-bivalent logic systems one may also allow values of indeterminate. Notice here that the idea of a 'perfect' truth is really no longer applicable. Given a statement, it is either true, false, or indeterminate, maybe some fuzzy degree thereof, (or if it is a sort of statement that does not have truth-value, then it is neither).

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) provided the following model for thinking about the world. The world is the totality of facts. Facts consist of states of affairs.

A fact (perhaps not as scientists use the term) is simply whatever is the case - however the world is. Note, this is a statement about the world, not a statement about our knowledge or capacity for knowledge about the world. Facts hold whether there is actual 'vagueness' in the world or not. This is a presupposition, but does not require an argument because otherwise, there is no world (even if there is no 'mind independent' world, the presupposition is still admissible).

The most basic (non-inferential) statement that one can make about the world is an observation report - a statement that has as its semantic content one's immediate sensory experience (in an earlier post I have provided a model for thinking about how these statements can be true or false).

Such statements cannot be truly asserted independent of the experience that prompts them and they are never epistemically 'certain' - in the sense that such a statement could not possibly be false. They are always probable and prone to error. So we require justification. Justification for empirical claims never logically entail the truth of such claims (otherwise they would be necessary truths, which would mean such claims are certain, which they are not -- notice this is a claim about knowledge acquisition, not what might be the case for states of affairs). The strength of a justifier is: if the justifier is true, the more likely the claim being justified is true. The relationship is only probable, and probability is determined by 'relevant alternatives', i.e. for an empirical claim, empirical alternatives are more relevant than logical alternatives, similar empirical alternatives are more relevant than non-similar empirical alternatives, and so forth. This doesn't always hold, but for exceptions some account must be offered. This does assume that states of affairs (at least as experienced, which is the denotation of observation reports) are 'law-like' (which is an admissible assumption 1. experience would be incomprehensible otherwise, and experience is comprehensible, 2. it makes no assumption to what the world might be like independent of experience (my model of how observation statements are true or false allows for the possibility that such statements can be be true and the world (in itself) be very different or even incomprehensible for us).

Subjectivity and objectivity are (I suggest) not best thought of as 'mental' and 'non-mental' (this distinction, as connoting a real distinction, is under fire. Many philosophers (at least the ones concerned with what is going on in empirical science) already consider such concepts to be outdated, and relegated to our 'folk' ways of speaking about ourselves. Subjective / objective distinction is relevant in thinking about statements - it is an epistemic distinction. A subjective statement is one that either intrinsically depends on some person for its truth-value, or is a statement that cannot be true or false, i.e. 'I like apples', 'Picasso is the best painter ever'. An objective statement is one that is not contingent on some particular person or persons for its truth-value, i.e. 'There is a tree in my front yard'. This may be true, it may be false, but whichever it is, it doesn't depend on my mere belief about it that it is so. Notice that objective claims have this quality even if one believes that trees are not there when we are not observing them -- objectivity is a quality of statements...not of 'objects'. If I say, 'Trees only exist when we are observing them' (whatever that is supposed to mean)...while trees may depend on our observation, the truth of the statement does not depend on our observation.

Objective claims are only probable, their justification requires inter-subjectivity...this should all be pretty familiar for you scientific minded thinkers.

 

[ValenceE]

Huckleberry,

in post#55 you wrote;

I'm not sure what a quantum realm has to do with truth at all. I can't say that I understand either.

I wasn’t directly referring to truth, nor Truth, but to its positioning in the word ‘outside’ in your suspicion that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science

So, truth about objective reality being outside the realm of science makes it pretty hard to come up with something like a TOE since, imo, the link between that truth and how we can express and explain it depends entirely on the observer’s subjectivity and human nature.

However, the good thing about this is that, again imo, the observer is in contact with that very truth and thus can have meaningful insights about the reality he is trying to understand, making descriptive proposals in the form of hypotheses, theories, laws and the like.

regards,
VE

 

[WaveJumper]

The Truth can be pretty disturbing. I don't think everyone is prepared to understand that their whole life exists at once. That, as far as physics is concerned, there is no past, present and future as such, outside of our experience. All those striving for the Truth, should be prepared to lose a lot of their naivety in the process. There is a good chance, you may lose what manifests to the average Joe as everything. But is a beautiful lie better than an ugly Truth? Would you rather want to find out if your partner is cheating on you(i.e. know the truth) or would you prefer to live under the illusion that what appears is what is?

 

[ValenceE]

Hello WaveJumper,

you wrote;

The Truth can be pretty disturbing. I don't think everyone is prepared to understand that their whole life exists at once. That, as far as physics is concerned, there is no past, present and future as such, outside of our experience. All those striving for the Truth, should be prepared to lose a lot of their naivety in the process. There is a good chance, you may lose what manifests to the average Joe as everything. But is a beautiful lie better than an ugly Truth? Would you rather want to find out if your partner is cheating on you(i.e. know the truth) or would you prefer to live under the illusion that what appears is what is?

Imo, everything outside of our experience is nameless and, just as it is inside our experience, unified... indeed making our life exist at once.

I agree that a lot of us would find it pretty unsettling to discover Truth about different aspects of the ‘blended’ (part truth part fabrication and belief) truth we experience in our everyday lives, thinking it to be how things really are.

As far as naivety goes, not sure any Truth could dislodge it from our human nature.

This human nature, unfortunately inadequate in a lot of instances, makes it that, on one hand, we’re ok with an untold truth about something that would hurt us, but, being unknown now, doesn’t. We could then continue on living our illusion, as you say.

On the other hand, we would rather prefer this truth be told, knowing it might affect us but at the same time enabling us to better orient ourselves for the decisions ahead.

All of this of course, requires that Truth be there in the first place...

Regards,

VE

 

[WaveJumper]

All of this of course, requires that Truth be there in the first place...

I don't know what exactly it is(Truth), but i feel that music has the uncanny ability to oscillate in unison with whatever it might be. Einstein also felt in a similar way, as a keen and talented violinist, music was one of his life-long passions: “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music.”This quote by Michio Kaku is very telling of the role of music that some of the brilliant physicists attribute to the true nature of reality:

”The Universe is a symphony of strings and the mind of God is cosmic music resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace“

 

[ValenceE]

agreed...

I also believe that Arts as a whole, through inspiration, brings the artist in direct relationship with this Truth.

 

[baywax]

The Truth can be pretty disturbing. I don't think everyone is prepared to understand that their whole life exists at once. That, as far as physics is concerned, there is no past, present and future as such, outside of our experience. All those striving for the Truth, should be prepared to lose a lot of their naivety in the process. There is a good chance, you may lose what manifests to the average Joe as everything. But is a beautiful lie better than an ugly Truth? Would you rather want to find out if your partner is cheating on you(i.e. know the truth) or would you prefer to live under the illusion that what appears is what is?

The truth is () our biological nature and survival instincts are the results of natural selection and they include psychological and neurological filters that obscure the majority of the objective truths that comprise our environment and our experience.

If our cognitive functions had no filters in place and fully processed the enormous amount of information that is simultaneously stimulating our senses we would quickly develop neurotic catatonia or go through a complete nervous melt down and that would be the end of our species.

 

[ValenceE]

baywax,

Indeed we'd be overwhelmed by the sum of it all, but I'm not sure the fact that we can't process all of it at the same time has to do with filters...

are you saying we have this capability but some evolutive filters are preventing us from deploying it?

Regardless of the answer, can you elaborate on the process that puts these filters in place ?

regards,

VE

 

[WaveJumper]

The truth is () our biological nature and survival instincts are the results of natural selection and they include psychological and neurological filters that obscure the majority of the objective truths that comprise our environment and our experience.

If our cognitive functions had no filters in place and fully processed the enormous amount of information that is simultaneously stimulating our senses we would quickly develop neurotic catatonia or go through a complete nervous melt down and that would be the end of our species.

This is what appears but under the surface there is a different reality. Objective realism is suffering heavy blows from all fields of physics, it's hard to maintain this idea even if you are a hardcore realist physicist.
Your senses would never tell you that your body is 99.999% empty space, that a certain configuration of positive and negative charges(your body) has the ability to talk, sing, cry and fall in love. That we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities of solid stuff. That the distinction between past, present and future only lies in your conscious head. I could continue but we don't want paranoia and i am not here to battle the few remaining literal realists on physics forums.

BTW, I thought you were striving for the whole Truth since it was you who started this thread about Truth.