Posts Tagged ‘truth’

What Can We Truly Know? A Practical Guide to Truth for Finite Minds

June 1, 2025

Truth feels like it should be simple: something is true if it matches reality.

But as soon as we ask how we know something is true – or whether we can know – we realize the ground shifts under our feet. We have finite minds, limited senses, and we’re trying to understand an endless universe from the inside. We do not know what senses we do not have. The only thing we can be certain of is that whatever we observe of the surrounding universe is partial and incomplete. And we do not know what we cannot know. How do we define truth from such a small vantage point?

This is an attempt to build a definition of truth that respects those limits while still giving us something reliable to live by.

Our senses have evolved on earth to detect conditions on earth and so help our journey of survival and reproduction. Our minds evolved to help us survive, not to decode the cosmos. We’re built to spot patterns, avoid danger, find food, and navigate social groups – not to unravel quantum mechanics or grasp the shape of space-time. Yet we have been so successful at survival that we have had time to consider other things than survival.  We have evolved language and thinking and have earned the freedom to demonstrate our creativity. We have built tools, systems, and cities and vehicles. We have developed the sciences and philosophy and the arts such that we are by far the most successful species on the planet.  Human cognition too has grown and far beyond our original limits. But even with all that, our understanding is still partial, still incomplete. Always will be. Our cognitive limits are ever-present. For example, we still cannot comprehend why gravity must be or why existence is or time flows or life and consciousness arise. There are things – perhaps – that we cannot know.

That means truth, for us, has to be redefined. Not as an unreachable absolute, but as something we can approach and refine, even if we never fully arrive. Consider all truth in the universe to be a giant landscape. We only see a tiny part of that. From that which we can see our truths are what we call knowledge.  That which is knowledge for us is always true (provisionally). A lie is disqualified from being knowledge. We perceive knowledge to come in three forms:

1. What We Know

These are the things we’ve tested, confirmed, and rely on – like gravity pulling objects down or the fact that ice melts above 0°C. These are our working truths. They could be revised, but they serve us well for now.

2. What We Could Know

These are truths we haven’t reached yet, but potentially could. Maybe we need better tools or smarter questions. The cure for a disease. The cause of consciousness. A deeper law of physics. These are knowable truths – just not yet known.

3. What We Can Never Know

Some truths lie forever beyond human perception or understanding. Perhaps they’re hidden by our cognitive limitations or the boundlessness of space and time. Or maybe our brains are simply incapable of grasping them – like trying to teach calculus to a dog. These are the unknowable truths – still real, just what we cannot know.

If that’s our playing field, then a more grounded way to define truth is:

Truth is what fits with what we know so far, helps us predict what happens next, and holds up when tested.

This isn’t some eternal, absolute cosmic Truth-with-a-capital-T. It’s the kind of truth we can use, refine, and build on. It works in science. It works in everyday life. And it keeps us honest. We are truth-seekers, not truth-holders. No matter how clever we get, we’ll never know everything. That’s not failure – that’s the condition of being human with a finite brain and limited senses. But we can keep trying and keep improving our aim. We can ask better questions, challenge assumptions, discard broken ideas, and refine our hypotheses and our theories. The scientific method does exactly this. So does philosophy. So do our creative arts though truths are very strictly subjective. So does any kind of honest thinking. Not to own the truth, but to move closer to it.

Truth Is a direction, not a destination. It is the seeking for the truth that matters especially since any absolute truth is beyond out cognition. We can move toward it, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but we never quite arrive. And that’s okay. What matters isn’t reaching a final answer. What matters is that we seek.

We live in a universe full of mystery. The best we can do is stay curious, stay humble, and keep searching.

We are seekers after truth not its owners.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on What Can We Truly Know? A Practical Guide to Truth for Finite Minds

Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

April 22, 2025

This follows on from my earlier post about knowledge.

This essay argues that knowledge, truth, and reality are attributes of consciousness, requiring a purposeful, self-aware mind to transform raw data into meaning. Countering realist and Cartesian assumptions, this post adopts an anti-realist framework which emphasizes consciousness’s role, urging epistemic humility and responsible engagement with constructed realities.

Introduction

Consider our famous tree which falls in a forest. The trivial question is whether there is a sound when there is no one to hear? But let us ask instead what is experienced by an intelligent observer who just happens to be around. This question opens up the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality, revealing their dependence on a conscious mind. I argue that these are attributes of consciousness, created when a self-aware, purposeful mind defines and interprets phenomena. Existence—the brute fact of all things being—may stand alone, like air pressure vibrations in a forest, but reality, truth, and knowledge require an observer to define specific things, such as a tree’s fall. Realists claim the universe exists and is real intrinsically, conflating existence with reality, but this begs, “Known by who?”—exposing the need for a conscious knower. Knowledge arises only when consciousness contextualizes defined phenomena, truth appears as consciousness judges their certainty, and reality takes shape as meaning is constructed, all within the mind. The grey amorphous splodge of everything which is in the universe may encompass all existence, but it defines no things; only observers carve out realities. This anti-realist perspective rejects absolute truth and philosophical objectivity, emphasizing diverse perspectives—humans understanding the sun scientifically, crows sensing it instinctively—each defining distinct realities, limited by the unknowable. Through definitions, epistemic limits, and implications, this essay explores how consciousness shapes understanding. Knowledge abides only in a consciousness which has a need to define what is known. The tree-falling analogy anchors this, showing existence to be diffuse and undefined until a mind makes it real, urging us to see knowledge, truth, and reality as products of consciousness.

Definitions

What does it mean to know, to judge true, or to call something real? These terms hinge on a critical and crucial distinction between existence – the universe’s raw, undefined splodge – and the reality, knowledge, and truth, which can only be carved out of existence by a conscious mind.

  • Existence is the brute fact of all things being—particles, waves, space, vibrations, stars, trees, winds, crows—swirling amorphously as the universe’s grey background, unnamed, undefined and needing no observer.
  • Data are discrete slices of existence, like air pressure vibrations in a forest, raw and shapeless until a mind touches them.
  • Information emerges when senses and interpreting brains select and shape data into patterns, such as sound waves rippling through an ear.
  • Knowledge is born when a conscious mind defines these patterns, naming them with certainty: “A tree fell.”
  • Cognition—perception, memory, reasoning—builds the bridge from data to information.
  • Consciousness is cognition with self-awareness, the spark that defines things and weaves knowledge.
  • Purpose is the drive, whether deliberate study or survival’s instinct, pushing a mind to define and learn.
  • Truth is a judgment, a mind declaring a defined thing certain, like “a tree fell is true,” meaningless without someone to say it.
  • Objectivity is minds agreeing, as in science’s shared truths, not a reality beyond them—else, “Intrinsic to what?”
  • Reality is meaning carved from existence, a defined thing like a forest event, not a universal fact.

This anti-realist view clarifies how knowledge, truth, and reality can only spring from a mind which contemplates and tries to define the bits and pieces of existence’s diffuse mass. The brute fact of all that is, just is and does not need to name or identify its own bits and pieces or make judgements about them. Realists conflate existence with reality, but pressure vibrations in the air do not sing until a conscious observer judges them to be a sensation called sound.

The Limits of Knowing: Known, Knowable, and Unknowable

Picture the universe as a vast, amorphous, undefined sea of existence. What can we know from it? Knowledge splits into three realms: the known, the knowable, and the unknowable. The known holds what we’ve defined—gravity’s pull, a tree’s fall—crafted by observation. The knowable waits to be defined, like distant stars or hidden creatures, reachable with better tools or sharper minds. The unknowable is existence undefined—quantum flickers, the universe’s deep nature—forever beyond our grasp. This divide shows knowledge and truth need a mind to carve specific things from existence’s splodge. Realists proclaim a universe real in itself, but “Known by who?, Real to who?” Defining the sun reveals this: humans name it a star, blazing with fusion; crows sense a warm light, guiding flight. Each reality is partial, missing existence’s undefined depths, like quantum secrets. The unknowable allows no mind to be able to capture all, shattering realism’s dream of one true reality. Knowledge lives in what we define, shaped by consciousness, not floating in existence. A tree’s vibrations are just there until an observer calls them a sound or a fall, crafting a reality. This anti-realist lens, seeing reality as it is defined, not as a given, leads us to explore how consciousness transforms bits of existence into knowledge.

From Data to Knowledge: The Conscious Process

Consider again our tree, crashing in the forest. What does an intelligent observer experience? Vibrations ripple through the air—existence’s brute fact, undefined and silent. These are data, raw scraps of the universe’s meaningless, lonely splodge. The eye perceives nothing but an ear catches them, cognition spins them into information—sound waves with rhythm and pitch. Then consciousness, purposeful and self-aware, defines them: “A cracking sound”, “A tree fell.” This is knowledge, born when a mind carves a specific thing from existence. Realists insist the fall is real in itself, but that cannot be. “What is a tree?, What is air? Known by who?” Vibrations aren’t a tree’s fall until defined—else, “Intrinsic to what?” A human observer might name it a forest event, mapping its cause; a crow, hearing danger, defines it as a threat. Each reality springs from defining selected bits and pieces of existence, both enlightened and limited by senses and constrained by the unknowable, like the molecular dance triggered by the tree which fell. What the human selects of the data available and what the crow selects are different. Knowledge isn’t in the universe’s raw being but in a mind’s act of definition. Animals or AI might process information, but only a conscious mind, driven by purpose—curiosity or survival—defines knowledge as humans do. No book or computer ever contained knowledge. A crow’s instinct doesn’t name the fall; AI’s outputs don’t reflect knowledge. Only consciousness, shaping existence into defined things, creates meaning, setting the stage for judgments of truth value.

Knowledge and Truth: A Mind-Dependent Relationship

What makes a belief knowledge, and what makes it true? Observe that belief – no matter how enhanced (justified, true, etc.) – can never achieve a truth value of 1. That requires it no longer be a belief. Knowledge is a belief held with a subjective confidence, defined and justified, like “The sun rises” seen daily. Truth is the mind’s judgment that a defined thing aligns with reality—but reality itself is carved from existence by consciousness. To call “a tree fell” true, an observer hears vibrations (existence), defines them as sound, and judges the event’s certainty. Realists claim truth lives in the universe, saying “the sun is real” or “gravity is true.” But “sun” or “gravity” are defined things, needing a mind—“Intrinsic to what?” Consciousness can deal with partial truths and almost certainties. Claiming “existence is true” is a tautology; existence just is, undefined. Humans define the sun as a star, fusing atoms; crows, as a light, guiding paths. Both truths are real, yet partial, blind to existence’s undefined depths, like quantum waves. “Known by who?” Truth applies to things that a mind names, not existence’s splodge. Truth falters, too: geocentrism once reigned, toppled by heliocentrism’s evidence. This shows consciousness, purposeful and fluid, redefining truths as knowledge shifts. Anti-realism sees truth as subjective, sometimes shared through science’s agreed definitions, but never absolute. Existence’s undefined vastness limits all truths—no mind defines it all. Knowledge and truth, born from defining bits of existence, are consciousness’s craft, driven by purpose, as we’ll see next.

Purpose in the Generation of Knowledge

Why do we know? Purpose lights the spark. Whether chasing curiosity or surviving danger, purpose drives a mind to define existence’s grey splodge. Picture our tree’s fall: an observer, keen to understand, hears vibrations and defines them as “a tree fell,” forging knowledge and truth. Without purpose, existence stays undefined. Realists claim gravity’s pull is knowledge itself, but “Known by who?” Gravity is another  indistinguishable part of existence until a mind defines it as a force or as the curvature of spacetime. Saying “existence is real” is empty—existence doesn’t define things. Purpose shapes what we carve: humans define a forest to study its life; crows, a fall as danger to flee. Each knowledge, each reality, is a slice of existence, limited by the undefinable, like unseen molecules. A book holds data, but only a purposeful reader defines its words as knowledge. Crows sense light, but without human-like purpose, they don’t define it as a star. AI crunches numbers, lacking the self-aware drive to name things. Realist intrinsic reality crumbles—“Intrinsic to what?”—as existence needs a mind to become real. Purpose makes knowledge, truth, and reality conscious acts, defining the universe’s raw being, a theme echoed in how perspectives shape reality.

Perspectives on Reality: The Role of Perception

Is reality one, or many? It depends on the mind defining it. The sun burns in existence’s splodge, undefined. Humans, through science, give it a boundary, define it as a star, fusing hydrogen; crows, through instinct, see a light, guiding their flight. Each carves a reality—knowledge and truth—from existence, yet each misses the undefinable, like quantum flickers. Realists insist the sun is real in itself, but “Intrinsic to what?” The sun isn’t a “star” without a mind to first carve it out of existence and name it—“Known by who?” The sound of our tree’s fall is just air pressure vibrations until defined: by humans as a forest event, by crows as danger. These realities, though valid, are partial, shaped by perception’s lens and existence’s hidden depths. The universe holds the splodge of existence but defines no things; minds do that. Even science’s objectivity is minds agreeing on defined truths, not a truth beyond them. But a subjective untruth even if shared 8 billion times remains a subjective untruth. Realist claims of a real universe blur existence with reality, ignoring that things need defining. No perspective holds all—humans, crows, or others—because the undefinable bits of existence will always escape us. Some existence is unknowable. Reality is consciousness’s craft, a mosaic of defined things, not a universal slab. This anti-realist view, seeing reality as what we define, faces challenges we’ll tackle next.

Counterarguments: Where Does Knowledge Reside?

Could knowledge live outside a mind—in the universe, nature, books, or AI? Realists say yes, claiming gravity’s law is knowledge, real in itself. But gravity is existence’s hum, undefined until a mind calls it a force or spacetime—“Known by who?” Saying “existence is real” is a tautology, blurring brute fact with defined reality—“Intrinsic to what?” Descartes’ Cogito, ergo sum stumbles here, its loop (I exist, so I exist) assuming a self, like realism’s assumed reality, defining nothing. Trees grow, crows fly by light, but their “knowledge” is instinct, not defined belief. Crows sense the sun but don’t name it a star, lacking human purpose. Books store words, yet only a reader defines their meaning. AI processes data, programmed but not purposeful, outputting results, not knowledge. These claims mistake existence or information for knowledge, ignoring the mind’s role in defining things. Science’s truths, though shared, are minds defining existence, not existence defining itself. Our tree’s vibrations are existence’s pulse, undefined until an observer names them a sound or a fall. Realists conflate existence’s being with reality’s meaning, but only consciousness, purposefully carving things from the universe’s splodge, creates knowledge, truth, and reality, as we’ll reflect on next.

Implications and Reflections

What happens if knowledge, truth, and reality are consciousness’s creations? We must tread humbly. Truths shift—geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism—as minds redefine the bits and pieces of existence. Undefined existence, the unknowable, looms beyond, like quantum shadows, reminding us no truth is final. Realists’ intrinsic reality—“Intrinsic to what?”—ignores this, conflating existence’s splodge with defined things. Humans define ecosystems, crows dangers, each reality a fragment, urging care in the truths we craft. Descartes’ Cogito’s tautology, looping on existence, fades beside this view of reality as defined, not given. Anti-realism sparks curiosity, urging us to define the knowable while bowing to the undefinable. Science’s shared truths are precious, yet human, not universal. For non-specialists, this reveals knowledge as our act of naming existence—trees, stars, laws—not a cosmic gift. Philosophically, it dances with idealism and constructivism, spurning realism’s blend of existence and reality. Existence may hum unheard, but without a mind to define it, it is silent. This calls us to question, redefine, and own the realities we shape, as we’ll now conclude.

Conclusion

Our tree falls, vibrations pulsing in existence’s grey splodge. Is it real? Only if a mind defines it. Knowledge, truth, and reality are consciousness’s gifts, carved from the universe’s raw being. An observer names vibrations a forest event, crafting reality; crows sense danger, defining another. Realists call the universe real, blending existence with meaning—“Known by who?” Existence just is; things, however, need to be first imagined and then defined by a mind. Humans weave scientific truths, crows instinctual ones, each partial, constrained by undefinable existence. Purpose fuels this, setting conscious minds apart. Truths evolve—fallible, human—rejecting absolute reality. Saying “existence is real” or leaning on Descartes’ Cogito’s loop dodges the truth: only defined things are real or true. The universe holds existence, not things, until we name them. This anti-realist view demands the humility imposed by the unknowable—our truths are ours—and imposes responsibility, as defined realities shape our world. We can study and explore what we can define, and question what we cannot. Consciousness is our tool to extract meaning and comprehension from the grey cosmic background of existence and to assess the quality – truth, reality – of the knowledge we have created.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on Knowledge, Truth, and Reality: Attributes of Consciousness in an Anti-Realist Framework

Exploring the Nature of Logic, Reason, and Rationality

October 10, 2024

There is always circularity involved when considering logic, reason and rationality. One set of definitions gives:

  • Logic: The study of valid reasoning.
  • Reason: A broader concept that encompasses logical thinking, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
  • Rationality: The quality of being reasonable or logical.

What is logical is not always considered reasonable. Yet we derive the rules of our logic from our reason. If we try and define what reason is we come back to logic and what is rational. But we also differentiate between logic and reason and rationality. It seems to me that all claims of objectivity whether for logic or reason or rationality are trying to square the circle. 

Thinking through the nature of logic and its relationship to human reason, I am struck by the idea that logic, as we know it, may be much more of a human construct than being anything objective or universal. Logic, with its clear-cut rules of deduction, can only be a mirror of the world we claim to observe. It is a reflection of how humans perceive the world—through patterns, cause and effect, and binary distinctions between truth and falsehood. The concept of truth and falsehood as binary and mutually exclusive is a foundational assumption in classical logic, and propositions are either true or false without any middle ground. (The Law of the Excluded Middle). The rules of logic derived by reason are assertions and are fundamental assumptions. The binary distinction between true and false and that the one excludes the other is also just an assumption. It does not reflect all that we observe. It seems logical to us to say that if A is true, then B must follow, and if not-A, then not-B. But is this framework truly a reflection of the world as it is, or just a convenient tool we’ve developed to make sense of our observations?

I conclude that logic is inherently tied to the human mind – and particularly to individual human minds. It is a product of how we, as humans, experience the world through our senses, our language, and our understanding of cause and effect. Our observations, no matter how often repeated, and no matter how many times duplicated, are all perceptions. A delusion shared by multitudes does not make it true. A perception shared by billions does not make it any more objective than a single individual’s perception. The idea of something being “true” or “false” may not be a feature of the universe itself but a structure imposed by human cognition. A spider, for instance, will perceive the world in ways that are entirely alien to us, and it may have an entirely different logic that makes sense within its own experience. What we call “logic” could thus be nothing more than a human artefact, and there might be other forms of reasoning—unknown to us—practiced by other species or even extraterrestrial beings.

I must reject the idea of an absolute, objective logic. If logic is shaped by the mind that perceives the world, it cannot be universal. It must always involve the observer, making it inherently subjective. What we consider logical may not be logical to other beings whose cognitive processes are different from ours. I am quite certain that our pets do not consider our actions always to be logical. Logic, as a formal system, can only tell us what conclusions follow from given premises according to certain rules, but it does not tell us why those rules reflect the reality we observe—or whether they would hold in different contexts or for different minds. The rules of logic only give us an assumed correct process of thought, given a starting true condition, to reach other true conclusions. But logic does not attempt to define what truth is. It takes as a foundational assumption that what is not true is false and vice versa.

Hence, logic clearly is connected to but is not the same as reason. Further, I find it interesting to explore the distinction between what is reasonable and what is logical. There is no law of nature which requires us to act logically (or reasonably for that matter). Human actions may overrule what is logical to instead be reasonable or even unreasonable. While logic is about formal consistency, reasonableness is about sound judgment within the real-world context. A conclusion can be reasonable—based on experience, intuition, or practical considerations—without being strictly logical. Conversely, something can be logically valid but still seem unreasonable when we take into account broader factors like emotion, ethics, or practicality.

Thus, human reason is much wider than logic alone. I like to think of it as logic being the correctness part of that part of the thought process which needs to be bound by rules. Reason needs much more than just thinking correctly. Reasoning often involves flexibility, considering context, emotion, and pragmatic outcomes, whereas logic is strict and rule-bound. It is this broader sense of reason that helps us navigate the complexities of human life, and where strict logic fails to account for the richness of our experiences.

I conclude that logic is a guideline for structured thinking, but it is not synonymous with being reasonable. It is a product of human thought, applied to our thinking. It is tied to our perception and cognition, and its validity can only extend to be within the boundaries of what we can observe or understand. Reason, on the other hand, embraces a much wider scope. Reason brings judgement into play. To make judgements needs a set of values to compare with. The use of reason is what brings a judgement of what is “best” to do into play. Logic only allows us to follow the rules but reason allows us to act wisely and sensibly in a world that is often too complex for formal logic to capture.

But it also means that logic applies only to thinking and is no constraint on human actions. Reason is what we often use to overrule logic and as the justification of our actions. In this way, reason functions as the adaptive, real-world application of human thinking, whereas logic remains an internal tool for organizing thoughts, not necessarily dictating how we behave.

Even truth is an artefact of the mind. The world around us exists – it is. That part we perceive as observations (direct or indirect or implied) we take as being existential truth. This is the closest we get to any absolute truth and even that is tainted as being a perception of a human mind with all the limitations and foibles of that mind. A brute fact it seems, but still subjective. And everything else we take as truth is just a perception in a human mind. 

Logic, reason and rationality are all artefacts of human minds. They are all subjective. There is no such thing as objective logic – except as a subjective perception.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on Exploring the Nature of Logic, Reason, and Rationality

Testing ChatGPT /2: Large language models conflate conformity with truth

May 3, 2023
  1. Large language models (such as GPT3) generate text based on probability.
  2. They can have no internal concept of truth.
  3. Probabilities are reflections of conformity and are based on weights of existing usage patterns contained within its database.
  4. Training is about giving additional weight as human feedback on the positivity or negativity of what has been generated.
  5. Generated text gives high values to conformity with its own database and with the training (feedback) received. 
  6. High conformance is conflated with truth.

Of course, this is a common feature in human interactions as well. Many people having a particular opinion gives that opinion a higher perceived truth value even if that opinion is utterly wrong or false. The deification of “the many” has warped our notions of what is truth.

But the fuzziness around truth could be a particular issue with large language models and for AI. Truth is not an inherent, internal concept of such models. Truth becomes relative (to the views of the trainers) and conformity is conflated with truth.

ktwop: Do large language models generate probabilistic text?
ChatGPT: That’s correct! Large language models generate text using probability distributions. These models are trained on massive amounts of text data and learn to predict the likelihood of certain words or phrases based on the context of the surrounding text.
When generating text, the model samples from these probability distributions to determine which word or phrase to use next. Because the model is probabilistic, it can generate different outputs for the same input, making the generated text more diverse and interesting.
However, it’s important to note that while large language models like GPT-3 are very good at generating coherent text, they are not perfect and can still produce errors or nonsensical output. It’s also important to be aware of ethical concerns surrounding the use of such models for potentially harmful purposes such as generating fake news or propaganda.
ktwop: How can the output from a language model be given a truth value?
ChatGPT:The output from a language model can be given a truth value by comparing it to a reference or ground truth text. The reference text can be a sentence or a paragraph that is known to be true or false, depending on the task at hand. For example, if the task is to generate a factually correct sentence, the truth value of the output can be determined by comparing it to a reliable source of information, such as a verified news article or a trustworthy database. If the output matches the reference text, it can be considered true, and if it does not, it can be considered false.
Similarly, for tasks such as sentiment analysis or topic classification, the truth value can be determined by comparing the output to a set of labels that are already defined as true or false. For example, if the task is to classify a text as positive or negative, the truth value of the output can be determined by comparing it to a labeled dataset where each text is already classified as positive or negative.
In summary, the truth value of the output from a language model can be determined by comparing it to a reference text or a set of labeled data that is already known to be true or false.
 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in AI, Evolution, Language | Comments Off on Testing ChatGPT /2: Large language models conflate conformity with truth