(PRIVATE ON TRUTH AND TESTIMONY) Archive for reference. Hmmm…. number of rando

(PRIVATE ON TRUTH AND TESTIMONY) Archive for reference.

Hmmm…. number of random thoughts on this paper….

1) The mechanism that serves to help us identify similarities is not rational, but intuitive – pre-rational (System 1) that performs searches of our memories. The mechanism that we use to deduce the reason for the similarities we have intuited, is rational (System 2). Critical observations from System 2, once committed to memory, then add to System 1.

I can’t think of anything that doesn’t follow the process of System 2 instructing(loading) System 1 “searches for patterns.” But the operation of System 1 (intuition) is invisible to us. Largely I believe, we verbally justify the instruction of intuition as the application of reason – but that is impossible as far as I know.

2) Once we have constructed a theory through this combination of intuition(searching) and direction (reason), we then start to try to confirm this theory and falsify it. I think the major difference between individual behavior comes from whether we search for refutations, or confirmations, and how exhaustively (depth+breadth search) we attempt to refute it.

3) Now, it’s possible to state those two paragraphs above (1+2) in language that is more precise, albeit using a lot more terminology, but as far as I know, that is what actually occurs when we hypothesize and test.

4) In the spectrum deduction (sufficient information), induction (insufficient information), and abduction(sparse information), only deductions can be claimed to be true. That does not mean that we cannot guess – only that we cannot claim that our guesses are true. Long division works by the process of organized guessing. Repeating sequences are proof that the information is not present to produce an information without the arbitrary decision of choosing a limit to the precision of the decimal expansion. So the information to conduct division in the absence of contextual precision still faces the problem of sufficient determination of truth. This problem is also true of all statements about the dimensions of circles. But it is not true of the properties of rectangles. Without context we possess insufficient information to make a deduction without the arbitrary introduction of human choice to limit precision.

5) —“We have just seen that universal statements cannot be justified or confirmed by observation-statements.”—

Isn’t this just a verbalism? When we communicate we reduce reality to a set of selected symbols (words) that reduce the information content to communicable and useful form that humans can make use of. We make expressions in a context, just as we make measurements in a context. We can never make universal statements that are non-tautological for this reason. Non-tautological, True statements REQUIRE the absence of information. No? Deductive (tautological) answers are proofs. Truth requires testimony that the work done exhausts the standards of demonstration available to us. Ultimate truth is never attainable any more than an infinite limit is attainable. At the point the ultimate truth, or limit is reached, we achieve the construction of a tautology, not a testimony to the exhaustive proof of one’s statements given currently available knowledge.

More in a bit.