What is truth for…

[coberst]

What is truth for…

I was recently watching a documentary on Discovery Channel about a man who found an infant cheetah alone in the veldt. It was obvious that Cat, our cheetah, could not survive under such circumstances. John, our man, took cat home and attempted to raise her until she could fend for herself in the wild.

After a short period John recognized that he must release Cat into the wild when she had grown sufficiently to fend for her self. Of course, it stuck him that the cat must receive some training before she would be able to kill prey and thus have food and survive.

John set about to train Cat how to stalk and kill prey. He was able to combine the innate ability of Cat with various training techniques to train the Cat to stalk, capture, and kill a running animal, at least in a rudimentary way.

However, training Cat to recognize friend from foe and prey from dangerous animal in the animal kingdom was another matter. It was obvious that John had little ability to ‘educate’ Cat in the subtleties of survival. This was the task that Cat’s mother would have done.

It makes sense to me to conclude that John could not readily teach Cat the truths of her world. Without her mother’s guidance Cat had little chance to survive in her wild world even though she had grown the strength and size necessary to do so. In Cat’s wild world truth is what is necessary for survival.

I would conclude that truth for any animal, including the human animal, is a matter of survivability. Evolution is a process for determining any creature’s ability to comprehend truth, i.e. survive in their particular world.

What is truth for humans? Cognitive science informs me that “truth depends on meaningfulness” and “truth is relative to understanding”. What is meaningful for humans? I would say that, just like Cat, survival is the ultimate meaning for humans just as for Cheetahs.

Cat is not a social animal to the extent that humans are. We can examine social animals such as wolves and apes and we can see that what the group decides is meaningful, i.e. true, determines truth for the individual as well as the group. Truth for humans becomes more complex because humans have created an artificial world of meaning that makes it more difficult to ascertain what is true and what will lead to the extinction of the species.

Isn’t scientific theory an example of truth for humans?

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

[Angela]

Well, you made a meaning about that cheetah, and you extrapolated that meaning over to all humans, and so I guess it is your truth.

For me, "the ultimate meaning for humans is survival" simply does not work. I make other meanings, like Joy, Love, and Connection.

But if "survival" as an ultimate meaning works for you, have at it!

[coberst]

That which is meaningful for me is that in which I am in the picture. When I create something meaningful I am creating a concept that includes me. When I study a painting if I really “get-into what the artist is “saying” I am making that painting meaningful for me. When I empathesize with another person I am trying to make that person meaningful to me.

Meaning is not an object but is a concept created by the individual. Meaningfulness is created in certain kinds of experiences in certain kinds of environments. Meaning is subjective. When many others share that same feeling then one might say that the meaning is “objective”.

Iraq becomes very meaningful for me if my grandson goes into the army. Meaning is a creation of the individual.

That which is meaningful certainly would not be considered objective in any form that I would understand. I would say that objectivity is shared subjectivity.

[Angela]

I getcha. Were you not saying that, objectively, the truth for humans and cats is survival?

[Spartan]

Hey coberst, I think you are describing the pragmatic concept of truth - which makes some important points IMO, such as truth is relative to a conceptual scheme.

Also note that most scientific theories are considered true because they work or have proved useful, i.e. they make accurate and consistent predictions, which can help give us a better understanding of things.

For example we can't really know for sure that every time I jump off a cliff I will fall to my death, we can only infer from previous instances that what has happened in the past will happen in the future. By using induction I can make the proposition that the laws of gravitation have worked in the past and so will work in the future. Thus I can infer that I will fall to my death, however I can't know for sure that this will happen.

"It is only in the struggle of intelligent organisms with the surrounding environment that theories acquire meaning, and only with a theory's success in this struggle that it becomes true." ('Pragmatism', Wikipedia) Thus what is true, is merely what works.

[coberst]

Spartan

Actually I am defining the nature of truth as formulated in the new cognitive science paradigm as detailed in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson. However it certainly appears to be the same as that of pragmatism.

[Brutha]

However it certainly appears to be the same as that of pragmatism.

I think describing the concept as postmodern fits it better.

Saying that personal survial is the only thing that matters is very extreme position.
It is no neodarwinist position, because mother for example value sometimes the life of their child over their own life (the selfish gene etc.).

Most people think that there is something like an objective truth out there even when it's impossible to determine that truth.

If you are a extreme postmodern you could say that Iraq had biological weapons because Bush said so. Why else would have the US have invaded Iraq (the meaning of the truth that the Iraq has biological weapons was that the US is allowed to invade Iraq)?
On the other hand most people think that this meaning doesn't make the claim "True".

A few days ago I has a video (unfortunatly in German so, I don't link it), which featured the quote:
There are four sides of the truth:
Your side,
Their side,
The truth(tm) and
what really happend.

The truth(tm) was what the general consensus narative that is accepted by the average citizin (at the time of the start of the Iraq war, the truth(tm) was in the US that the Iraq had biological weapons).
On the other hand most people mean when they say: "Tell me truth!", tell me what really happened.
As human we can't do that, because no story will completly match "what really happened". On the other hand we try to be as near as possible at that standard.

The question of how something become truth(tm), is very interesting.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by coberst

Spartan

Actually I am defining the nature of truth as formulated in the new cognitive science paradigm as detailed in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson. However it certainly appears to be the same as that of pragmatism.

The new cognitive science paradigm? The nature of truth is a question for philosophers, and is beyond the scope of cognitive science.

[Brutha]

The new cognitive science paradigm? The nature of truth is a question for philosophers, and is beyond the scope of cognitive science.

Philosphers get influenced by cognitive science.
We even have experimental philosphy these days.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Philosphers get influenced by cognitive science.
We even have experimental philosphy these days.

But cognitive science is by definition a science. And science is a model for acquiring knowledge based on the principle of induction. It is up to epistemologists to determine whether this model is valid or true.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Spartan

But cognitive science is by definition a science. And science is a model for acquiring knowledge based on the principle of induction. It is up to epistemologists to determine whether this model is valid or true.

“Most postmodern philosophers and other post-Kuhnian philosophers of science deny that cognitive science can have “truths” that could provide a basis for criticizing a particular philosophical view…they argue, cognitive science can neither function as the basis for a critique of existing philosophy nor provide the basis for an alternative philosophical theory.”

There are at least two versions of cognitive science: a first-generation that has assumed most of the fundamental tenets of traditional Anglo-American philosophy and a second generation that has called most of these same tenets into question on empirical grounds.

First generation cognitive science evolved in the 1950s and 60s centering their concern about symbol-manipulation, which accepted without question the disembodied nature of reason. The mind from this functionalist view was seen to resemble a computer program that could run on any appropriate hardware. “This was philosophy without flesh…This was a modern version of Cartesian view that reason is transcendental, universal, disembodied, and literal.”

Second generation cognitive science as detailed in "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson came upon the scene in the 70s and has challenged philosophy at its own game. This new generation cognitive science has taken advantage of new technology that makes it possibble to empirically see far beyond what was available when the Western traditional objectivist philosophy came of age.