Is truth conceptual? Do we create the "truth?"

[Odd Greg]

This is such a complicated subject. Naturally, no discussion of ‘truth’ can proceed without a discussion of language. And no discussion of language can proceed without a discussion of consciousness, perception and information transference. It’s a complicated subject.

One of many theories of how the human brain functions is the notion that it creates a cloud of perception that extends consciousness outside of our bodies. Some are able to extend that cloud great distances, while others are held close to the body; in some cases, almost entirely internalized.

The way in which we perceive the world around us is not contiguous or complete. Our minds, it is theorized, pick out changes in patterns and motion. We compare those patterns and motions against memory, and then formulate a complete picture. (Poorly stated and unforgivably simplified.) In short, we really don’t see everything we are looking at, or hear everything we are listening to, or objectively consider everything that is said or done by others, by ourselves or by the universe at large. Our brains, our minds, fill in fragments of meaning and ascribe function and purpose derived largely from memory and, dare I say, conditioned response. (I suppose you could say that that is 'creating truth'.)

Language does provide a platform for objectivity within certain constraints. Without such objectivity, communication of factual or temporal information would fail or mutate over time. Meaning does mutate, of course. The hardest problem to solve in communication is divining intent and experience from the words. (I say ‘divining’ to infer the somewhat transcendent nature of deriving intent from a string of symbols.)

There is ‘the truth’, of course – in the sense of stating what one believes or thinks based on his or her recall of experience from memory. Is that personal truth factual or real? Maybe. Based on the nature and inconsistencies of our minds and memories - probably not.

Personally, I do not think there is any way to know if something is “truth” (in its grandest meaning) in the most ideal or practical sense of the word. Even some ‘facts’ are inconclusive. I’ve abandoned worrying about it much in favour of acceptance that it is an unanswerable question, and that my perception of the universe is without doubt flawed and incomplete.

[Robert Tulip]

Grim, thanks very much for the comments on Marshall McLuhan. I have not read his work, and just encountered him through the slogan the medium is the message. It just seems wrong to me, for example the medium of the internet is not the same thing as the content of the messages posted on it. I actually must confess that in my mind I somehow associated Marshall McLuhan with Malcolm McLaren just due to the similarity of their names, although I did not attribute McLuhan's theory to the Sex Pistols.

Essentially, it can be expressed in the question of the relation between the medium and the message.

Yes the relationship if a close one, especially to the point that you are confusing a message with a idea.

Pop media writer Marshall McLuhan

By "pop media writer" you must mean Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar — a professor of English literature, a literary critic, a rhetorician, and a communication theorist. McLuhan's work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory.

famously said 'the medium is the message'.

What an amazing distillation of his thought, you are ingenious RT.

This is a contradiction, because the media is the form in which the message is conveyed, while the message is the content of information.

The message is inherently archetypal in nature and within a certain sense, only our modes or methods of accessing and communicating is relevant. McLuhan's idea (and I know this because I have actually read his work) was that all message can be distilled to thought, the nature of which is substantially little different than the information that was once transferred using telegraph. He was interested to analyze how the technology of the wheel transformed Roman culture expanding the boundaries of the city through increased speed of communication and ability to travel further easier. Not by looking at what exactly was being transferred or how fast. This is one example. He analyzed other mediums as well, studying the influence of technology on time, education, or work for example. I feel that you are wrong to suggest that a message is necessarily best described as informational in form.

Information is content, while its representations are form.

Not all content is information. Simply stated, information is a message received and understood, content without context is not information it is simply content. Similarly forms are not representations until they are received and understood as such, they are forms.

Now, I agree with you that where there is no form there is no content either.

What are you saying? That content is reliant on a particular form? I take a word document and print it on to a page. What is a state of no form? The thought?

However, the conceptual distinction remains fundamental that the way information is conveyed (media) is not the same thing as the content of the information.

Not however, necessarily. The point of McLuhan was that the best analysis is one of medium not any particular message. Keeping in mind that he was a media theorist.

Just because content needs form does not mean that form provides a sufficient explanation for content.

So content does need form! The point was to not try an examination of the content rather to examine how the medium will result in and also expresses radical changes in society.

A good example is the idea of justice. The form of the legal system does not always deliver the content of ideal justice, but justice nonetheless exists in some ideal sense as a potential vision or goal which can be gradually articulated.

Yet there is a book of law (content) and there is a separate book of legal procedure (medium of legal proceeding). If your goal was to understand why the court is proceeding as such, on the level of content exchange, you would be much better off studying the entire book of procedures rather than the entire book of laws. A message about the nature of the particular legal system would arise independent of an understanding of the exact contents you are observing. How do lawyers communicate formally, not using the book of law rather the book of procedure.

Great post, I was impressed by McLuhan and enjoy discussing and thinking about his ideas.

[Grim]

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/andthewinneri ... _21818.mp3

This is for Interbane. Not that I really want to discuss it further or anything.

[Robert Tulip]

This is such a complicated subject. Naturally, no discussion of ‘truth’ can proceed without a discussion of language. And no discussion of language can proceed without a discussion of consciousness, perception and information transference. It’s a complicated subject.

One of many theories of how the human brain functions is the notion that it creates a cloud of perception that extends consciousness outside of our bodies. Some are able to extend that cloud great distances, while others are held close to the body; in some cases, almost entirely internalized.

The way in which we perceive the world around us is not contiguous or complete. Our minds, it is theorized, pick out changes in patterns and motion. We compare those patterns and motions against memory, and then formulate a complete picture. (Poorly stated and unforgivably simplified.) In short, we really don’t see everything we are looking at, or hear everything we are listening to, or objectively consider everything that is said or done by others, by ourselves or by the universe at large. Our brains, our minds, fill in fragments of meaning and ascribe function and purpose derived largely from memory and, dare I say, conditioned response. (I suppose you could say that that is 'creating truth'.)

Language does provide a platform for objectivity within certain constraints. Without such objectivity, communication of factual or temporal information would fail or mutate over time. Meaning does mutate, of course. The hardest problem to solve in communication is divining intent and experience from the words. (I say ‘divining’ to infer the somewhat transcendent nature of deriving intent from a string of symbols.)

There is ‘the truth’, of course – in the sense of stating what one believes or thinks based on his or her recall of experience from memory. Is that personal truth factual or real? Maybe. Based on the nature and inconsistencies of our minds and memories - probably not.

Personally, I do not think there is any way to know if something is “truth” (in its grandest meaning) in the most ideal or practical sense of the word. Even some ‘facts’ are inconclusive. I’ve abandoned worrying about it much in favour of acceptance that it is an unanswerable question, and that my perception of the universe is without doubt flawed and incomplete.

Hello Odd Greg and welcome. I've just read this comment you made, and it is very deep! On your question how we know if something is truth, time is the great leveller. Things that persist through time have much evidence and effect, while ephemeral things have little. The same applies to values, with longevity a good mark of adaptation of the meme, so eternal values are true.

Your comments on the 'cloud of perception' reminds me of Heidegger's theory that distantiality of stuff for use is very different from the dimensionality of scientific measurement.

[johnson1010]

There are objective truths, such as the composition of a Hydrogen atom. These do not require observers.

There are also subjective truths, such as "What matters most to me?"

But in most instances, there is an independant Truth that does not rely on interpretation.

Two drivers may differ over who was at fault in a car crash, but ultimately somebody made a mistake. That is objective. They may actually BOTH be responsible, and that is also objectively true.