Why truth?

You are a mammal urged on by mammalian brain chemicals. Those in you are identical to those in me. The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself. Our differences are in perspective, which follows plainly from the fact that our eyes are sighted from different angles.

 

I wouldn't go that far dope. Our bodies are quite significantly different, and our physiologies operate in different ways. It is not just perspective that is different. Actually I would say our perspective is the same, as it is drawn from the same source - the source your mother draws from to teach you what a 'table' is, is the same source my mother draws from.

 

Is fantasy reality then? If you feel you live in your own fantasy world then you live in your own fantasy and with those you may invite into it, in which case it would not be your fantasy alone, but as long as your fantasy excludes anyone, you have not recognized what is real. There are no spaces that are not real.

 

truth is what is there when no one is saying anything.
the advantage of truth over untruth, is that it tends to be somewhat more useful.
(other then perhaps for entertainment value)

 

And harmful, perhaps?
Then again, if we find an untruth to be useful, would anyone readily admit that it is an untruth?

 

i think reality is a very individual thing.one persons reality can be completely different from others.its kinda like the movies.some people watch ones that other people have actually lived in their reality.so then you have fantasy an reality all in one movie,just depends on whoses watching it.

 

I don't think I am. Perception is clouded not by an inability to see but our demand that we decide what it should be that we see. Knowledge flows freely into an open mind. We are not trapped forever distant from access to real things, it only means that we had cared more or less for what we saw.

We increase our ability to see when we get above the distortions of the atmosphere, as in the hubble. There is no limit that is not self imposed on awareness. If your goal is not to know, then you will not.

 

Reality supports in every way it's constituents.

 

Where did you get the idea that 'actual reality' even exists? It may not - if we cannot know anything about it, then is it worth speculating?

 

What limit is that. Is it physical, no, we have all kinds of imaging techniques that allow us us to see the very small and the very large, and allow us to see into time itself. We can see things that are not exposed to light, through ultra sound.

Now, what you see is not outside of you. Reality is non local nor is it remote.
Thou art that but you doubt that you are real, and so yo think incumbent to choose perspectives that attend to illusory states.

Consider why the hubble telescope is able to see to the far reaches. It is above the atmosphere who's distortions are caused by uneven heating. The telescope simply looks out without regard for what it may find, therefore it sees everything it looks at.

 

There is no such thing as absolute truth. Therefore falsehoods are given an equal reception. For every person that believes a certain religion to be false, for example, there is a person who believes it to be true. For every scientist that discovers through empirical evidence some great universal truth, there is a scientist working on a theory that could one day disprove it. For every person that believes what they see from their eyes is true, there is someone that sees something contradictory.

Truth and falsity carry the exact same weight.

 

It helps us humans to discern "what is"

 

Yes, what is the limit?

See below.

True it records along certain frequencies but when you point it, it does not filter images based on association, which is my point.

The body is a communication device. It is not you in the respect that it supports you. Animus animates animal. What it does do is allow us to interface at a certain spectral frequency. One of many such spectral frequencies we may entertain. I cannot prove this point to you, but I trust several ecstatic mystical states that involved beings that were far more privy than I.

Our apparent density is a quality of mind.

 

You are comparing truth to falsehood for which there is no true comparison. What is false, is by definition not true and therefore does not exist. When you say everything is relative then you confuse the meaning of both words, true and false. "Falsehoods", are given equal reception because we can't tell the difference.

When you are speaking of belief as opposed to observation, you are talking about a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable. Since it is unknown, the belief constitutes ignorance not falsity.

They are not the same. An errant concept does not alter physical presence, but a congruent concept gives access in ways that we could not achieve otherwise.

 

I don't think so. The basis on which all those people are making statements is still truth. When we say "God exists" we are stating what we believe to be true. Even when we recognise truth as relative, it is still applied and sought after as a justifying factor. It underlies the whole basis of propositions.

Those two scientists working on opposite theories are pursuing truth. The issue isn't whether truth is absolute or relative - leave that for another thread - we are talking about the concept of truth and how and why people apply it.

 

the physical reality of the tangible universe is absolute truth.
its just not within the capacity of language and sapient persons to express.