---

quote:

well, for my part I would be very interested in a bootleg of the Barbican show

---

---

quote:

Hi Pherron

If possible?

cam.docherty@blueyonder.co.uk

---

---

quote:

as morally bankrupt, intellectually moribund and hypocritical as I undoubtedly am... oh and a thief... at least I answer your questions

---

---

quote:

One of the improvements is that registered users' names should now be reserved for their exclusive use, which was not the position before and which was the loophole that Cam ..exploited.

---

---

quote:

Mark: So you are saying that unless Cam "received notice from [this] site" that fraudulently impersonating a registered user was wrong, then he would not innately know that it was wrong to try to do so?

[Jon:] No, I'm saying that the nature of the loophole was such that Cam would not have received notice from the site that what he was doing was wrong. He mailed an apology to me telling me what he had done and that he realised it was wrong but that at the time his judgement was not what it should have been.

---

---

quote:

Mark: Does he also get the benifit of this defence in relation to the theft of intelectual property? i.e. that since he did not know that theft[1] was wrong until you told him?

[Jon:] No. The message board's software cannot understand the content of messages.

---

---

quote:

Philosophy! I thought you'd never ask.

Here is something I prepaired earlyer. 'Roy' is the pseudonyme I used for the Usenet Newsgroup, aus.motorcycles. Motorbikes and music are my two greatest loves.

Thoughts on 'The Nature of Truth'. A radical perspective.
~(AKA, the musings of 'Roy')~

I've been thinking about something that many people may regard to be self evident and not worth discussing, and that is the nature of Truth.

I do not contend for one moment that I have the answers distilled with greater clarity than the next person. I am not a philosopher, but thinking about things has never been their exclusive field of inquiry.

I do make the claim that the nature of Truth is an issue that is pertinent to the self interest of every person reading this, and therefore cannot possibly be considered off topic. It has a direct bearing on the informational content of these pages, and is relevant to all aspects of life.

More specifically, 'Truth' is an elusive quality in any NG environment[1], because it may so easily be hidden. Intentionally (by those seeking to confuse an issue) or unintentionally (by those who are confused by the issues).

By now you are possibly saying to yourself, so what, I know that the truth can be an illusive quality of information, what have you got that's new?.

Well nothing new, but something rare and valuable. A radical perspective.

You are familiar with the procedure by which one of the combatants in an argument, may seek a reconciliation of perspectives with his adversaries, by singing off his reply with YMMV, meaning "Your Mileage May Vary", which is a colourful way of expressing the idea that the basis of the disagreement can be explained by divergent conclusions drawn from a different experience[2].

We readily accept this explanation, but rarely give it any further thought, or draw any conclusions from it, on the nature of truth.

Of primary importance to my radical perspective, is the nature of observational data:

a) We can only observe what we can see, smell, touch, taste or hear, so conclusions are drawn from observations filtered by the quality of sensory perceptions.

b) We are only equipped with a finite mental capacity to observe. We are only capable of making 'x' number observations per minute. Only capable of recalling 'y' observations in total.

c) Each of us has a preconception, based on our existing experiences, of what is important.

d) We are all ill equipped for the task of observing some things.

So when any 2 people observe the same event, each is likely to attach a different significance to what they observed, and will tend to remember only those facts which they believed to be important, and may draw different conclusions based on their appraisal of significance.

In the example in point c) above, one solution to the dilemma of observational significance is to employ a technological device to record the event.

Wouldn't that solve the above dilemma, if a video tape of the event could be produced and the event could be replayed, over and over again, and as long as it is necessary, until both parties agree on 'the' truth?

Unfortunately, the answer must be a resounding No, dispelling our faith in our technology to record facts.

What if the subject at issue was related to odour, feel or taste?

What if the subject at issue was related to what thoughts someone was thinking at the time?

What if the subject at issue was related to what emotions someone was feeling at the time?

What if the subject at issue was related to what was the state of someone's beliefs at the time?[3]

What if the 2 observers whilst veiwing the video tape endlessly, still could not agree as to what was significant.

What if...What if...What if...

Therefore, their is an observational, perceptual and conceptual paradox of truth, and it is NOT one on which we can always rely on technology to resolve. A paradox that may be succinctly stated as:

"Truth, is often in the mind's eye of the beholder, and nowhere else may it be found".

And here is the radical perspective...

This realisation leads one to the conclusion that there may be more than one truth, i.e.:

If you can accept that people are likely to Believe different things;

If you can accept that the 'Truth' is, after all, only what you Believe it to be;

Then one possible conclusion is that there can be more than one 'Truth', and provided a Belief is honestly held, it qualifies as a valid possible 'Truth'.

Of course, a scientist would argue that there can ONLY be one 'Truth' because there is only one reality and that when people disagree as to the 'truth', then someone MUST be mistaken. Then the Scientific Method is employed to settle the argument.

However, history is littered with scientifically proven truths that have been abandoned because new evidence has proved that particular interpretation of reality to be incorrect. In the scientific mind, does that make 'Truth' a function of time? Or does it make 'truth' a function of our (best) interpretation.

If so, then what we have is essentially the proposition that SCIENCE regards 'Truth' to be whatever 'we' (the scientists, in this case) Believe it to be at that time, provided it is an honestly (scientifically honest, in this case) held belief.

Now, it's only a short, but tenuous, step in logic to the acceptance of many 'Truths' at the ONE moment in time.

The scientific method itself seems to accepts this principle. One example is the "Uncertainty Principle" in quantum mechanics.[4]

[1] Because, we are without the instinctive tools normally available to us in our ordinary dealings with people, such as the facial expressions, the characteristic traits of the voice (uncertainty or confidence), body language (assertive or defensive), hesitations, nervous traits like blinking, etc.

These indicators may lead us to drawing subconscious conclusions about what is or isn't the truth, without ever embarking on a factual investigation of the information being scrutinised.

[2] My thanks to the co-author of this paper for explaining the relevance of this convention to my paper. She wishes to remain anonymous. She has been a constant source of comfort and encouragement. She is the rock of my life.

[3] You might want to throw in beliefs with thoughts, but in fact they are quite separate. At any one time, you do not think about all you believe in (or know). Beliefs rise up from the subconscious as the thinking process recalls them (and sometimes we totally fail to recall them, as we all have experienced).

[4] "Uncertainty in quantum mechanics is not connected to the probabilistic nature of the wave function. It is inherent in any wave function including those in classical physics. The inability to assign exact position and momentum to a particle MAY only mean that there is no such thing."

"The inability to simultaneously constrain a particle's position and momentum is fundamental to the wave structure of quantum mechanics. The question of predicting the outcome of experiments is an independent one. For a hypothetical model based on stable dynamic structures it might be possible to predict the exact outcome of experiments even though the exact position and momentum of particles is not known because it has no more meaning than the exact location and position of a classical wave."

"There are many properties like frequency and location that cannot be simultaneously measured with high accuracy. Such pairs are said to be non commuting*. None of this says anything about uncertainty or lack of predictability. That is a separate issue"

* to yield the same mathematical result regardless of order. A quality that many properties don't have.

[4] Quoted from the book: What is and what will be: Integrating spirituality and science. Paul P. Budnik Jr. 2001

---

---

quote:

Helo Pherron, would you mind sending me that link at unclejel@aol.com

---