AJJ

But if I’m blindfolded and asked which one colour you’ve given me then I’m going to say blue. I can’t say “not blue”, because I’ve been asked to pick ...

What you’re actually saying is you have more chance of being within generations 1-4. What you actually have to do is pick one; the one most likely for...

Doesn’t this prove my point? I think the mistake here is making groups 1-4 one group. You can’t be in multiple generations; since you can only be in o...

Your dice example isn’t analogous to the group situation described. We’re not rolling a dice to find out which group we’re in, but using the amount of...

I would say a reasonable assumption is information. It’s certainly something we can reason from. No it doesn’t contain information about humanity’s de...

If you were blindfolded, so to speak, and told you were part of one of those generations, which would you predict you were a part of? Your answer woul...

You’ve blundered here and now you’re trying too hard to disagree with me. The information we use is the assumption that the final generation will be t...

No we aren’t, and yes we can. We don’t know where we are. Mathematical reasoning tells us we’re most likely at the top Graph 2’s curve. We might not b...

If we know that someone is not at the top of Graph 2’s curve then obviously they’re not at the top of Graph 2’s curve. But we don’t know where we are,...

Yeah, I guess we can. I’m not sure it raises the chances of being a Boltzmann brain, since for that to be likely the universe would need to have had a...

Yes, that seems right to me.

I wouldn’t say that bias is in play here. The argument simply acknowledges that it is far more likely we’re at the top of Graph 2’s curve than at the ...

This thought experiment is mentioned in Stephen R.L. Clark’s book God, Religion and Reality, a book I actually brought up in a recent thread. Whoever/...

How we come to know a fact is a fact isn’t relevant to the OP argument. If you’re on a jury and you’re choosing which story to believe, the prosecutio...

I don’t think those questions are relevant here, since the OP isn’t about how we come to know facts. If facts ought to be believed/acknowledged then t...

Yes, that sounds right. Perhaps it couldn’t be determined, but whatever the fact is it would be the case that you ought to believe it.

That kind of talk creeps me out.

That isn’t a pertinent question. The transcendental Truth is what it is regardless of what I can say or prove.

Yes, I agree with what you say, and that has been my view from the start: that there is a transcendental truth (which I was calling “objective”), that...

The Truth is the transcendental Truth; it is what it is regardless how many different personal “truths” there are. Other than that I’d just repeat my ...

I think that’s a prevaricatory way of saying there is no Truth but you behave as if there is. It seems to me that a person who actually lived as if th...

Then I would ask - if you truly do not think there is Truth that we have access to - why are you here? Why do you seek to adopt or express opinions an...

You have a good point. That there is Truth does not necessarily mean that we have access to it. However, I don’t think this affects the OP argument, s...

Sure, I accept all that. So when I’ve been talking about objective truth and objective values then really I’ve been referring to transcendental truth ...

You have a point here, but does it preclude that facts ought to be believed?

I would simply counter that the assertion there is yours; that you’d have to show how that would even be possible (for a mind to emerge).

Eh? I said in my last post that you had a fair point:

Yeah, that’s all correct. I would say though that not being able to say what the mind is doesn’t preclude being able to say what it isn’t.

You have a fair point. But a hypothetical state of affairs then seems to me “something” that is necessarily not true, i.e. false.

It can be handled when constructing sentences, but I don’t see how this applies to adequately describing the mind. Constructing an infinite sentence a...

This has gotten far too inane. The distinction is obvious to me. But who knows, perhaps I’ve gotten it all wrong. That’ll do anyway.

The distinction between objective truth and the almost empty way that you’ve been using the word I thought was obvious.

Oh right - well the OP author does that. Whether his use is novel or not I don’t know.

The author of the OP seems obviously to be using it that way. The OED’s first definition is one I’ve been using, which I’d say is a fair indication of...

It’s not novel. Perhaps start reading a little more widely. The way you use the word is poorly justified and tendentious.

I assume so. To my understanding that’s what term generally means in philosophy. “Truth” doesn’t refer to beliefs. That would make it subjective. Trut...

Actually, if “I ought to believe lies” is true then I don’t think it does lead to a paradox. It seems to me you just can’t justify it like you can wit...

By “objective” I mean existing independent of thought. I’ve been using it where I don’t absolutely need to when the other person has a different defin...

I think if a state of affairs can be described as impossible then it can be described as false. Either way your describing something that isn’t true. ...

If the cat is not sitting on the mat then it’s false that the cat is sitting on the mat. The “something” there is the state of affairs of the cat sitt...

For me “true” can refer to statements and propositions that correspond to the objective Truth. It can also refer to things that are part of the object...

I understand them fine. To them the word “true” refers to when a statement or proposition matches a state of affairs. However, the state of affairs to...

No - it can be false, which is to say it wouldn’t be part of the Truth.

The statement is false because it doesn’t correspond to something that is true, i.e. part of the Truth. It would be true if the cat being on the mat w...

OK. Whatever the state of affairs, statement or proposition is in question. “The cat is on the mat” is false if the cat is not on the mat.

No we’re not. I’m using the word “true” to refer to what is True. I’m using it in a way that actually makes sense. False is what is not True. I wouldn...

No - I’d say they’re false when they do not correspond to what is True.

Fine. I’m saying those relations are part of what is True. I don’t know why you’d refer to the matching as “true”. Referring to a statement or proposi...

But you won’t say what a “state of affairs” actually is. I’m saying a state of affairs is part of the objective Truth, and is therefore something that...

My view is that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to things that are capital T True. Your view seems to be that statements and...