Going back to the basics - Question

[NigelW]

Can statements of fact only be made of the past? Would statements made about future behavior be based only on probability, no matter how small? If I understand how the brain works I am not seeing myself type in real-time, but it is my memory of typing and reflecting on having typed. I am fixating on the past.

 

An example would be something like, how I had a terrible childhood but that it is not going to define me as a person in the future.

 

Saying it makes it only probable that I will not let it define me. It is then shown through my actions how accountable I have been.

 

So when something is true, is it fact upon reflection of past events and only probable in the future?

 

I hope that makes some sense. Digging through a ton of crazy to find some truth, any comments or feedback are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

NW

[dsayers]

Can statements of fact only be made of the past?

 

I see no reason to anticipate that tomorrow 2+2=5 and gravity will cease to be an effect of matter.

 

Would statements made about future behavior be based only on probability, no matter how small?

 

Future behavior cannot be certain because of free will.

 

Facts and behaviors are different things.

[Prairie]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking, but I found an angle to approach the topic with my thinking.If you cut the water pipe in half, you won't be getting any water at the tap in the future until it's mended. No probabilities here.If you take a die and remove a sliver off one side, you know it won't roll each side equally as often in the future, but you don't know what will come up on a given roll. You can only state definitely that a side was sliver was removed.Some things are simple enough that damage has a clear effect. Others are more complex such that you can only know for certain the general effect. Human injuries can fall into both. A broken leg means not walking well/at all for a while. Emotional abuse can mean many different coping strategies and lasting effects. If there was a lasting injury, then by definition it has lasting effects until healed. I attempt to keep an open mind as to the effects of my own injuries; I might have an idea of how they hinder me, using this to guide useful action, but I may turn out wrong and find that they weren't hindering me in that way. I don't want to think I am limited and avoid actions but later find out that I didn't have to avoid those things. I refuse to think of myself limited to satisfy others' demands; I will only examine apparent limitations if it's useful for working through the injuries, shedding light on their nature. 

[Kevin Beal]

An example would be something like, how I had a terrible childhood but that it is not going to define me as a person in the future.

Yes, it is causal. But that's not the same thing as saying it's predetermined.

 

I think it's perfectly fine to make generalizations or predict based on principles supported by (or derived from) probability. You may be wrong, but it's the principle that's important, right?

 

Having had a neglectful or abusive childhood causes people to have dysfunctional adulthoods. We can even say what kinds of abuse will produce what kinds of dysfunctional behavior later in life.

[NigelW]

So because you say there is no reason to anticipate that 2+2=5 and gravity will cease to be an effect of matter in the future, statements of fact can be made of the future?

 

Is that a prediction or a fact? (Not trolling, I promise.)

 

I mean to ask if facts are restricted to the past and predictions to the future.

 

Facts and behaviors are different things, thank you for the correction.

 

I think this is where I made a mistake. Something that is broken will not fix itself, because a pipe is not the same as a human. I understand that, but I mean to clarify the concepts and meaning of fact/prediction that I am using. What I don't understand is how you make the jump between fact and prediction. What does that look like?

 

Am I overthinking this? Lol, I was able to get to class today, and I made quite a few warranted assumptions.

 

I get your point about coping strategies. Having to limit myself around boring people is exhausting.

[dsayers]

So because you say there is no reason to anticipate that 2+2=5 and gravity will cease to be an effect of matter in the future, statements of fact can be made of the future?

 

Sorry for the ambiguity. I was more making the point that truth is objective and not dependent on time. I don't know how to more accurately answer that question because the future doesn't exist. Which is why my example of 2+2=5 was a bad one because numbers are concepts and the reason why 2+2=4 is because that's a definition of four as a concept.

 

A fact is a statement of truth whereas a prediction is a description of an event before its occurrence. Both have the capacity to be false. A fact is only as accurate as our understanding allows for, but this could be said of a prediction also. "Occurrence" by definition is temporal, but this can be true of facts as well. So I'm not sure. It's almost as if the words can be similar with the main difference being tense. I don't know if the similarities are meaningful though so there's no way to test or disprove predictions except that which would be internally inconsistent or impossible based on our understanding of the real world.

 

I was curious from the moment you asked as to why you asked. I thought it had something to do with behavior, which was why I pointed out that it's not the same thing as a fact. I'm still curious as to why you're asking. Not saying that you shouldn't; I just don't see what difference it makes. Could you provide an example?

[TheRobin]

I'd differentiate between things that are mere conceptual definitions (like math, logic and praxeology) to claims that are made about the world or aspects of it.

 

But I'd say that generally you can only "guess" the future, based on past, but ofc there's always a chance that new behaviour will show up that will then lead to an increased understanding of the operating principles (like gravity first got described using Newtonian phyisc, then later Einstein added a whole new layer to it). Though that doesn't as a whole invalidate past knowledge about the phenomenon, just usually shows how in a new and previously unexplored context the previously used principles might not be applicable.

 

On the other hand 2+2 will aways =4 as that's a matter of defining the concept that way and not a result of figuring out reality. Like, if you only ever saw dogs and then saw a wolf for the first time, you might incorrectly call it a dog cause of some similarity. But that doesn't mean that the concept of "dog" will change, just that you incorrectly applied it and might need to invent a new concept to describe the new species.

 

[greekredemption]

Future behavior cannot be certain because of free will.

 

Future behaviour cannot be certain because of lack of information. 

[june]

Having had a neglectful or abusive childhood causes people to have dysfunctional adulthoods. We can even say what kinds of abuse will produce what kinds of dysfunctional behavior later in life.

"We can even say what kinds of abuse will produce what kinds of dysfunctional behavior later in life."if abuse produces a certain behaviour, then where is the "free choice" of the person involved? because they are not "choosing" to behave that way, they have only inherited such behaviour from the abuse.

[Kevin Beal]

Me choosing to lift my arm and then having the damn thing go up is a causal description that is the exact opposite of a predetermined causal description. Fatalism is not an appeal to causality, but to mysticism. Fatalism was conceived of by bronze age mystics as a non-explanation, on par with "god did it".

[june]

Me choosing to lift my arm and then having the damn thing go up is a causal description that is the exact opposite of a predetermined causal description.

your previous statement is also a causal description: abuse leads to particular behaviour.i'm simply asking how "free will" factors into your assertion, seeing as you claim that the behvaviour is caused by the abuse, and thus not by free will. so how does a person's "free will" factor in here? 

[NigelW]

Times new roman is easier on the eyes!

 

@dsayers

No harm done. How do you know that truth is not dependant on time? I can't conceive of living without time because I require time to process reality. Could you explain that a little more, please?

 

Oh, I wouldn't call it ‘bad'. As I understand it, human concepts are continually challenged.

 

Are you saying that truth is only arrived at through the reflection on things that have happened? That fits for someone who was propagandized, like me.

 

I mean, I thought I was a happy person until I broke my denial which came from a process of reflection.

 

I've never seen anyone go beyond the 2+2=5 argument, so I thought I'd poke the box. With the risk of looking insane of course and I find the concept of time fascinating.

 

@TheRobin

Can I ask why you'd want to differentiate between things that are conceptual definitions and claims made about aspects of the world? Is it to discard inaccurate conceptual definitions based on observing reality?

 

@greekredemption

Future behavior cannot be certain because of a lack of information. Is that probable or are you certain?

 

@Kevin Beal

My intent is to clarify basic concepts, not take a stance on mysticism or fatalism. If it's fine to generalize or make predictions based on principles supported or derived from probability, rather than fact, wouldn't it be a non-answer? Isn't truth is only arrived at through a process of reflection of past events because most people have been propagandized?

 

What is a non-answer?

@Prairie

 

I'm having trouble with what you said about 'apparent limitations' and I'm not sure why.

[Kevin Beal]

I find sans-serif fonts easier on my eyes, but I'll serif it up in here.

 

@Kevin Beal

My intent is to clarify basic concepts, not take a stance on mysticism or fatalism. If it's fine to generalize or make predictions based on principles supported or derived from probability, rather than fact, wouldn't it be a non-answer? Isn't truth is only arrived at through a process of reflection of past events because most people have been propagandized?

 

What is a non-answer?

My point about fatalism was simply that ideally philosophy should have a predictive quality. That the value in looking at the past is to improve the future. And if the reason that the past is taken as more true or important or valuable is because it's definitive then I take issue with that for the reasons I mentioned. Also, memory is faulty and history is told in whatever way the historian wants it to be perceived by others.

 

A non-answer is an answer that explains nothing. You don't explain the origin of life on earth by saying "god did it" (for example). A good causal account of something has to explain something. Submitting that everything is lock step fatal offers nothing to explain things. It's not true for reasons I wont go into, but also, it's completely unhelpful.

 

Certainly it's beneficial to look at the past in order to see through propaganda. That's why therapy is so much about the past. I don't think there's any getting around that.

 

Perhaps I don't understand your question. Does that help at all?

[TheRobin]

Times new roman is easier on the eyes!

 

@TheRobin

Can I ask why you'd want to differentiate between things that are conceptual definitions and claims made about aspects of the world? Is it to discard inaccurate conceptual definitions based on observing reality?

 

Because concepts aren't in the realm of truth-claims. Concepts and their definitions are there so your thoughts make sense and you know what it is that you're thinking of or talking about. Also so that language and words actually have meaning. Without them no truth claims can be made, but they're themselves not truth claims. Though ofc, if you define somethign in a contradictory way, it is not longer a meaningful word/idea and as such can't form a valid truth claim.

 

For instance, when I talk of a table then I know what I mean with that (my understanding of my own thoughts and ideas is a 100% certainty so to speak), but I still might be in error when I then point to an object and say "This is a table" (as it might be a weird chair and I got fooled by the lighting or whatever). So the "This is a table" would be the truth claim that can be checked for but the definition of table preceeds that.

 

I don't quite understand the second question to be honest. can you either simplify that a little and/or give me an example? It sounds a bit like asking me, whether I make the distinction based on a desired effect, but I make the distinction first and foremost cause they are two different things.

 

p.s. maybe I'm the only one here, but your fonts are killing my eyes XD (not implying you have to change it for me ofc)

[dsayers]

@Robin: You're not alone. To me, they appear smaller and harder to read. Maybe a step up in size would make it easier?

 

I don't understand the characteristics of fonts, so I go with default out of laziness

 

@Nigel: The path I took to make that connection is that truth is objective and being objective means independent of time. That's why when a "truth" depends on time, we give it such a qualifier. At that point, it is not truth as it is not absolute, but will be true for as long as provided conditionals are met.

 

I may have missed it, but I don't think you've addressed my inquiry as to what difference it makes. Can you think of a fact that only describes the past for example and if so, would it be different in the present if it also described the future?

[Prairie]

Re: facts and future. My take: Statement about reality. It is either true or false. If true it's a fact. A statement can be about the past, present, or future. We have some means of verifying statements about the past/present (history, perception). For the future, our means of verification are fewer: prediction based on present/past. Likewise, for making true statements about reality, we have an easier time to make them about the past/present. 

i'm simply asking how "free will" factors into your assertion, seeing as you claim that the behvaviour is caused by the abuse, and thus not by free will. so how does a person's "free will" factor in here?

I see trauma as like tying a weight to someone. It constrains a person's future actions, though doesn't entirely determine exactly what they'll do each second. They might pull something around with wheels to carry the weight, hold it in alternating hands, or tie it to a foot and walk oddly, depending on their choices and other limiting factors. Further, I see trauma as something we don't understand to a science, so we can't say exactly how it will constrain someone, just that it is a constraint of some kind, an extra cost to bear. 

I'm having trouble with what you said about 'apparent limitations' and I'm not sure why.

I've encountered people who have pressured me to accept what they believe are limitations I have. I was explaining that I reject this, and consider beliefs in limitations of oneself being harmful because one may be wrong about them and thus avoiding exceeding imaginary limitations. Further I justified examining possible limitations in the context of voluntary self-work, where the goal isn't to accept limitations, but to find ideas of how to eliminate them. It has a different tone than someone else imposing a view to gain leverage over you. 

p.s. maybe I'm the only one here, but your fonts are killing my eyes XD (not implying you have to change it for me ofc)

I gave up trying to read those tiny serif posts. Rich text editor for discussion board = fail. I just found that this nonsense can be eliminated when writing posts by clicking the cryptic unlabeled icon in the upper-left of the rich editor.

[june]

I see trauma as like tying a weight to someone. It constrains a person's future actions, though doesn't entirely determine exactly what they'll do each second. 

i'm just trying to wrap my head around kevin's perspective. kevin doesn't say that abuse "determines exactly what they'll do each second", but he does say that abuse causes certain behaviour.the problem i have with kevin's claim is that if it's the abuse causing the behaviour, then how can the person 'acting' that behaviour be held as responsible? they could not, of course, because that behaviour is being directly caused by the abuse -- as kevin has stated.--, and thus not by 'themselves' or their 'free choice'.hopefully kevin is able to clear up this discrepancy

[Kevin Beal]

No thanks! Hopefully you figure it out, June, but I'm not going to be the one to help you through it.

[NigelW]

@Kevin Beal

 

So the past is not the future and the past is distortable. That makes sense!

 

I don't find religious claims particularly helpful. I think non-answers would be helpful in determining who to avoid.

 

That does help thanks!

 

@TheRobin

 

Oh no problem, I appreciate the honesty. So how would you know if your definition of something is incorrect? Does it come down to getting feedback?

 

@dsayers

 

So, the term objective is used to describe something in space and independent of time, is that correct? If I build a cabinet and I say that it exists that would be true, but after a renovation it has been converted into shelving and saying that the cabinet exists would be false. The conceptual definition would still exist in memory. Are you talking about the conceptual definitions as being independent of time?

 

I have conceptual definitions that are reinforced by my daily experience but can I say that they are absolute and independent from the effects of time?

 

I'm not 100% that I follow, but let me know.

 

@Prairie

 

That is a new way of looking at self-work. I've often felt like I need to isolate myself until I'm certain that I will not end up getting the same relationships back.

[TheRobin]

@TheRobin

 

Oh no problem, I appreciate the honesty. So how would you know if your definition of something is incorrect? Does it come down to getting feedback?

 

A definition can be invalid if the description is contradictory. This can be the case, when you use multiple categories that are mutually exclusive as a definition for something. A simple example would be a "square circle", as the shape of a square and that of a cirlce are mutually exclusive, the concept "square circle" is self-contradictory and as such logically invalid and meaningless.

 

On the other hand, a word can used to represent multiple conecpts and the same conept can be represented by mutliple words, so it's importnat to not confuse definitions (concepts) with the words used to represent them (not that you did that, just came to mind as a small tangent).

 

Other than that definitions can't be incorrect really, though there is a standard that's defined by the language you use as to what concept is represented by what sound/word, and while that's completely arbitrary its still the reference point to use, when one wishes to communicate with another person in a given language.

[Three]

Can statements of fact only be made of the past? Would statements made about future behavior be based only on probability, no matter how small? If I understand how the brain works I am not seeing myself type in real-time, but it is my memory of typing and reflecting on having typed. I am fixating on the past.

 

An example would be something like, how I had a terrible childhood but that it is not going to define me as a person in the future.

 

Saying it makes it only probable that I will not let it define me. It is then shown through my actions how accountable I have been.

 

So when something is true, is it fact upon reflection of past events and only probable in the future?

 

I hope that makes some sense. Digging through a ton of crazy to find some truth, any comments or feedback are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

NW

 

 

The moment someone says that you cannot make absolute statements of fact about the future, they are making an absolute statement of fact about the future. 

[cynicist]

So because you say there is no reason to anticipate that 2+2=5 and gravity will cease to be an effect of matter in the future, statements of fact can be made of the future?

 

Is that a prediction or a fact? (Not trolling, I promise.)

 

I mean to ask if facts are restricted to the past and predictions to the future.

 

Facts and behaviors are different things, thank you for the correction.

 

I think this is where I made a mistake. Something that is broken will not fix itself, because a pipe is not the same as a human. I understand that, but I mean to clarify the concepts and meaning of fact/prediction that I am using. What I don't understand is how you make the jump between fact and prediction. What does that look like?

 

Am I overthinking this? Lol, I was able to get to class today, and I made quite a few warranted assumptions.

 

I get your point about coping strategies. Having to limit myself around boring people is exhausting.

 

I can help with an example. What are the facts of your childhood? (were you lonely, was your family wealthy, did you live in a house or a box, etc) Will they change? So clearly statements of fact can be made of the future. So for example if you were hungry due to lack of food at the age of ten, that will continue to be true no matter how old you are. So facts of the past can also be facts of the future. The fact that I made this post will continue to be true even in the future. I know it may seem kind of cheesy or mind-bendy, but it does at least address the possibility.

[NigelW]

@TheRobin

I see! So a solution to a conflict of definition would be to go back to the thing itself rather than using the definition.

 

@Joel Patterson

Could you define absolute?

 

@cynicist

I think I gotchya. That seems to be new to me. You're jumping ahead a little bit, I think.

 

If I make an assertion as to whether I can change in the future it will be based on past behavior. If I had a history of pretending to change, then it would not be true that I am changing. It would be contradictory.

[NigelW]

I think the same could be true of fact. If something is asserted as fact and has no grounding in past observation then can it exist in the future?

 

I may have misunderstood where you're coming from, but let me know.

[Kevin Beal]

Heya Nigel, I just wrote a post about some of the basics of how we know, and what is real over here. It doesn't have anything necessarily to do with your question, but I think it has some good general definitions and distinctions for philosophy in general.

[NigelW]

I got a lot of value out of your post. I found the 'status as true' section particularly useful!

 

Great work, Kevin!

[Three]

@TheRobin

I see! So a solution to a conflict of definition would be to go back to the thing itself rather than using the definition.

 

@Joel Patterson

Could you define absolute?

 

@cynicist

I think I gotchya. That seems to be new to me. You're jumping ahead a little bit, I think.

 

If I make an assertion as to whether I can change in the future it will be based on past behavior. If I had a history of pretending to change, then it would not be true that I am changing. It would be contradictory.

Hey, Nigel. I would define absolute as fixed and universal, meaning it's true everywhere at any time. However, I now think that it was redundant for me to include the word absolute because facts by definition are fixed and universal.Was that or my prior post helpful?I'm curious as to what piqued your interest in this topic?

[NigelW]

I thought I knew and not knowing is boring!