The structure of truth

 

‘Into Me See’ series of essays By Graham Little These essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual position in the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work, there is no general theory of psychology, no general theory of knowledge integrated with a general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause. This means that all historical lines of thinking have failed. Our options are to seek to revise what has been previously offered, or find a new start point. Near forty years ago my research lead me to conclude that everything able to be said had been said, every wrinkle possible had been explored.  I judged further re-treading the historical lines of thinking would prove fruitless. We need a new start point if we are to fully understand who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is there a God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas exist, and the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science methodology, applied it to the system ‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory. I do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not ‘opinion’ but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not found in opinion or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a judgement unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’, I aim to make that clear. After reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand yourself and others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find spiritual fulfilment. Titles of the essays are listed in the menu to the right. The print copy of the book is here, print.

In a lively discussion on truth[1], Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, then an Oxford Don, opened with a description of how one tribe, when confronted with a problem of true or false, would congregate while the shaman cut the head from a chicken and depending on whether the headless chicken ran left of right determined if the issue was true or false.

I was initially perplexed by this, a serious discussion on truth, by an Oxford Don, talking about primitive tribal superstitions involving judgment reached depending on the direction taken by a headless chicken. After having read a few more pages, as they say, the penny dropped with a great thud.

The point made at the opening. There is no sure way to truth, there is no method, system or technique to absolve us from deciding for ourselves. Truth is a judgment. And an individual judgment at that. One follows the opinion of others at one’s risk.

We now have several significant issues. First, does that mean that truth is relative? The so-called science wars were on this issue. That the cultural bound views of that primitive tribe on how to get to the moon were as ‘true’ as the views of a NASA engineer. Yep, that view is obviously nonsense and has been dealt to, although it lingers in some circles.

So how can we understand the issue of truth? What exactly is it?  What is the structure of truth? How does truth bear to our psychology?

Finally, how can we make sure we are making the best judgments we can? I think we need do better than follow the frantic meanderings of headless chickens.

To be precise: In ‘Origin’ we have a general theory of psychology. What exactly does the theory tell us about truth and how to ensure we are making the best judgements we can?

Perhaps you are wondering why a general theory of psychology must bear to the question of truth?

Consider the science wars, they held that a ‘theory’ is a cultural bound construct. And from within a culture, one theory is as good as that from another culture, one was not truer, just different. Now I may not have got it exactly right, but it does not actually matter, the crucial thing is every aspect of the issue is psychological. Consider the questions: How do we perceive any object? Do we build images of objects in mind? If so, how do we build such images? Once built what exactly is the relationship of an image in mind to the object of that image?

There is obvious agreement that we build and use images in mind, since the science wars is about whether one is necessarily ‘truer’ than others. But all of this speculation occurring in the complete absence of any depth of understanding of how any image of an object is created in mind, and how that creation bears exactly to the object.

There is an issue of terminology, I use the word ‘image’ in its broadest possible sense to describe that which we ‘see’ in mind of an object that is outside our mind. So ‘image’ may be a visual image, a conceptual diagram, a theory, or a set of sentences that describe the object or some combination of them all. Image alludes to that which we ‘see’ and typically that which we use to understand an object, and ‘orientates’ us to the object. From this orientation we choose a course of action deemed appropriate. Actually, as I outline in ‘Origin’, it is more appropriate to describe us as locating our image of the object within our internal reality which has the effect of orientating us to the object.   

As stated recently on TV, it takes around a second for someone to work out they are in a dangerous situation. That is the image of the situation is located in their internal reality, and ...‘oh shit’... What if the ideas and insights that generate the ‘oh shit’ are not true? The ‘oh shit’ is very true for the person and they are likely to react accordingly. But it is a mistake in judgment on their part. A situation where their reality is not aptly congruent with Reality.

A crucial dominate human output that must be fully accounted for by a general theory of psychology is knowledge, ideas. Especially shared ideas since with shared ideas new minds are being shaped to orientate those adopting the ideas to the objects to which those ideas pertain. Ideas are typically shared via culture, but that discussion must await another essay (refer ‘Origin’). Are the ideas being shared true? Do they orientate people effectively? Do the ideas enable ethical conduct respectful of all?  I hope you begin to see just how important ‘truth’ is to us as a species, and for each of us individually.

As stated above, it is all psychological, ergo, subject to elucidation by an apt general theory of psychology. In fact I go further, that any general theory of psychology that does not bear directly and fully on such issues is not worthy of consideration.

Truth and judgement emerge as head and tail of the same coin. What exactly does the general theory of psychology in ‘Origin’ say of this so that we can understand it with precision and accuracy?

We need a secure start point.

Just recently I was on the couch at a friend’s place seated next to his thirty five year old son. We were having a generally ‘philosophical’ conversation, as I am inclined to do, this family enjoys such discussions. I pointed to the large flat screen TV on the wall, and stated you do not see that TV, what you see is an image in your mind of the TV.  He paused for a minute, which in conversation is quite a long time, ‘that’s deep’, he said, ‘need think about that’. Just then the rugby started, England playing the All Blacks, and we have yet to pick up and complete the conversation. PS: the ABs thrashed them!

First I need deal to the naive view that in our mind there is a little person sitting looking at the images created in the brain, with the recursive problem of what is happening in their brain, and then the next brain, etc.  Our brain consists of multiple domains each able to do something different from other domains, so the idea of one part of the brain being an input of another is perfectly sound and implicates no infinite regress (refer ‘Origin’).

In the dark we cannot see, in the absence of chemicals we cannot smell, and in the absence of pressure waves in the air we do not hear. I call these potential sensory inputs a ‘perceptual field’ (refer ‘Origin’). All our experience of the external world is via sensory input. From that sensory input combined with our ideas we create our ‘image’ of the external world.  

It follows that there is an image of the external world, I refer to as reality. Second, that image is created in relation to objects beyond our senses I call Reality (the capital and lower case r deliberate terminology to distinguish the two, reality, personal and private, and Reality, the external world). 

We can add a refinement, we have Reality generating perceptual fields with which we interact to create our reality (how we create it, etc., goes beyond this essay but is discussed fully in ‘Origin’).  Because of this sequence, Reality→ perceptual field→ reality, we actually cannot be sure that our image of Reality is in fact the true Reality. Virtual reality proves the point along with naturally occurring clear air white out (‘Origin’).

I do not see how any of the above argument can be refuted. We have our secure, irrefutable start point namely that there is a Reality from which we derive our reality.

There is a line of argument that suggests any external Reality is generated by consciousness. That we cannot be sure an external Reality exists. Quantum physics has played a part in this debate in the recent century that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave equation, and Schrodinger’s cat, etc. Virtual reality and clear air white out make the point that we cannot be sure that what we ‘see’ is in fact ‘there’, but I think that is not quite what is meant.

There are two arguments. First comes from the rule of relations which states that a relationship between two objects can be analysed if and only if each object is independently discernable. Conversely if the two objects are not independently discernable, if we cannot separate them, then we are not able to discern the nature of the relationship between them, and cannot establish conclusively there are two objects.

For example, imagine looking at a vase of flowers, there is the vase, and the image in mind of that vase. Now close your eyes and visualise the vase. Now open your eyes and try to separate the image of the vase from the vase itself. We can most likely establish that the vase is an object in Reality by touching it etc. It is not virtual reality. But we cannot separate in our mind the image of the vase from the vase. Therefore we cannot establish conclusively there are in fact two objects. Image in reality, and vase in Reality.

It follows that based on the methodological rule of relations no single person or even a group can establish conclusively that there is or is not a Reality separate from and independent of reality. To do so requires technology whereby we can view the vase in Reality simultaneously with the image in reality such that we can conclusively state both exist and are independent of each other. Such technology does not currently exist.

We can apply reasoning in the form of Reality→ perceptual field→ reality and state that our reasoning suggests strongly there is reality and Reality, hence the rational position to adopt is one of pragmatic realism, and so if we see a bus coming, best get out of the way in case we are run down.

The second argument is about the status of quantum physics. 

Is quantum physics knowledge? Of course. It then follows that the interpretation of quantum physics can only be a detail within a general theory of knowledge describing how all knowledge relates to the object of that knowledge. Further, that since people create knowledge then a general theory of knowledge can only be created from within a general theory of psychology which describes how all knowledge comes to be. This means that in the absence of an apt general theory of psychology any interpretations of quantum physics have to be treated with considerable caution.

We can also approach the issues from another point of view. We have established that we only know Reality via reality. We can ask what exactly can we know in advance of any situation? We cannot know the empirical details, for example we know a sunset is a sunset, but in advance we do not know exactly what it will look like on this particular occasion. In ‘Origin’ and in earlier essays I discuss how any system has intrinsic internal mechanisms, and these mechanism are regular and consistent. Mechanisms are the processes internal to any system whereby any input into the system is processed to create the output.

So, for example, we know that for sunset, the sun moves across the sky, slowly disappearing below the horizon. As the sun moves below the horizon the angle between the rays of the sun and the clouds and atmosphere result in sometime spectacular orange glow. We do not know in advance the quality of the glow, but we can know in advance the exact nature of the mechanism that produce the glow.

We can conceptualise these mechanisms for any system, and use them to enable us to predict the actual empirical circumstances. I have also argued that this is the exact nature of all science, and can be nothing else, since we can only know mechanisms in advance.

Any understanding of mechanisms is a conceptualization of them, a conceptualization of the flow of change though the variables used to describe the system (this is described in full in ‘Origin’). If we conceptualise them accurately we then can say we have the cause of the empirical circumstances exhibited by the system.

We now have two definite and very clear circumstances. First, causal description of the mechanism whereby any system processes any input to create the output. This is a conceptual diagram describing what happens in Reality. It is also possible to have detailed mathematical description whereby we can calculate the correct answer. In ‘Origin’ I propose a thought experiment whereby we test if it is possible to build a mathematical probability description of some known system that predicts the correct answer that does not reflect the mechanisms in Reality.  I propose that it is possible to build such a probability description, and it will get the correct answer. This thought experiment immediately casts doubt on quantum physics as describing the underlying mechanism of Reality no matter how accurately it enables calculation of the correct answer. Mathematical formulations are just that, and we have no right to assume that any natural system necessarily follows our mathematics. The only way to accurately understand the mechanisms of any system is a conceptual representation of the system not a mathematical description.   

There are now several fundamental conclusions:

1.      We only know Reality via our personal reality derived from Reality.

2.      That what we know of Reality is derived from our sensory systems interacting with perceptual fields, combined ideas in memory derived from previous experience with the situation.

3.      That our personal reality and Reality are fully independent.

4.      All people in the same circumstance are subject to the same Reality that each may interpret it differently, have their own reality, but there is only ever one Reality.  

5.      That to understand what is happening in Reality we must build images in reality that are conceptualisation of the mechanisms where an input is converted to an output. This process is referred to as congruence, and mathematical descriptions cannot be assumed to be congruent merely because they enable us to calculate the correct answer.

Finally the crucial conclusion defining the essential structure of our search for truth.

6.      The truth of our reality rests in its congruence with Reality.  

The search for truth is an implicit aspect of our psychological structure. Verisimilitude is the ongoing process of seeking truth, making our reality truer, and truer. A verisimilar reality is the current best match between reality and Reality. This search for congruence applies personally, and in science. In principle there is no psychological difference. 

We can now define Truth (capital intended) as reality having perfect congruence with Reality. But as a matter of principle we can never know if or when we have achieved perfect congruence. We can only ever judge the best of our ideas that are the most congruent with Reality. We can only ever know the verisimilar reality, the reality judged most similar to Reality. 

Congruence is found in judgement without bias. We need multiple inputs to ensure a rounded view, balanced, detached, unclouded by emotion, without self-serving viewpoints. I suspect everyone is familiar with these demands of good judgement, when we are too involved and need excuse ourselves, declarations of vested interest, etc. etc. in commercial, private and criminal circumstances.

The theory declares itself as offering not much, if anything new. It merely provides intellectual substance to things we know we need do. This has been a lengthy analysis to get to the point that society already knows and acts upon. I regard it a great strength of the theory in ‘Origin’ that it is exactly that sound, realistic and practical.

The importance of truth to us is underlined by the fact that from experience we had already got to the point that theory states. Compare that, for instance, to the weak social understanding of mental health, our spirituality, and appropriate insight into personality, intelligence, and science.  

The fact the theory in ‘Origin’ accurately describes and accounts for truth, so clearly important to us gives support that maybe, just maybe it is also correct for those things where we show more limited insight and so could usefully adopt. -§-

---

[1] Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Truth: A History and a guide for the perplexed. Bantam Press, London, 1997.