What It Is Like to Find the Truth

[Nemra]

Let's say that I constructed simple math with arbitrary rules. Because I constructed the rules, I know the truth of how to reach the result.

My reasoning of how to do the math is by default truthful.

Let's assume that people don't ever lie to each other.

There are some people who don't know the reasoning but know the results of the math just by trusting people who trust me. Those people can correctly say what the results of doing that math are.

Those people think that the truth of the math is obvious. The truth of my math is of course obvious because I literally constructed it. So, truth's properties are obviousness and existence.

So, how is it possible that those people think that they know the truth without knowing the actual reasoning?

The deception is that they confuse the trustworthiness of the people with the truthfulness of the math. It's obvious to them that people don't lie, but they can't see how that's not relevant to the actual reasoning of the math.

So do they know the truth if they can correctly say the results of my math?

Superficially, yes. It's logically sound. People don't lie to each other, and the results that I wrote for people to memorize would be true.

But in a deeper sense, no—they don't "know-that"—because their reasoning is not relevant to what makes the math true.

They don't understand that they assume that they know it. Their assumptions would not be viewed as assumptions if they think that they are true.

Why does that deception exist in the first place?

Firstly, the deception wouldn't be a deception without being a true deception. It exists in a form of a confusion here. Because those people think they cannot be deceived, the deception presents itself as truth. Truth being self-evident locks them into the deception.

So who would actually know the truth?

The one who knows what makes my math work. The other ones only know beliefs.

So to find the truth they must be open-minded enough to think that they can be deceived about their reasoning.

Edited 9 hours ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

Finding the truth of things beyond human constructions, or constructions by the parts in this reality, is more difficult because they cannot have a monopoly over reality by default.

My analogy can be used to refer to reality as the biggest construction beyond human creativity.

Edited 6 hours ago by Nemra

[Willy Phallicus]

People think finding truth is adding things onto them when its the opposite.   If you want to get beyond human constructions you start eliminating each and every one of them.  This is a solitary and personal process that has jack shit to do with the external world of man.

[Human Mint]

That's a really clear way of explaining truth. Following the truthfulness of something is the hard part, it requires skill. In general I don't like to outsource truthfulness because you'll never produce the muscle required. The only way to understand this is in an experiential manner. For example when you solve hundreds of math problems, your mind becomes sharper at it. Your baseline changes to accomodate for efficiency. Or in using your words, you can grasp the truthfulness of it more easily.

To transcend beliefs you need to acknowledge that you don't know the truth. And to have vision that you can solve it.  Because you're always going to place your faith somewhere, so you might aswell put it in the right place.

When you shine a light on something it becomes universal, if only for a brief moment. Which is really cool.  So there are ways to minimize common deceptions, if not eliminating them completely. But humans being finite will always produce half truths.

[Human Mint]

1 hour ago, Willy Phallicus said:

This is a solitary and personal process that has jack shit to do with the external world of man.

What you call external world of man is the personal process. But you must come to understand that through a solitary process.

[Nemra]

Here's a nice trick.

Entertain the idea that there is a thing called truth. The existence of that idea is true, thus making truth beyond idea. Whatever claim you want to make about truth, the claim must exist as a claim—its existence must be true. So, truth is existence.

No human can really have a monopoly on truth, because their existence has to be true in the first place. No one can really dictate what truth should be, because their dictation couldn't exist without truth.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

52 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Entertain the idea that there is a thing called truth. The existence of that idea is true, thus making truth beyond idea. Whatever claim you want to make about truth, the claim must exist as a claim—its existence must be true. So, truth is existence.

This is why truth is self-evident.

Anything that exists is self-evident by virtue of its existence.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[Willy Phallicus]

1 hour ago, Human Mint said:

What you call external world of man is the personal process. But you must come to understand that through a solitary process.

"in the world but not of it"

 

[Nemra]

42 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Entertain the idea that there is a thing called truth. The existence of that idea is true, thus making truth beyond idea. Whatever claim you want to make about truth, the claim must exist as a claim—its existence must be true. So, truth is existence.

This is why truth is self-evident.

Anything that exists is self-evident by virtue of its existence.

That's why your experience has always been the absolute truth.

Brilliant! That's the evidence!

Everyone wants to find the evidence of what constitutes their experience, and yet they don't notice that it is literally in front of them.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

OMG, truth is the ultimate evidence for solipsism!

Anyone who claims that solipsism is false doesn't understand that experience is existence and existence is truth.

Non-existence is a category mistake.

The existence of non-existence is true, and anything that non-existence refers to comes from existence, which is truth. Non-existence is an illusion of things not existing.

Non-existence is falsehood. But for falsehood to be falsehood, it has to exist.

Why is red red?

Because red exists as itself, by itself.

Red is not an electromagnetic wave.

Red doesn't need physics to exist!

Red is the truth! Red is absolute!

The logic is beautiful.

Edited 45 minutes ago by Nemra