things have quited down now that timmy tool time has moved on. for the sake of wanting to discuss something. Is it possible for man to truely know anything? All of our sience and experince does it amount to knowledge or is it simply a collective acceptance of explaining the world souly from our own biased point of view?

Of course. Take mathematics for example, regardless of personal perspectives or hereditary biases, one round stone and one round stone is always going to be two round stones no matter how you look at it. Now HOW we absorb and understand this knowledge is another matter entirely . . .

Actually, one round stone and another round stone only makes up two round stones in a base-ten round stone mathematical system.

math is a language which we invented to describe our world does one rock plus one rock yield two rocks certainly in that language. It will also most likley translate to other languages as well. Do not forget that not so long ago it was one rock and two rocks but now its a rock made up of countless molocules ect ect. The question is not do we have two rocks but what is a rock. This is knowledge, math is language used to express knowledge

I have long been interested in the "essence" of things . . . and we've talked a great deal about this. I've mentioned before "The Veil of Appearance" (which I can never remember if it was Locke or Hume) which is a philosophical reasoning that as much knowledge as we can uncover about any said "thing," there's always something hidden. As is best and easily explained with humans. We, being sentient creatures with complexities far and beyond any "thing" in this world, have the ability to communicate with one another and understand one another through all sorts of methods. However, there is always at least one aspect no one will ever know . . . what it truly means to be you.

We might know this and that about a stone . . . but what really is a stone? Will we ever know what it truly means to be a stone?

And on another note . . . what is knowledge really? Is it already within us (prior [or at] birth) to have a certain quality of knowedge? Is all knowledge a direct and indirect result of the senses? How much knowledge is a posteriori and a priori? Is learning itself, knowledge?

great questions Six I have always thought of learning, invention theories ect as discoveries. Simplely put we finanly figured out how to express in language somthing we all already know. Thats not to discredit these discoveries, I am just saying no "man" has truely created anything.

humans project all aspects of themselves into everything they try to understand. The instant example are Animals. We observe what this animal does and then decide it did because of a, b, c we can not truely know why that animal does anything

the last bit is the best though, the new caste system, how good is my brain how good is yours, or your eye sight my hearing ect ect what if Einstein had a really good sense of smell would that have changed anything?

I can't quite remember what it is, but it is said that artists and people prone to creative outlets have a larger portion of certain section in their brain than those who aren't very creative . . . and Einstein himself had one of the largest portions ever recorded. Or so I heard.

What I want to know, is the quest for TRUTH encompassing all truths?

In other words, does one need to understand all of the subjects in order to understand the object?!

One would argue, that yes indeed. In our quest for TRUTH, do we not need to seek out all the truths first?!

But I am of the mind that this is not necessarily the case. For example, take a number. Let's take the number 5. Now, what is 5? Well, it's a positive integer between the number 4 and the number 6. It's also 2 numbers after 3 and 2 numbers before 7. As such, it's an equivelent of 11 - 6; 12 - 7; 13 - 8; . . . and 235 - 230. It's also an equivalent of 5 * 1 and 100 / 20.

Now, are all of those subjective aspects needed for an understanding of the objective goal of determing just exactly what is the number 5? Are all those little truths needed for the quest of TRUTH?

So, how much knowledge is sufficient? And whichi s garbage? And how do we decided?! Or, is there something to be said for the man that knows that the number 5 is also the equivalent of every varitaion possible?

Well, if we assume for the sake of argument that knowledge cannot be proven as true due to the nature of observable reality. Then the importance of knowledge is not what it shows us of reality but the sense of meaning and importance that feeling that we have such knowledge gives us.

Sixx I think I know what your getting at but I dont think it is the right example. 5 what? 5 as itself is meaningless if I have 5 x then i have 5 of x 5 tells me quantity it is a tool nothing more, I dont need to understand any of the rest of functions of mathmatics to understand 5 those functions result in five but they are not the essence of 5. on the other hand what is x? lets say x is an orange now apply your reasoning. Your reasoning (and mine) is in relation to an object (or conceptial existing objects) math and english (read any language) expresses attributes of an object and are truths that make up the big TRUTH but standing alone they are nothing

so your argument is that wether or not we understand an actual truth doesnt matter, what matters is that we are comforted by our precieved depth of knowledge (tamming the world, mans desire for order ect) and that is the true value of knowledge?

No, they are something. They are truths. And as you said, they make up TRUTH. And you just further helped my argument by arguing their importance as being unimportant. Language systems still encompass an essence. Why, one cannot have a variety of "things" (your computer for instance, or books) without some kind of language system. Ergo, language systems are very much important. Probably more important is the understanding of language sytem than the undertsanding of material things. The complexities and the philosophies are far more astounding really. So, how important, how different, is writing that: you too are the best . . . when compared to: U 2 R l337 [you too are leet].

Is knowledge of "leet" speak or "net" speak a justifiable subject for the objective TRUTH . . . or is it merely a waste?

Knowledge is only as valuable as its applications. If it applies to a situation it is valuable. If it does not it is worthless. Of course one could assume that sometime in the future that knowledge may be applicable yet it still does not make it worthwhile until finally applied.

I suppose so to a degree but I think that what that knowledge encourages us to feel is more important. Consider for example, if we had found that the Universe were a place that is of unstructured chaos and highly hostile to the probability of further Life in the cosmos: Such a discovery would not have had a positive impact on the Human Physche. However, in reality, the Universe has given us reasons to Hope and to keep Seeking the Truth.

I think perhaps I failed to effectivly communcate my idea. Language is improtant in communcating truths, describing a truth, with others. However it is not a truth, for example lets say we have a red apple, take away the word red does the apple cease to be red. No, in fact it is only red because we so named that color red, red is only meaningful to us. Before langauge existed what color was it? Now we think in terms of language and math and the color red exists because of that knowledge, which is fundemental to who and what we are, I ask is the color red a truth about the apple or a truth about man? If it is a truth about man what do we then know about the apple? So is it possible to know, or like Iron said does it matter as long as we know what it is to us, which is very comforting

Dyshade, can you give me an example, wouldnt you have to have the knowledge to deem that the knowledge isnt valuable to the situation, does knowing that something isnt valueable to the situation actually make it valueable?

To a skitsophrenic person, their truths are just as real, as tangable as the dirt we know we can walkon. Our reality, which we create, is our truth, its what we 'know'. It doesnt matter what the ultimate undeniable 'truth' is, or even if one exists, what matters is what we believe, it creates our reality.

Given your statement truth and reality are subject to change relative to the current bias, thusly it is not possible to know only to believe. Let me ask you based on your comments did god create the various species on this planet or was darwin right does it matter as its not a real truth but only the skitsophrenic reality which we create?

My reality is what matters to me, Your reality is what matters to you. its why some people will never believe that ants are the supreme being of the universe, that all species started as one simple organism, or that god said poof let all creatures exist. My reality, is that there is evidence towards evolution and that is what makes the most sense. That is my truth, my truth also includes an understanding of the falliability of my truth. but lets skip the evolution debate here as it has many other threads, no need for the red herring.

And as i've said many many many times before in this forum, science has no 'facts' just as good as we can get for now. If a 'fact' is equivilant to 'truth" then this post is relevant, if not, then its not relevant lol.

I didnt so much mean the current situation, though that's