The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

[Anomaly654]

Part One (will finish in a second post)
Preliminary Framework
What follows is based on Avicenna’s conception that truth is a quality—a condition of existence—inherent in the essence of things, and is an integral part of each thing’s nature. This could raise the question: What might a truth-endued universe or world look like? I suggest that world would logically look, operate, be experienced as and patterned in just the ways it now exists. For starters it seems to follow that if truth is intrinsic to all things, popular theories of truth—correspondence, pragmatic, social construct, consensus, coherence, etc.—would be relegated to various things truth does. None explain what truth is. The idea of truth as merely a relation in thought would turn out to be a natural component of interaction in the exchange of information between mind and object. Truth, a condition of existence of information, endues everything from minds to rocks to abstract entities. It is, in this view, confirmed in the correspondence relation, not limited to it.

Two kinds of Truth
Descriptive/factual and prescriptive/moral. The first is highly empirical, the second only peripherally and intuitively so. Both are dynamic: energy is the value-nature of descriptive inorganics (i.e., matter, via E=Mc2), force will be a term used for the prescriptive dynamic to distinguish it from descriptive energy. Though ontologically distinct in macro reality, both dynamics are micro level expressions of a single kind: value—energy and force—in organics. More accurately: all material entities are fundamentally bundles of energy (inorganics) or an energy-force merger (organics). I use this thought experiment to demonstrate the prescriptive dynamic: Imagine striking with a heavy hammer the following things in this order: 1. rock, 2. plant, 3. insect, 4. kitten, 5 human infant. Reasonably sane persons will feel increasing degrees of repulsion as they move through the list, hopefully unable to complete at least the last item. This suggests the presence of prescriptive force, the power of the true-false dynamic, the main focus of this thread. Some have argued the example just points up a useful evolved cultural response. Arguments like this are not only intuitively weak, but the view proposed here unfold suggests that the motives behind arguments like these are, like most human motives, the product of value interactions.

True t and False f
In descriptive reality, like energy-polarities repel and opposites attract. Prescriptive force is the opposite; like attracts (^) or produces union, and opposite repels (¬) and is wholly incompatible.

All descriptive energy values are immutably true. At base the energy of physical existents only changes form, never value, so mutability is limited to reorganization of energy particles or matter that at base holds its value immutably. This is why mathematics—the language of absolute truth—is so beautiful the more one understands it: the values it speaks or interprets from descriptive existence are expressions of pure, unalterable truth.

Value exists in one of two grades or denominations: true or false. In the thought experiment above, the increasing discomfort felt [assuming readers free of psychosis] in the notion of striking each successive entity is an example of the effect of falsification in cognition, i.e., in causing damage or even the observation of damage being caused to life-bearing entities is a falsification of the good of health—e.g., removal of some quantity of life, arguably the greatest good. The higher the rate of impairment, the stronger the moral force [revulsion] experienced in perception. Thus, moral force or pressure is cognitively enacted when the t components of an observer encounter situations in which falsification occurs. As noted in another thread, this condition has a secular lookalike in psychology called Cognitive Dissonance, mental discomfort from simultaneously held contradictory beliefs. The t ¬ f relation produces this resistance or dissonance in prescriptive matters.

Truth and falsity force-values can no more populate the same position than positive and negative energy charges can occupy the same point in matter. But if the value-bearingness of the soul or life force (or whatever one wants to call consciousness) plays a fundamental role in human behavior as these relationships suggest, then the fact that the same person exhibits both good and bad behaviors has to be accounted for. This goal gains clarity in the conversion of macro-level persons to information and performing a reduction of that information to constituent parts. Because each material particle contains multiple informational assets (particularity, properties, relations) there are theoretically many more “parts” of information than there are particles they can be mapped to. I call each “part” of information an iota. Will provide further explanations if requested, but sparsity is prudent for the message board venue. Suffice that individual iotas as sort of the “virtual particles” of existence are, at base (like their material counterparts), force-value components. Energy value [Ve] and force value [Vf] are concurrent kinds of power in a single existence. Each iota of inorganic information contains Ve. Organics = Ve^Vf.

While some traits, behaviors, attitudes or states of affairs we call good or bad are cognitive in nature in perception of instrumental values, others arise from the possession in persons of some combination of actual true or false values, fragmentally distributed throughout human (and only human) essence. Fragmentation exists because single iotas of the informational essence of persons are falsified; falsity exists fragmentally within a field of [arguably mostly] true information. This would explain how the opposite values of truth and falsity can coexist in particular individuals, and how and why an individual expresses both good and bad thoughts, intentions and acts.

The model has a number of interesting possibilities. For instance, the t¬f dynamic infers that value interactions are the primary cause of human behavior. It would follow that evolutionary behavioral psychology has much less to say about human behavior than is currently proposed. The force dynamic (what theists might call a spiritual dynamic), if it holds, seems to have weak correlation to evolutionary modification—if behavior is primarily due to the force-value and not energy-value component of humans, then it’s hard to see how evolutionary materialism could have any more than a secondary role in forming moral beliefs and behaviors. If discussion gets that far, an argument can be made that most—maybe all—states of affairs are either directly prescriptively-based or have strong some measure of prescriptive connection. There seems no doubt that the energy component in intellectual “living” information” particulars—in macroscopic terms, the material component in humans—doubtless plays an interactive role with the prescriptive force-value component, though the logistics of the interface remains unsolved. Damage in the material component contributes to normative-ethic-moral causes, but in the role of modification. All things being equal from a physical health standpoint, prescriptive force, though strongly interlaced with its sister value, energy, is the primary formulator of the moral realm.

But the main reason for this post is to consider other paths a value-suffused reality leads to: normative/moral degradation in society generally and more specifically value’s corollary in the formation of attitudes about prescriptive propositions in persons.

The alteration of an iota of information from a true to false state, peculiar to humans (or agents) and not other intelligent animals, seems to develop from within intellectual operation, in the exercise of the will, e.g., in the formation of prejudicial (with respect to ultimate truth or perfection) choices.

Falsification due to choice is not the only architect of moral attitudes, of course. Damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is found to lead to utilitarian moral decision-making, and morality is said to likely be affected by interactions among multiple brain regions, so damage to any of these may play a role in moral evaluation. This is to be expected in a unit in which diverse but conjoined (energy-force) features provide a single informational dynamic. Brain damage is itself a form of falsification when the true (or truth itself) is understood to be the unassailable standard by which the quality, merit, worth or good of the function of an informational system is assessed. Voltage and amperage combine to provide electricity, and energy and force combine to from biological units.

It’s conceded that the material plays a role in moral processing, but as noted above, for all intents and purposes the primary player in prescriptive judgment is the non-material force-component of humans and will remain the focus here.

An appeal to the will as the architect of falsity in one’s essence is not a commitment to libertarian autonomy or even necessarily to any high degree of freedom. Though self-inflicted falsification of essence seems intuitively feasible it’s hard to see how a subjective mind could accomplish by any direct means damage to the essence of another. But agents can obviously influence the moral and normative directions others take. Imposition of the will of A on B can coerce a falsity-producing decision in B, so external pressure to conform in its various forms is part of the prescriptive equation, and degrees of culpability seem to properly affix to A’s coercion for B’s prescriptive choices.

Further, the creation of sociopathic and other anti-social behaviors—undoubtedly products of falsified minds—are known to be caused, at least in part, in childhood by abuse and mistreatment in unloving family conditions. That external factors contribute to essence-falsification certainly must reduce—and in many cases reduce greatly—the culpability of an agent for some measure of his moral choices. The exercise of the will in prescriptive choices or in the building of one’s moral architecture is probably much less free and more bound to external factors than is sometimes given credit.

Still, the self-falsification feature of agents may more often than not be traced to choices made in reasonably or significantly free states, as in a reasonably uncoerced decision to experiment with drugs, sometimes leading to deeper falsification (addiction, which usually leads to other detrimental behaviors), despite awareness on some level of the dangers involved. The falsification of essence and its apparent effect on cognitive functions leads to further falsification in both material and mental states, invoking deeper falsification in societal and personal relationships and participation in morally questionable and/or deviant subcultures.

Because truth as the raw “dynamic potential” of existence is itself the standard for suitable and appropriate operation for both energy and energy-force entities, the paradigm above proposes that the correspondence relation, for example, is a t^t affiliation, i.e., accord between the informational structure of a conscious mind and its external surroundings. The energies and forces at play generate this natural affiliation or bond. Some quantity of t in human information in harmony with t in the information of external things generates the t^t union in cognition. This connection doesn’t just provide a bridge between mind and world, truth's natural force of attraction is the blueprint or organizational structure of cognitive processes, religions, biological processes, planets, patterns, philosophies, etc. Truth is the provider of the proper functioning of existence itself. In On Truth (pp. 63-65) Harry Frankfurt points out that humans are rational beings, that we pride ourselves in our rationality and that we could not function rationally at all if we failed to make distinctions between true and false. ”To be rational is fundamentally a matter of being appropriately responsive to reasons…reasons are constituted of facts” Facts, he goes on to say, are verified in experience; we confirm facts that provide reasons by confirming that they are true.

Conversely, the t ¬ f relation will commonly cause a very mild tension in the apprehension of a descriptive falsehood (New York City is the capital of Florida), but a much more robust resistance in cognition in proportion to the category of organics—as was demonstrated in the thought experiment in the progression from mere (if any) tension in striking the boulder to increase of resistance with respect to progressively higher resistance experienced in each higher form of life. Hence, where energy is king in material matters, force exerts its supremacy in prescriptive matters. Hume’s ought-is distinction stands unscathed.

It follows that a cumulative fragmental falsification, because of falsity's natural antagonism to truth, would, in intellectual operation, create beliefs, situations and states that can reasonably be characterized as bad, corrupt, off the mark, wrong, defective or any of dozens of terms we use to define imperfection of one sort or another. Actual falsification in essence generates actual effects in cognitive functions which are then (depending on measure of falsification) often expressed in anti-social or self-destructive behaviors. The more egregious and dangerous patterns—sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors—are among the fullest expressions of falsification in human essence and contribute significantly to damage in personal and sociological relationships and affairs.

Apologies for length.

[phyllo]

What follows is based on Avicenna’s conception that truth is a quality—a condition of existence—inherent in the essence of things, and is an integral part of each thing’s nature.

There is a billiard table, a cue stick and a cue ball. The stick strikes the ball and the ball rolls across the table.

A truth is "the ball is rolling across the table".

Where is that truth in the essence of the objects?

Before the stick struck the ball, a truth was "the ball is not moving on the table". How did the action of striking the ball change the essential truth of the situation?

[Prismatic567]

Your "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth implies such truths are conditioned to the Spiritual Framework & System and the mechanics therein.

Note the "Scientific Mechanics" of Truth will refer to scientific truths which are conditioned by the Scientific Framework & System and the 'mechanics' therein, i.e. the scientific methods and various processes. [/

Avicenna is a Muslim and my assessment of his point is the ultimate "Spiritual Mechanics" is leveraged upon the Allah and the Quran.
We may not have issue any as long as Avicenna based his truths on the Scientific Framework & System which he did for many of his scientific theories. These can be tested, verified and reproduced.
However where Avicenna stretched his truths beyond the empirical possible to the empirically impossible, then such truths are not tenable.

Since you mentioned 'correspondence' in relation to truth, your basis of truth is most likely that of Philosophical Realism.

Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

As I had argued elsewhere, Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory to represent truth.

Philosophically, the concept of truth is most effectively dealt with in term of;
-What is held to be truths, beliefs or opinions in a continuum.
What is truth must be objective truths, i.e. objective knowledge while beliefs and opinions along the same continuum are not objective but more towards being subjective.

What is objective truth will depend on whether one rely on the basis of Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism perspective.

[Anomaly654]

Part Two

Falsification and Motives

The natural tension between true and false sets a simple example of the necessity of an external absolute to which non-absolutes have their reference. Truth, in both descriptive and prescriptive realities, is the straightforward and obvious standard. We always strive to get at the truth of things. Popper’s philosophy of scientific falsification is the use of falsity to find truth.

I see no reasonable arguments that can be sufficiently mounted against the idea that truth itself, in both moral and factual realms, is the single, simple absolute standard toward which all activity should aim.

That truth is power is easily verifiable. Fill out last year’s tax returns using entirely falsehoods. Name, earnings, dependents—fill in all the blanks with counterfeit information. Try living a day in which you freely substitute falsehoods with truths. Treat red lights as green, resolve that the brick wall you face is made of marshmallows and pound your head against it, pretend the Affordable Care Act works on every level promised and provides the absolute pinnacle of health care to every American; praise its perfection to everyone you meet. Spend your day inserting falsehoods into truths at home, work and in social settings and see how your day goes. One should pretty quickly concede the idea that value—both truth and falsity—as latent force has merit. These forces, sometimes antithetical, sometimes unifying, emerge in the interactions of intellectual agents with value-forces in external existence to shape opinions, affiliations, standards, belief systems—and eventually, societies and cultures. The medical technician examines blood and tissue samples under a microscope to gather health information about a patient. The impropriety of inserting false information into her report on the samples is so obvious that further discussion on the matter is unnecessary. Most of us take truth—the force that provides our primary directional beacon for every aim of life, work, play, relationships, etc.—wholly for granted.

Cognitive Bias is a sociological term for defects in thinking. Focus here will be on two forms of value-influenced bias, what will be called Cognitive Sedition[CS] and Cognitive Obscurity[CO]. CS is a term for the aforementioned resistance caused by the t¬f relation in mental processing. The force of this mental property is exclusively directed to prescriptive matters. In particular, its cause—the fragmental falsification of human information or essence, affecting cognition—is naturally the corruption of a perfection because the nature of the true is set up by and proceeds from its attributes: unity, suitability, harmony, perfection, accord, good, organization, propriety, etc. with the perfection of life as arguably the greatest good and truth. Conversely, the false is associated naturally with discord, inadequacy, inferiority, dissension, evil, chaos, death, etc. Obviously, these opposites repel. CS plays out in three distinct cognitive reactions:

A. The t^t union
B. The t¬f opposition
C. The f^f union

Before getting into how these play out in prescriptive matters the CO function needs attention. CO, as name implies, is the quality of indistinctness in the cogitative powers, a cognitive destabilization of the t^t union by the admittance of fragmental falsity into the mind’s informational matrix, impairing its ability to form numerically sufficient t^[i]t[i/] bonds in the patterning of mental content to effect the perfection of reason and knowing. CS and CO are closely related but not identical. While both are caused by the true-false antagonism, CS produces a robust enmity in prescriptive matters while CO is a general distortion of intellectual operation for all matters of deliberation and attention, prescriptive or descriptive.

Definitions for the three possible value configurations provided above should help demonstrate the role value fragmentation plays in moral motives, accumulation of beliefs and responses to moral propositions. While the function for all three would apply to information ascribed to any material function, the information of intellectual operation as mental content in connection with external actual and propositional information.

A. The qualitative condition or force between true information states producing attraction to true idea(s), the proper and appropriate function in an exchange or transaction between the information of perceiver and information perceived, with respect to this relation’s ability to produce true meaning.
B. The qualitative condition or force between true and false information states producing repulsion and resistance to true idea(s), a corrupted transaction between the information of perceiver and information perceived, with respect to this relation’s ability to produce true meaning.
C. The qualitative condition or force between false information states producing attraction to false idea(s), producing dissonance between the false idea(s) held with respect to this relation’s ability to produce true meaning.

The above provide interesting outcomes for a variety of topics: motives behind the prescriptive beliefs one holds, the nature of moral beliefs, how the above would factor into reasons internalism and externalism, how this might play out in the identification of moral properties, etc. I find "C" most interesting: one who holds a falsehood then must expend effort gathering true propositions (arguments) to "prove" her false belief. No one uses false propositions to prove a false belief.

As a theist, the above (assuming theistic belief is fundamentally, if not precisely, true) is interesting because it seems to provide—with some degree of analytical reliability—an explanation for not only the great moral divide throughout the various philosophical frameworks in history, but offers a coherent account for how and why persons accumulate both theistic/moral and anti-theistic/anti-moral beliefs and offers a basis for why they adhere.

Thoughts?

[Prismatic567]

What follows is based on Avicenna’s conception that truth is a quality—a condition of existence—inherent in the essence of things, and is an integral part of each thing’s nature.

There is a billiard table, a cue stick and a cue ball. The stick strikes the ball and the ball rolls across the table.

A truth is "the ball is rolling across the table".

Where is that truth in the essence of the objects?

Before the stick struck the ball, a truth was "the ball is not moving on the table". How did the action of striking the ball change the essential truth of the situation?

In a situation like this, it is critical to bring to mind the concept of Framework and System [perspectives].
In the above case you are messing up and conflating the relevant perspectives.

"The ball is rolling across the table" can be viewed from the common sense and scientific Framework and System.
Common sense tell us it is the person who pushed the cue stick which 'cause' the cue ball to roll across the table.
From the Scientific Framework, one can study the cause and effect, motion, physical states, Newton's Law, Quantum Mechanics, etc. to the above scenario.

Then we need to be aware there is the Philosophical Framework & System with various sub-framework & systems [specifically relevant to this forum].
There are many contending philosophical perspectives to what is truth, thus we need to understand them and ensure we have sound arguments to support our views.

As for what is the 'essence' of the object, this is studied within
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence
This is a very big topic with many contending views, the main is those between Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Common sense and Science tell us the force from cue stick caused the ball to roll forward.
From a philosophical perspective, Hume argued the above is not very true philosophically. Hume argued the reason why is because of customs, habits from constant conjunctions, i.e. this basis is psychological.

As you can see, there are many contested views to the above and that is why it necessary to analyze the various Frameworks and Systems involved.

I believe your question above is based on common sense and Science but you seem to be ignorant of the various contested philosophical perspectives that is relevant to the OP. You are like a kindergarten kid trying to challenge a PhD [not me but generally] on his specialty knowledge.

[phyllo]

That's all very interesting, except maybe the part about the kindergarten kid, but it doesn't really answer my question ... which is : how can truth be within objects when a huge number of truths deal with the relationships between objects (for example distance, speed and acceleration between objects or between an object and an arbitrary point)? Where would the truth of relationships reside?

The common sense answer seems to be that those truths don't reside in objects. And if they don't, then why would other truths?

[Prismatic567]

That's all very interesting, except maybe the part about the kindergarten kid, but it doesn't really answer my question ... which is : how can truth be within objects when a huge number of truths deal with the relationships between objects (for example distance, speed and acceleration between objects or between an object and an arbitrary point)? Where would the truth of relationships reside?

The common sense answer seems to be that those truths don't reside in objects. And if they don't, then why would other truths?

I did not agree 'truth is within the object.'
The fact is truth is always conditional upon a Framework & System which is human-made.
Thus 'truth' in a way ultimately resides interdependently 'with' the human minds collectively and intersubjectively.

Against the positivist claim that there are only facts, Nietzsche replies: “No, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations” (WP § 481).
The doctrine that there are no facts, only interpretations, Nietzsche sometimes calls ‘perspectivism’.
https://web.stanford.edu/~allenw/Hum193 ... tivism.doc

In the above case, Nietzsche claimed there are no independent truths but only human interpretations based on defined Framework and System. This principle applies to ALL truths and facts. Such a view is representative of the Philosophical Anti-Realists' view that there is no independent external reality but rather reality is interdependent with the subject [humans].

The point is you need to understand there are various very strong Philosophical Anti-Realists views from a large group of notable philosophers against the claim of an independent reality [yours].
Thus to maintain philosophical integrity, you need to understand [not necessary agree] the arguments from the other side and weigh them rationally against your existing views [to me are weak ideas].

[phyllo]

I did not agree 'truth is within the object.'
The fact is truth is always conditional upon a Framework & System which is human-made.
Thus 'truth' in a way ultimately resides interdependently 'with' the human minds collectively and intersubjectively.

Progress. You call it truth instead of "reality".

And Nietzsche had the sense not to call it "reality".

[Anomaly654]

There is a billiard table, a cue stick and a cue ball. The stick strikes the ball and the ball rolls across the table.

A truth is "the ball is rolling across the table".

Where is that truth in the essence of the objects?

I’ve erroneously argued in past discussions that truth isn’t a relation, it’s an actual force—but you are correctly identifying relations involved in the truth of things in essence playing out. Relations are in a sense part of actual truth; they might be thought of as the "fragrance" of truth. The relations we extract from states of affairs in perception are interpretations caused by the power of the t^t union…truth in the information of mind in union with the truth of proper motion grounded in and brought about by the immutable truth values (energies) involved in the process. On the subatomic level everything is reduced to energy in various configurations and at various potentials or levels of force. Truth can be thought of (metaphorically) as the “flavour” of energy, but I’d suggest this doesn’t reach the core. I peel away the “truth is attached to energy” to get to the bottom of the thing: Truth (more accurately, value) is energy/force.

The truth of matter is expressed or interpreted from the subatomic or quantum forces in language- or mathematical-values. You’re describing the movements of these energy-truths in macro level existence.

Thus, the truth of the energy (material) configurations are interpreted by us as values: 6.15mm diameter carom, travelling at x velocity, etc. See this:
https://www.real-world-physics-problems ... iards.html
Ain’t nothin but values.

So the perception of the truth that a pool ball travels in a [relatively] straight line and connects a second ball, setting it in motion, is the power of union between truth in the observer and truth of the processes of motion of the material components.

Before the stick struck the ball, a truth was "the ball is not moving on the table". How did the action of striking the ball change the essential truth of the situation?

Truth in perception is fluid, constantly shifting and changing to maintain union with the constantly fluid nature and processes of material things. And that’s just material stuff…we also simultaneously acquire and interpret uncountable prescriptive force values, woven into material circumstances generally--in a secondary form in perception (as in recognition of the law that speed limit is 45) and in the union of actual prescriptive truth values between minds and the life-bearing entities that surround and interact with them.

[James S Saint]

Truth is merely the chosen map of the discovered terrain.

[Anomaly654]

Your "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth implies such truths are conditioned to the Spiritual Framework & System and the mechanics therein.

Note the "Scientific Mechanics" of Truth will refer to scientific truths which are conditioned by the Scientific Framework & System and the 'mechanics' therein, i.e. the scientific methods and various processes. [/

Avicenna is a Muslim and my assessment of his point is the ultimate "Spiritual Mechanics" is leveraged upon the Allah and the Quran.
We may not have issue any as long as Avicenna based his truths on the Scientific Framework & System which he did for many of his scientific theories. These can be tested, verified and reproduced.
However where Avicenna stretched his truths beyond the empirical possible to the empirically impossible, then such truths are not tenable.

I don’t understand these comments except for the last sentence—which I interpret: “I accept only empirical objects as possible to have existence.” I think I noted the failure of your attempt to place the concept of God in the realm of impossibilities in another thread and have no interest in rehashing your notion of impossibilities here.

Since you mentioned 'correspondence' in relation to truth, your basis of truth is most likely that of Philosophical Realism.
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
As I had argued elsewhere, Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory to represent truth.

I recall reading several posts of yours in at least one other thread here and noted your categorical statements there (as found here) that realism is not tenable—but I don’t recall ever actually seeing an actual argument from you on the subject. On a macro level, I accept (with the masses) a realist universe. I actually believe the highest reality lies in the abstract realm, that matter in time and space is just a playing field where primarily non-material forces play out. But while some level of defense of this belief might surface as an element of discussion in the view presented, a realist universe is assumed as a foundation. If you wish to discuss what you take to be the untenable nature of realism you could start your own thread.

Philosophically, the concept of truth is most effectively dealt with in term of;
-What is held to be truths, beliefs or opinions in a continuum.
What is truth must be objective truths, i.e. objective knowledge while beliefs and opinions along the same continuum are not objective but more towards being subjective.

What is objective truth will depend on whether one rely on the basis of Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism perspective.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you feel this has to do with what was posted. If you want to argue one point or another from the op, fine, but blurted assertions of what isn’t and what is don’t seem to me to fall into the category of forward-moving discussion Prismatic567.

[Anomaly654]

Truth is merely the chosen map of the discovered terrain.

Yes, I recall you stating this in other of our discussions, James. Of course I'd counter that the notion that truth is "chosen" is just one of the many illusions the reality of truth as the energy potential & actuality of the universe imposes on perception. Truth is like a forest; we could see it better if the trees [individual truths] didn't get in the way. Much like the popular notion that truth is "merely a relation", which was addressed in the op.

[James S Saint]

What I meant was that like the symbols on a map that are to correspond to environmental contrasts, Truth is chosen in the form of concepts and words that are to correspond to experiences of reality.

The concept of Truth is not anything we discover (except as children learning the language - or not). The concept of Truth is a part of our accepted language. Truth is not a part of reality any more than the map is a part of the terrain. In English, "Truth", the word and concept, refers to our mental symbology used to navigate our environment (as long as the map is accurate). Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality.

[Prismatic567]

Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality.

You don't seem to understand at a meta-level the whole statement,

"Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality."
has to be expressed by a mind or agreed by minds.

Therefore your statement,
'Without mind there is only reality"
is mind dependent because it can only be actualized by a mind which is part of reality.

In addition, "without mind" with 'reality' do not follow because 'mind' is part and parcel of reality.

Point is,
the mind is always entangled with reality,
thus what is reality is always interdependent with reality.

[Anomaly654]

What I meant was that like the symbols on a map that are to correspond to environmental contrasts, Truth is chosen in the form of concepts and words that are to correspond to experiences of reality.

Got it.

The concept of Truth is not anything we discover (except as children learning the language - or not). The concept of Truth is a part of our accepted language. Truth is not a part of reality any more than the map is a part of the terrain. In English, "Truth", the word and concept, refers to our mental symbology used to navigate our environment (as long as the map is accurate).

Then for you truth is a linguistic/semantic relation, yes?

Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality.

I agree with you that there can be no truth without mind. If there can be a reality devoid of truth I'd say it's not this one we find ourselves in. In this one, as I see it, truth is the cement which forms and keeps our reality together. A reality without truth would have to have some other organizing mechanism, I just can't imagine what that would be.

[Anomaly654]

You don't seem to understand at a meta-level the whole statement,

"Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality."
has to be expressed by a mind or agreed by minds.

Therefore your statement,
'Without mind there is only reality"
is mind dependent because it can only be actualized by a mind which is part of reality.

In addition, "without mind" with 'reality' do not follow because 'mind' is part and parcel of reality.

Point is,
the mind is always entangled with reality,
thus what is reality is always interdependent with reality.

It appears you take the position (as many do) that truth didn't exist before there were human minds to create it? If so, how would you falsify the position in the op that truth is the power that created and holds the universe together (to use the blunt version)?

[James S Saint]

Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality.

You don't seem to understand at a meta-level the whole statement,

"Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality."
has to be expressed by a mind or agreed by minds.

Therefore your statement,
'Without mind there is only reality"
is mind dependent because it can only be actualized by a mind which is part of reality.

In addition, "without mind" with 'reality' do not follow because 'mind' is part and parcel of reality.

Point is,
the mind is always entangled with reality,
thus what is reality is always interdependent with reality.

Once again, you have your words conflated.

The word "Truth" refers to LANGUAGE STATEMENTS. It is the language that is either true or false. Reality itself cannot be true or false. Reality is the standard with which truth is measured. A true statement is "true to reality" = "aligns with reality", else it is not a true statement.

And yes, language is certainty mind-dependent. Before there was mind, there could not be language. And before there was language, there could not be truth or falsity.

Learn what the words you use mean.

Then for you truth is a linguistic/semantic relation, yes?

The word "True" in English refers to something being perfectly aligned; "The heading is true North", "The edge of the house is true" (meaning straight), "The statement is true to reality". As stated above, "true statements" (or all true concepts) are only true if they align with "what is", reality. The word refers to a language issue, not to reality itself. Of course reality is always true to reality, "A is A".

Truth is what is in your head. "Finding Truth" means obtaining a rational order of concepts that align with the Reality that is outside your head. Finding Truth is important for making decisions, unless one is merely following others in faith (the majority).

If there can be a reality devoid of truth I'd say it's not this one we find ourselves in. In this one, as I see it, truth is the cement which forms and keeps our reality together. A reality without truth would have to have some other organizing mechanism, I just can't imagine what that would be.

Before there was life on Earth or any mind to conceive of it, I believe there was still an Earth in Reality. And that BELIEF is what makes me a "realist" (,Prism) as opposed to a "subjectivist" or "solipsist". The subjectivist believes that if there is no one to observe it, it doesn't exist. The solipsist believes that if he alone doesn't exist, there is no existence. Both are irrational points of view (illogical). To be logical and rational, one must be a "realist" (whether he understands true reality or not as long as he believes that there is one).

[Prismatic567]

You don't seem to understand at a meta-level the whole statement,

"Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality."
has to be expressed by a mind or agreed by minds.

Therefore your statement,
'Without mind there is only reality"
is mind dependent because it can only be actualized by a mind which is part of reality.

In addition, "without mind" with 'reality' do not follow because 'mind' is part and parcel of reality.

Point is,
the mind is always entangled with reality,
thus what is reality is always interdependent with reality.

It appears you take the position (as many do) that truth didn't exist before there were human minds to create it?
If so, how would you falsify the position in the op that truth is the power that created and holds the universe together (to use the blunt version)?

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism".
Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

The above is applicable to Science, but can be applied to philosophy-proper in a way.

The point here you have not proven in any way your thesis, i.e.
"truth is the power that created and holds the universe together"
if you have not provide any reasonable proofs [philosophically] there is nothing to falsify.
It is like there is nothing to falsify a pre-existing 'false' theory.

If you end game is trying to justify God exists, I have indicated with evidence the reification of an illusory and impossible God is most likely due to psychological forces deep within one's psyche.

[Prismatic567]

Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality.

You don't seem to understand at a meta-level the whole statement,

"Without mind, there is no truth nor falsity, only reality."
has to be expressed by a mind or agreed by minds.

Therefore your statement,
'Without mind there is only reality"
is mind dependent because it can only be actualized by a mind which is part of reality.

In addition, "without mind" with 'reality' do not follow because 'mind' is part and parcel of reality.

Point is,
the mind is always entangled with reality,
thus what is reality is always interdependent with reality.

Once again, you have your words conflated.

The word "Truth" refers to LANGUAGE STATEMENTS. It is the language that is either true or false. Reality itself cannot be true or false. Reality is the standard with which truth is measured. A true statement is "true to reality" = "aligns with reality", else it is not a true statement.

And yes, language is certainty mind-dependent. Before there was mind, there could not be language. And before there was language, there could not be truth or falsity.

Learn what the words you use mean.

Your above views reflect your very narrow and shallow philosophical intelligence or quotient.

Note this is a Philosophy Forum not a Language Forum!

What is Truth [philosophy]?

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality,[1] or fidelity to an original or standard. -wiki

The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real. -wiki

A fact is a statement that is true or can be proved with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. -wiki

Your
A true statement is "true to reality" = "aligns with reality"
is too shallow and narrow.

'What is true' as I had demonstrated has to be ultimately verified to experience, rationalized and justified. These ultimate processes are ultimately mind-interdependent.

Therefore whatever or every which way, truth is always mind-interdependent.

[James S Saint]

Gyahd, what sophomoric naivety.

[Prismatic567]

Gyahd, what sophomoric naivety.

I find such hit and run spikes reek of intellectual cowardice.
Give me your arguments.

[James S Saint]

Gyahd, what sophomoric naivety.

I find such hit and run spikes reek of intellectual cowardice.
Give me your arguments.

I and everyone else have given you rebuttals, right, left, center and everywhere inbetween, and you still can't figure out how far off mark you really are.

Amazing!

[Anomaly654]

Once again, you have your words conflated.

The word "Truth" refers to LANGUAGE STATEMENTS. It is the language that is either true or false. Reality itself cannot be true or false. Reality is the standard with which truth is measured. A true statement is "true to reality" = "aligns with reality", else it is not a true statement.

And yes, language is certainty mind-dependent. Before there was mind, there could not be language. And before there was language, there could not be truth or falsity.

I do not have my words conflated. Language is just a dressing, a covering, a meaning-carrier. We invented language to convey meanings already possessed--true meanings, primarily. Words were applied to concepts, ideas we had drawn from meaning, a higher plane of existence. Truth--the meaning, not the five letters we use to convey the meaning--can be applied to a number of ideas or concepts within a fairly restricted linguistic domain. To suggest that truth just refers to language statements is just saying you and others wish to consign the word "truth" to a language statement--the meaning of your choosing. That's fine, no problem there. The application of truth to its language elements falls within that accepted domain. But you can't demand ownership of the signifier for only your purposes, James.

You're a realist. I consider myself a realist. Yes or no question: 500,000 years ago was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile--at that specific point in time? Seems to me one answer is compatible with the realist point of view and the other is inconsistent.

[Anomaly654]

The point here you have not proven in any way your thesis, i.e.
"truth is the power that created and holds the universe together"
if you have not provide any reasonable proofs [philosophically] there is nothing to falsify.
It is like there is nothing to falsify a pre-existing 'false' theory.

Well, at least you made a reasonably understandable response here.

First, are you sure you understood the op--or understand the concept of truth--well enough to make these claims? I'm a bit skeptical. Discussions of truth are synthetic in nature. Truth seems to fit readily into a number of corners. Propositions about truth can apply to facts, actual--as in 2+2=4--or logical, as in behaviors, e.g., in psychology or religion. I believe I've provided a reasonable foundation for the idea that truth is or can be at minimum a necessary condition of existence of force or energy, with the distinct logical possibility that truth is or may just be, force and power. Your claim that I've provided no reasonable proofs, therefore there's nothing to falsify may mean I've provided no proofs you are willing to consider reasonable in order to avoid trying to falsify a premise you have motivations to reject out of the gate. Or, it may be you don't understand the ideas laid out in the op--in which case the op's being unfalsifiable is for you, authentic. This is entirely possible; the places I take truth are unorthodox and far out of the status quo, though not new. Another possibility is that I'm deluded and what I considered logical proofs in the op are really just wishful thinking. In this case you are almost certainly correct that I've just mounted a "pre-existing 'false' theory. But if the latter, maybe you could at least coherently point out the logical fallacies by which you're able to deem the op a "pre-existing 'false' theory"?

If you end game is trying to justify God exists, I have indicated with evidence the reification of an illusory and impossible God is most likely due to psychological forces deep within one's psyche.

I'm not trying to justify God's existence in the op. As a theist this metaphysic grew together with and supports a certain theological position, but I've tried to keep the religious aspects to a minimum. Realizing they will 'bleed through' anyway, I posted this in the Religion and Spirituality section of the board.

And as I noted above, I think I demonstrated in another thread that your placing God in the realm of impossibilities is fatally flawed. The fact that you continue to parrot the same falsified claim virtually everywhere I've seen you post here suggests the principles laid out in the op may go some distance in providing an explanation for your underlying motives for posting here.

[James S Saint]

Once again, you have your words conflated.

The word "Truth" refers to LANGUAGE STATEMENTS. It is the language that is either true or false. Reality itself cannot be true or false. Reality is the standard with which truth is measured. A true statement is "true to reality" = "aligns with reality", else it is not a true statement.

And yes, language is certainty mind-dependent. Before there was mind, there could not be language. And before there was language, there could not be truth or falsity.

I do not have my words conflated.

I wasn't referring to you, rather to Prism.

Language is just a dressing, a covering, a meaning-carrier. We invented language to convey meanings already possessed--true meanings, primarily. Words were applied to concepts, ideas we had drawn from meaning, a higher plane of existence.

I agree.

Truth--the meaning, not the five letters we use to convey the meaning--can be applied to a number of ideas or concepts within a fairly restricted linguistic domain.

"Truth" means that it is an accurate reflection of reality.

To suggest that truth just refers to language statements is just saying you and others wish to consign the word "truth" to a language statement--the meaning of your choosing. That's fine, no problem there. The application of truth to its language elements falls within that accepted domain. But you can't demand ownership of the signifier for only your purposes, James.

It isn't up to me. It is not MY language. I am only explaining what is already defined in the language concerning what the word "true" means and has always meant.

You're a realist. I consider myself a realist. Yes or no question: 500,000 years ago was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile--at that specific point in time? Seems to me one answer is compatible with the realist point of view and the other is inconsistent.

Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a "mile" was not defined back then, there were no "feet" in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.