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?
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.
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.
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[1]t[/i] union
B. The t¬f opposition
C. The f[2]f[/i] 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[3]t[/i] union by the admittance of fragmental falsity into the mind’s informational matrix, impairing its ability to form numerically sufficient t[4]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?
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
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.
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.
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].
Progress. You call it truth instead of “reality”.
And Nietzsche had the sense not to call it “reality”.
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[1]t[/i] 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:
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.
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.
i ↩︎
Truth is merely the chosen map of the discovered terrain.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Got it.
Then for you truth is a linguistic/semantic relation, yes?
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.
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)?
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Gyahd, what sophomoric naivety. 
I find such hit and run spikes reek of intellectual cowardice.
Give me your arguments.