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.
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!
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.
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”?
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.
I wasn’t referring to you, rather to Prism.
I agree.
“Truth” means that it is an accurate reflection of reality.
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.
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.
So definitions have some kind of reality that transcends time?
At the time (500000 years ago) there was nobody to think about these definitions. And even if somebody was alive, he had no knowledge of the definitions.
In the future, one would expect that the definitions will be lost and there will no longer be any knowledge of them.
The definitions have no relevance except to us, now.
Yes, definitions in a language have nothing to do with time. The statement, “the universe existed a billion years ago” is a true statement even though there might have been no one to think so a billion years ago. The statement is made in the present … ABOUT the past (or future). The definitions are a matter of when the statement is made, because the statement is the claim. It would be a different issue if one said that someone a billion years ago claimed that the universe existed. A “mile” is defined in the current language, so it doesn’t matter what time frame is being discussed. A mile is still a mile.
The statements are only true(or false) now.
Did you read his question?
That’s asking if the definitions in some way existed back then. Note that he is not asking if the concepts of feet and miles as we have defined them are applicable when we speak of events in the past.
If you answer “yes”, then the truth must be embedded in the objects.
Restating the actual question, “Is this statement true, ‘500,000 years ago there were 5,280 feet in a mile?’” That is the same question as “500,000 years ago, was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile”. The word “it” in that statement refers to the thought about a mile being 5,280 feet long 500,000 years ago. The thought or statement is true, because the length of a mile relative to a foot doesn’t change with time. The definitions of the words are the ones of today because the question is being asked using today’s definitions.
Else he would have to have asked, "Was a mile defined to be 5,280 feet 500,000 years ago?"
That would be a different question concerning the definition of a “mile”. The actual question concerned relative lengths, not definitions. How else could anyone ever speak of anything concerning prehistoric times? You are saying that because there was no language in those days nothing can be said about those days.
It is a matter of proper semantics.
It certainly is not. I thought that you were better than that. It didn’t ask anything at all about the definitions of the words, merely the relative lengths that the words referenced. It is asking of relative lengths.
I’m not sure what you meant by that, but the question was about relative lengths, not words.
And my issue was that it isn’t “truth” that is embedded, but the reality that is embedded. Truth is about the words. And words are not embedded in objects (usually). Reality (and Affectance) is embedded in all existent things.
Well, you can ask him but I’m pretty sure that’s what he was asking since that’s consistent with his OP.
You might be right as far as what he intended. But if so, he didn’t word it properly.
And the idea of truth being within the scene itself is a common phrasing, just more poetic than accurate.