Refute this idea of truth please

I believe I have answered the above.

Note conventionally and scientifically, I am not saying “there is no such system until it is discovered by one perceiving mind”.
My take would be, it is possible [empirically] for such a system to exists.
The solar system is possible [empirically] to exists because the claim is made upon empirically possible objects and these can be empirically verified upon available evidence.

There is another higher philosophical perspective re ‘Is there a sound if a tree falls in a forest and there are no humans around’. That is a different issue from the above.

The universe was formed and is still forming based on the human-justified Theory of the Big Bang which is merely a speculative and is an untestable theory.

You cannot presume there are certain existing scientific laws before they are discovered by human scientists.
What is scientific is conditioned upon the existence of human producing those scientific laws.
Therefore if no humans, there are no scientific laws. Note Kant has argued strongly for this point.

There is no way humans will ever know the very beginning or the first cause. What we end up with is an infinite regression.

At Wittgenstein stated;
‘Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent’

Therefore one must resolve to shut-up on this matter since there is nothing to speak of.

However theists and others cannot resist being silent, but due to subliminal psychological impulses jumped to conclusion there is something, a first cause, i.e. God without any logical and sound justifications for it.

The consequences of this psychological impulse is so desperate within SOME theists that they will not hesitate to kill to defend and maintain their secured psychological status. In addition there a whole range of evil and violent acts associated with theism by SOME theists.

Yes, I hypothesize that truth is real. Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc. I understand the discord this idea raises in philosophy proper. It proposes that a non-empirical quality is essentially the “glue” that binds all of reality, empirical and non-empirical, together. I noted in the op the status quo idea that the “serious metaphysician” limits his inquiry to the natural sphere. I’m self taught and unqualified to be a serious metaphysician; hence my hypothesis.

[/quote]
Understood that philosophical orthodoxy keep empirical and non-empirical at arm’s length in separate categories. This seems based on the idea that matter is the primary reality—many call the material the “actual” world as you noted also. I take the position that abstract information is the primary reality because it occurred to me years ago that thing and attribute had to have some recognizable connection and only thing I could come up with is that both offer information to perception. So, I start there. From this perspective, “actual” reality and abstract entities are just different modes of information. Factual is “louder” and commands more of our attention, but is essentially the static stage dynamic consciousness plays out on.

The rule that the things and properties have to be kept categorically distinct seems too restrictive to me in light of all that’s not known and several things that are. Minds still interact with bodies. The idea that the mind is the brain seems to have suffered significant setbacks the last few decades. And evolutionary explanations for the moral sense lack compelling explanation.

On the other hand, a value-endued reality has a lot of interesting (to me anyway) connections. The notion of truth as just a feature of propositions or beliefs rises to a much larger role as a value mechanism for all existence. From the starting point “How would Avicenna’s idea that truth is a component of reality (essence) work? How would that play out?”, the conclusion I came to is that there are a number of interesting logical scenarios just on the secular side of things, probably the most significant of which is that value can be mapped to cognition as the prime mover of human behaviour. There are even more possibilities on the theological side. I can only imagine where the mechanism of value could go in the mind of an actual philosopher, but suspect no one dare buck the status quo.

So once empirically discovered, was it true that such a system preexisted its discovery?

Actually, it appears to me the BB has been mathematically tested and moved from “speculative” to “probable”. I find it revealing that you’re retreating from the assuredness of your faith in science to “speculative” and “untestable”. You’re quite a dancer.

I don’t presume this. We’re informed of it by science. It is suggested by empirically tested means that these laws were necessarily in place from essentially the beginning of the BB to form the universe that we see now. This seems to be the doctrine currently employed.

I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn’t a religion. Thanks for your participation, Prism.

I think we need a very clear definition of truth. Since you quote that definition of truth - one amongst a few - I need to repeat that truth is not in reality, but is reality, by that definition.

I don’t know what this means. Some of this is empirical, some is not.

Some of it is non-empirical, some is.

I don’t know what a serious metaphysician is, but since what you describe is just one kind of metaphysics, I don’t see philosophy ruling out what you are saying, whatever it is.

If there was a philoosphical orthodoxy, then there would be a consensus. I don’t see this.

Some think attributes are empircal. Soem think things are. So you are not distinguishing your ideas from what philosophers might put forward as true.

So, I start there. From this perspective, “actual” reality and abstract entities are just different modes of information. Factual is “louder” and commands more of our attention, but is essentially the static stage dynamic consciousness plays out on.

I think, but I am not sure, that you are conflating truths with things like universals or laws.

Like with the latter that there are rules for the behavior of stuff we experience and we don’t experience those rules, we deduce them. But the truths would be the assertions of those laws, for example, not the patterns/rules out there in reality. I am not making a metaphysical assertion here and so disagreeing with you. I am making a language based criticism. I htink, but I am not sure, you are using the words poorly.

I don’t know his work, but I just read a summary and he seems to view truth as a propositional something. Like a stone is not a truth. Though it is real.

I think it’s probably not useful to posit yourself as raining rebellious notions that will feel threatening to the status quo. 1) I don’t think you are correct about the orthodoxy or that there is one in the way you mean and 2) there sure as hell isn’t one here. A read of anyone from Ecmandu, to Unwrong, to myself - when I venture into my own beliefs in metaphysics which I rarely do but have done - to Artimas and more…will show ideas that if there is anything like a set of ideas that are orthodox in philosophy, they do not control the range of ideas presented here. IOW I do not think it is useful to frame the issue as people are resisting your ideas because they threaten their need to back some philosophical consensus.

Note I qualified the above statement with ‘conventionally and scientifically’.
Yes, scientifically, such system pre-existed its discovery.
Albeit scientific theories are useful, according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore we have to accept scientific theories with such qualifications and doubts to its degree to represent ‘reality’.

How was I SO assured of the above when I had qualified it within the restricted conventional and scientific Framework.
I quoted Popper re scientific theories as ‘conjectures’ many times elsewhere whenever Science is mentioned.
It is a fact, the BB is untestable and unrepeatable, thus cannot qualify as a full scientific law.

Surely you are not looking up to scientists as gods, do you?
Repeat, scientific theories at best are merely polished conjectures, albeit VERY useful.

The empirically based scientific approach is limited.

On top of the scientific perspectives, we have the empirical-rational-philosophical perspective to reach more-refined-polished-conjectures - note not God driven absolute truths. This is where we add more of logic, rationality, wisdom, ethics to scientific theories and practices.

Where did I ever indicate any pro for materialism which was trounced by Berkeley. I agree to with Berkerely’s first stage but not his second stage where he had to bring in God. Upon Berkeley’s counter to materialism, the opponents turned to Physicalism along with all Philosophical Realists.
Unknowingly you could be a materialistic-theist, i.e. accepting God’s created materials.

I am with the philosophical anti-realists along with the Buddha, Kant, Heidegger and others.

As I had stated, the most reliable and useful knowledge we have at the present are those from Science, but then these are at best polished conjectures, note conjectures!

What is of higher reliability and credibility are knowledge from philosophy-proper which encompasses the empirical [Science, etc,] the logical, the rational and the philosophical dealing only with possibilities.

Theology is based on faith [without reason-rationality and proof], thus clings on dogmatically to impossibilities [i.e. God which is like a square-circle]. Theology is driven by an underlying subliminal desperate existential psychology to the extent SOME theists will even kill [murder, genocide] to defend their theism.

I offered a definition in 3rd post.

Sorry, you’re losing me. Definitional deficiencies maybe?

Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc.

This is part of my confusion. On the one hand you tell me If there was a philoosphical orthodoxy, then there would be a consensus. I don’t see this. But a couple comments earlier you make what I see as an orthodox distinction–empirical and non-empirical–in your post.

Moral attributes are non-empirical. The attributes of substances are empirical. Prescriptive truth pertains to normative reality and is dynamic. Descriptive truth is inert and applies to matter. Mortimer Adler identified these in his Ten Philosophical Mistakes (1985):
“In Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, clearly cognizant of what he himself
had said about the character of descriptive truth, declared that what he called
practical judgments (i.e., prescriptive or normative judgments with respect to action)
had truth of a different sort. Later philosophers, except for Aristotle’s medieval
disciples, have shown no awareness whatsoever of this brief but crucially important
passage in his writings.”

I’m pretty sure I am.

I hold the rules for the behavior of stuff derives from the value content in the stuff and our deduction of these behaviors is itself brought to bear by a union of value between our minds and that content. To clarify, I don’t think value itself is the content or is the only factor in shaping realities, but is the dynamic within stuff that creates the principle of unity (in regard to t - t connections) or discord (t - f or f - t connections in the case of intellects) in both empirical and non-empirical stuff.

I claim only to use Avicenna’s statement in the Summa (Part One, Q. 16, A. 1, “Whether Truth Resides Only in the
Intellect?”) “The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it.” I only use this single idea as a starting point.

Thanks for the advice. I think your interpretation of what I meant is exaggerated though. I feel you’re presenting good advice that I can learn from if I can grasp completely what you’re saying.

I misspoke when I said, I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn’t a religion.

Should have said “…to those who maintain that materialism isn’t a doctrine of atheism.” You needn’t have identified yourself as a materialist my friend; you’ve stated in different ways that you only accept empirical reality as valid. This is a primary tenet of the doctrine of materialism. One can claim not to be a duck, but the waddling and quacking nonetheless tells the tale.

Yet one of the most interesting corollaries that develops from the hypothesis of value is its ability to present a feasible motivation mechanism for the necessity to voice unsought disagreement and contempt for a value system one disagrees with. Again, thanks for sharing your opinions, Prism.

This is confused. Materialism is a kind of metaphysics, with a position on what the real is. Empiricism is the belief that we gain knowledge only through experience, often sense experience. But one need not believe that one is only experiencing or sensing matter. Certainly most empiricists are materialists - though some are not - despite scientific challenges to the notion of matter being anything at all like what materialists used to think of as matter.

I just don’t know what to do with saying a chair or a stone or light is a truth or a bearer of truth. Truth is referential. Even universals. I could see saying that universals are real. Or I could see saying that a particular idea, like ‘the category of dogs exists and is real’. IOW I could see saying that assertions about universals could be true or false. Also that the statement universals exist, is a true one. IOW that formulation makes sense to me.

But to say universals are true, seems odd to me. Sometimes it sounds like you mean they are real, even though they cannot be experienced.

To put it another way it seems at times like you are saying you are a rationalist. That is we can know things not just via experience. Other times it seems like you are making reality to be (at least also) a set of statements or ‘letters’ - the latter as a translation of bearers of truth. Like they carry truths inside them.

That’s certainly a position and if it is your position, then it might be helpful to say what truth a stone bears. IOW what is stone and what is the truth it bears. The truth it would seem, from my end, would not be an assertion of some kind. So I am not sure what this means.

Some of it is stuff, not conceptual. Some of it refers to things, some does not. I don’t really care about the distinction between empirical or not. Some would argue that all those things are empirical, even. I am not arguing that things we experience are the only things. But what you refer to in the list seem like different kinds of categorizations. Not different kinds of things.

Some philosophers would argue with that.

Conflating is a pejorative term. So I assume you mean, you see them as the same. Or you are conceding a point here.

I don’t understand this section.

FAir enough. Though I can’t parse that sentence, it sure seems like he is using truth in some way similar to the way you are.

Great. I’ll try. I think I will come back later in the thread when I get a better sense of your position. Right now I am not sure.

I used a common generalization. You seem to want to pin what I say to a high degree of technical accuracy, but context, when appropriate, allows an everyday ‘peoplespeak’ of the common man, in which I admittedly hold membership. I expect 98% understand the non-technical relationship between atheism and materialism.

You got it wrong.
Empirical evidence is the ground for an extensive range of knowledge [Justified True Beliefs] and ‘ism-s’ thus you are ignorant or dishonest to attribute my views to ‘materialism’.
The irony is theism placed 90% [for some 100%] of its beliefs on faith [without reasons nor proof] and perhaps a 10% weight on empirical evidence.

My basis of knowledge, truth and wisdom is grounded on empirical evidences supported by logic, rationality, wisdom and philosophy-proper. I have mentioned this many times.
Empirical evidence is never 100% reliable, note the multitude and range of empirical illusions plus weaknesses of the human perceptual faculties and the overall mind, thus the need for a meta-view [philosophy-proper] to rationalize these illusions and weaknesses.

I wish I could hold a high degree of technical accuracy myself. That said, in an ad hom post, in the context of a thread where you seemed to think there was a philosophical orthodoxy, it stood out. It seemed a part of you seeing a monolith, even in the ad hom portion, where I see something more complicated. If the idea of this philosophical monolith is not central to your position, then this matters less. Your previous response to me indicated flexibility around that. I responded here, to this particular post, before I encounted that flexibility.

On the point itself, it wasnt’ the conflation of atheism and materialism I was responding to, but the conflation of materialism and empricism. I think that it is important to not conflate those latter two. To conflate atheism and materialism is more sociological and, yes, I can see that as useful peoplespeak. To conflate materialism and empiricism can cause philosophical problems that will be relevent to discussing your position on what is real and/or true. The terms materailism and empiricism are not in the same category. I do think many modern people, especially those who think the empiricism used in science is the only way to gain knowledge ALSO conflate empiricism and materialism. But I don’t think we should copy their mistake. IOW yes, many people with think those two go together and it will function as people speak, but it is a real problematic conflation in my opinion.

Your hypothesis of value is not clear.
I had presented my definition of ‘value’ tied to survival.

You mentioned

It would appear the above is related to the absolute Value of God i.e. the Absolute Moral Laws.

Instead of the ambiguous term ‘value’ why don’t you refer the the Absolute Moral Laws of God’s or otherwise.

In any case, such absolute value or absolute moral laws do not exist as real.

Btw, there is a specialty topic on the Moral Values, i.e. axiology.

Check with ThinkDr who is a “Professor of Value”
How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194809

Probably prudent to note that I see truth as a sui generis entity whose existence in both minds and the information minds process, creates reference. So yes, the very nature of truth playing out in minds in union with the truth of external content is referential, correspondent, attracting, etc.

Truth as a principle of force maintains both particularities and their attributes, i.e., gives primary properties (shape, quantity, motion) and secondary (odor, color, taste) their own particular attributes and none else. Wittgenstien’s definition of a term as a “halo of related meanings” describes the force truth performs (in both factual and moral spheres), despite the fact he dismissed the notion that a quality we call “good” exists outside of good acts. The power of relationality is a product of truth’s dynamic. This is an example of what I see as the conundrum that we’ve become so used to describing things by the behaviors their truth content creates that we take the underlying cause for granted and speak of the world in terms of truth’s effects.

Descriptive truth plays out in the laws, rules and principles matter operates in and creates: facts. The truth of objects is easier to embrace conceptually than that of organics. Matter in its base state or configuration [wherever and whatever that is] is logically wholly or absolutely true and unchanging. I see James S. Saint’s affectance as information in its irreducible, absolute state if I understand his concept correctly. Information (so my hypothesis goes) forms material stuff, and matter in complexity attains mutability, but mutability is still only the changing of spatiotemporal position—true particles in constant motion giving minds the hard task of uncovering underlying truth in the midst of this sea of motion [existence], spitting out streams of information we bring together into harmonious [true-bearing] content in the mind. It’s truth in the makeup of minds that cause them to naturally seek harmonization, which is one of a thousand ways of saying we’re seeking truth. When we seek scientific organization, we’re naturally, without thinking about it, seeking the truth of objects via their relations, both empirical (facts) and non-empirical (concepts). Seems to me to not see the truth in trees and forests is missing the forest for the trees; the very relationality of the terms along with the facts that trees steadfastly retain their treeness and forests their forestness do so by virtue of the power truth imposes on existence/reality as I see it.

But edicts, rulings, bylaws, directives, policies, regulations, conventions, ethics, doctrines, and ideologies are products of the amalgam of descriptive and prescriptive truths. These suffer from actual falsification, which is peculiar only to human essence, what theists commonly refer to as the soul. Here, the term ‘value’ is more appropriate. I see why so many try to dismiss the prescriptive and move it to the realm of facts…factual existence, being wholly true, is much cleaner. Prescription is a distasteful mess, though its truth, when it does appear on the scene, is radiant and robust compared to the sterile, inert truth of the purely material.

So I’m often told.

And I noted that this view of value, so stated, is entirely consistent with–and would be predicted by–the view of value I defend.

Value in human minds is not clear cut and ambiguous by nature. The aim of the thread is not to discuss “the absolute moral laws of God or otherwise”. The questions pertinent to the thread are,

  1. Does truth require a mind?
  2. If truth exists prior to human minds and the answer to #1 is yes, where could it have come from? If anyone holds the position that truth isn’t mind-related I’d like to hear those arguments…haven’t been able to find any on my own.

Of course that truth exists prior to minds is unproven, though logical evidence seems to suggest it does. The interesting question for me is, is the belief that ‘truth did not exist until the existence of a human mind’ formed from the prior position that ‘no mind existed before the human mind’ or from consideration of all the evidence? If the answer is from evidence, the next question might be is “from the evidence” based on prior assumptions or from and actual unbiased scrutiny of the evidence? It’s difficult (probably impossible to do so wholly) to completely lay aside our presuppositions to grant unbiased consideration to an issue, isn’t it?

Okay. Thanks again for sharing your opinion.

Generally and conventionally truth, reality and fact are synonymous.

Philosophically I view the above variables as;

  1. Reality is ‘what is’
  2. Truth and fact are the ‘what is’ [perspective 2] of the ‘what is’ [meta-perspective 1].

In both cases the above are leveraged on the human conditions [whole human not just mind].

The truth of reality is always inferred or abstracted from a specific human based Framework and System with its assumptions, processes, etc.
For example scientific truths are based and confined to the human-agreed Scientific Framework and System with its Scientific Method, assumptions, peer review etc.
Legal truths are confined to specific Legal Framework and Systems.
Even common sense and conventional truth can be traced to specific Framework and System.
Logical truths are subjected to the Logical Framework and System.
Personal truths are the individual subjective beliefs which is recognized as unreliable.

Thus there is no truth that can stand alone without human intervention and consensus.

The question is how credible are the inferences from the above Framework and Systems.

As for “reality” the “what is” deliberated from a higher human perspective.
Reality is 'all there is" but this is still subjected to human intervention and consensus.
Scientific truth is limited to the Scientific Framework and System and higher level we have Philosophy of Science deliberating on the truth behind what is the Scientific Framework and System itself.
Thus is the philosophy as the encompassing field that deal with reality but then philosophy is still done by humans.
This is where we extend our knowledge to the a priori, i.e. nature not nurture.

Therefore there is nothing that can exists without any association [note not “dependent”] with the human conditions.

The only way that one [ a human nevertheless] can insist reality is independent and there are things independent of the human conditions is by a psychological compulsion to deal with the cognitive dissonance and to soothe the pains of being suspended if one do not come to any conclusion or certainty.

It is very natural for the human mind to be very bias to the idea there are things external to the human conditions, but the truth is one need to resist that, i.e. as Wittgenstein advised,
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent
This statement is not a whim from Wittgenstein but a very heavily reflected philosophical proposition.

Point is, where one speaks of the ultimate, whatever is spoken is ultimately qualified to the human conditions.

I didn’t get this. A few questions: 1) truth exists in minds and in information. Are chairs in minds or (only) information? Is it the experience/perception of the chair that is truth or the chair in itself? Is external reality a kind of hologram? (just to take a stab in the dark) 2) truth is in the minds and in the external content. This content is the chairs physical essence, say, and this creates a kind of resonance with our idea of the chair - each of these a kind of truth? (more of me guessing away)

Now truth is a principle of force. Not force, but a principle of it. It is also information and also inside the mind and outside the mind. Help me here.

And here it seems that truth is causal or the source of qualities.

I think we usually speak about truth in terms of its accuracy. Does it match what it refers to. This could be thought of intrumentally. Like does it give us a useful manuel for using, interacting with, predicting how things will act. Or sometimes in a more static way - does it hold up an accurate image.

My guess is I will understand this much better if you use specific examples of truths of different kinds, so I can follow this.

What are you adding to our knowledge by using true instead of real.

We seek truth, those who do, motivated by truth. (?)

Here I might use the term ‘nature’. Trees have a specific nature. I find the word ‘truth’ here odd. Which is fine. Odd concepts can then offer new insights. But I am not sure yet what you are getting out of using truth rather than other terms.

Instead of chairs, note Russell’s table;

It is obvious Russell acknowledged the common and conventional sense truths, i.e. there is a “real” table out there external to the self.

But then he dug deeper philosophically with reference to the ‘table’ and noted, there is the metaphysical truths of souls, the divine truths from Berkeley.

Then he stated Science tell us the table is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

So which truth is true ultimately and perhaps,
truly and perhaps there is no table at all.

The problem with the majority is they do not reflect philosophically and deeply, thus has the tendency to jump onto what is obvious, i.e. that things exist externally and independently.

The effective and optimal position is not to jump to conclusion and Russell stated;

The truth of reality is, reality is an emergence that rises spontaneously with the human conditions.

Here is a demo of spontaneous emergence model;

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ[/youtube]

One will note the 3D concave mask emerged in spontaneity with human interaction from what is supposedly a convex mask. No matter how many times one blink, as a human one will always perceive a 3D concave mask.

The mask experiment involve the visual senses, but it can happen to the touch senses as well. Thus what you perceive and touch as a solid table is also an emergence but there could be another perspective it is not solid.

It is easy to understand the above when explained.
However the emergence of the table or monitor in front of you is along the same principles and model albeit more complex, difficult to explain and difficult for the majority to grasp.