For materialists, do you believe that truth exists independent of mind? If so, how?

[shunyadragon]

O ... K ...



And which of them can truly tell whether the square of the hypothenuse equals or doesn't equal the sum of squares of sides adjacent to right angle of a rectangular triangle?

Universal truthclaims and adaptation to surroundings are two different types of mental activity. The one doesn't follow from the other.

Even a very good philosopher can be rather ditzy about gestures in everyday life, trip on banana skins and so on. And even a very agile cat, with extremely good hunting skills, doesn't really reason.



When did you last see an ape count to 100?

You are expecting primates to be human and that is an outrageous expectation. Please note, I said the presence of mind, consciousness, will and intelligence are shown to in primates at the primitive level. I will start a thread on the evolution of intelligence in science to save this thread from an off topic journey into Lala Land.

[shunyadragon]

The nature of ultimate reality is called "true" in one sense of the word, namely truth of substance.

There is also truth of mind about substance, "adequation of intellect to the thing".

There is also truthfulness in words about one's mind, "adequation of words to thought".

There being an ultimate reality and there being adequation of words to thought, somehow that could conceivably be there, even if ultimate reality were materialistic.

B u t, if ultimate reality were per se mindless, if highest minds were human ones (or perhaps even superhuman ones, in Raelian & perhaps von Däniken versions of materialism), still depending on an ultimately mindless reality, how does an adequation of mind to exterior thing come about?

The nature of our physical existence and Natural Laws, as the evidence indicates. The evidence remains, that our mind progressively evolved from life forms that lack a mind.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Yeah, I think that P2 ergo C can be rejected. Truth, statements, ideas, propositions, don't necessarily exist sans the existence of the corresponding reality which they are founded upon.




I am of the opinion that mind evolves from out of the reality of existence, not the other way around.

Ok. Statements, Truth, ideas, propositions don't exist independent of reality. I can agree with you here. But what do you mean by reality here? The physical world? Or just a fundamental substance ?(not necessarily physical). From your comment, it seems that you think that x may be defined as "corresponding reality" and hence, truth may simply be defined as physical reality. However, that would mean that the noun, the universe, is truth and anything that is not the universe is not truth. So, for example it would not be true that the stars exist since they are not reality (though they are part of it). If you define truth as being part of the universe (or the whole thing), you still run into problems. A door, for example, would constitute a truth, or a pig may constitute a truth. Neither of which makes any sense whatsoever. Also, would any statement or idea be true, since they all have the property of existing in reality?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Hm. I would probably say that truth is the set of X that corresponds to reality. That's a reframing of P1 which, I think, eliminates the seeming contradiction. Without a mind, that set is empty.

However, I probably wouldn't say 'truth' actually exists even with minds. That would seem to entail an application of realism that I don't accept. The question for me wouldn't be if it's dependent on a mind but if it exists at all.

If Truth is an empty set, then it is true that Truth is an empty set. Thus, there it at least one truth and Truth is not an empty set. Which seems contradictory. So I don't think that Truth being an empty set works as a definition.

I'm not sure if I count or not, then. I'm a substance monist, but it's not technically a materialist view. Maybe that's close enough.

So what kind are you? Neutral monist? Dual aspect?

[JimL]

Ok. Statements, Truth, ideas, propositions don't exist independent of reality. I can agree with you here. But what do you mean by reality here? The physical world? Or just a fundamental substance ?(not necessarily physical). From your comment, it seems that you think that x may be defined as "corresponding reality" and hence, truth may simply be defined as physical reality. However, that would mean that the noun, the universe, is truth and anything that is not the universe is not truth. So, for example it would not be true that the stars exist since they are not reality (though they are part of it). If you define truth as being part of the universe (or the whole thing), you still run into problems. A door, for example, would constitute a truth, or a pig may constitute a truth. Neither of which makes any sense whatsoever. Also, would any statement or idea be true, since they all have the property of existing in reality?

Actually what I opined is that "truth" can be defined as that which in the mind corresponds to the external reality.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Actually what I opined is that "truth" can be defined as that which in the mind corresponds to the external reality.

Ok. Then do you agree that Truth did not exist prior to the existence of the mind?

[seer]

Ok. Then do you agree that Truth did not exist prior to the existence of the mind?

But facts would exist without minds. The existence of the sun would not depend on minds grasping that fact. The propositional truth "the sun exists" is mind dependent. Correct?

[JimL]

Ok. Then do you agree that Truth did not exist prior to the existence of the mind?

No, the reality of the world is what it is, is true, whether there exist a mind able to grasp that reality or not. Truth is simply the reality of existence, and the minds correspondence with that realty.

[Quantum Weirdness]

No, the reality of the world is what it is, is true, whether there exist a mind able to grasp that reality or not. Truth is simply the reality of existence, and the minds correspondence with that realty.

Ok consider this: "Stars exist." Now, stars existed prior to the existence of the mind, according to the materialist world view. Therefore, for this to be true independent of the mind, it must be part of the reality of existence. Therefore, "Stars exist" must really exist (be part of the reality of existence). Now,what is "Stars exist"? Is it something physical? It can't be something platonic for that contradicts materialism.

[Quantum Weirdness]

But facts would exist without minds. The existence of the sun would not depend on minds grasping that fact. The propositional truth "the sun exists" is mind dependent. Correct?

How do facts exist without minds? If they do, then they exist platonically (since a fact isn't something physical). But that contradicts materialism.

[seer]

How do facts exist without minds? If they do, then they exist platonically (since a fact isn't something physical). But that contradicts materialism.

Correct, they would not be called facts, that does takes a mind to formulate. But you agree that the sun would still exist without minds - correct? Unless you are an Idealist.

[JimL]

Ok consider this: "Stars exist." Now, stars existed prior to the existence of the mind, according to the materialist world view. Therefore, for this to be true independent of the mind, it must be part of the reality of existence. Therefore, "Stars exist" must really exist (be part of the reality of existence). Now,what is "Stars exist"? Is it something physical? It can't be something platonic for that contradicts materialism.

Truths about the nature of reality are abstractions, they are not things that have existence in their own right.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Correct, they would not be called facts, that does takes a mind to formulate. But you agree that the sun would still exist without minds - correct? Unless you are an Idealist.

Well, I am an Idealist (Monistic Idealist, to be exact).

[Quantum Weirdness]

Truths about the nature of reality are abstractions, they are not things that have existence in their own right.

So, prior to the mind existing, "Stars exist" does not exist and is consequently not true?

[seer]

Well, I am an Idealist (Monistic Idealist, to be exact).

My mistake, I thought you were a Christian. ; )