Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
    So, prior to the mind existing, "Stars exist" does not exist and is consequently not true?
    No, truth is not a thing that exists, its an abstraction, an expression of the mind regarding the characteristic nature of the concrete reality. Stars exist, they are what they are, and we call what they are the truth.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      No, truth is not a thing that exists, its an abstraction, an expression of the mind regarding the characteristic nature of the concrete reality. Stars exist, they are what they are, and we call what they are the truth.
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      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.
      The first statement defines Truth in terms of mind (i.e. Truth, whether it's a thing or not, requires that a mind exist, by definition), the second says that there is something that is true whether or not the mind exists (i.e. Truth, whether it's a thing or not, exists independent of mind).
      Which one is correct?
      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
      Sir James Jeans

      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
      Sir Isaac Newton

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        As Feynman said – “nature cannot be fooled” meaning that nature is truth. The human mind is the dynamics of a natural physical object but the dynamics have degrees of freedom that the physical entity does not have (like the difference between music and a musical instrument) and therefore mind is independent of truth. Consequently, as everyone knows, a mind can be attracted to false ideas and not know that they are false.
        If nature is Truth, then can statements be true?
        -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
        Sir James Jeans

        -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
        Sir Isaac Newton

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
          The first statement defines Truth in terms of mind (i.e. Truth, whether it's a thing or not, requires that a mind exist, by definition), the second says that there is something that is true whether or not the mind exists (i.e. Truth, whether it's a thing or not, exists independent of mind).
          Which one is correct?
          I go for the second one.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
            If nature is Truth, then can statements be true?
            Possibly, but not always, and sometimes temporally.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
              The first statement defines Truth in terms of mind (i.e. Truth, whether it's a thing or not, requires that a mind exist, by definition), the second says that there is something that is true whether or not the mind exists (i.e. Truth, whether it's a thing or not, exists independent of mind).
              Which one is correct?
              I don't think you are getting my point, truth isn't a thing in itself, isn't something that has existence, it is just the minds correct interpretation of the reality it percieves.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                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.
                I think this is on the contrary very on topic.

                As you said yourself, expecting an ape to grasp mathematical truth is outrageous.

                So what exact proposition of "truth value" do you suppose apes can have?

                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                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.
                On your view, the mind depends on physical existence and Natural Laws. How then exactly could it get a grip on any such thing as evidence?
                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  I think this is on the contrary very on topic.

                  As you said yourself, expecting an ape to grasp mathematical truth is outrageous.

                  So what exact proposition of "truth value" do you suppose apes can have?



                  On your view, the mind depends on physical existence and Natural Laws. How then exactly could it get a grip on any such thing as evidence?
                  Actually no, it is not on topic. Take a look at the topic. You remain under the assumption that primates must think like humans. Minds of primates and other animals need not 'get a grip on any such thing as evidence' to have minds and consciousness.

                  This will end the discussion on this topic in this thread for my part. I am working on proposing another thread for a discussion more on topic concerning the evolution of the mind consciousness and will.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Minds of primates and other animals need not 'get a grip on any such thing as evidence' to have minds and consciousness.
                    This is the precise reason why evolving consciousness does not explain why we do have grips on such things as evidence - or morality.

                    If you open a new thread, don't forget to make language evolving from non-human ancestry without it part of the thread.
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      No, truth is not a thing that exists, its an abstraction, an expression of the mind regarding the characteristic nature of the concrete reality. Stars exist, they are what they are, and we call what they are the truth.
                      No, truth [from the human perspective] is not a thing that exists, its an abstraction, an expression of the mind regarding the characteristic nature of the concrete reality. Stars exist, they are what they are, and we call what they are the [observed facts of the nature of our existence not "truth" as such].

                      In terms of "truth" the nature of our physical existence is considered uniform and predicable, and determined by the ultimate "truth" of Natural Laws.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        I don't think you are getting my point, truth isn't a thing in itself, isn't something that has existence, it is just the minds correct interpretation of the reality it percieves.
                        Are you making a distinction between Truth and what is true?
                        -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                        Sir James Jeans

                        -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                        Sir Isaac Newton

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          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 I follow. "It is true that Truth is an empty set" is a statement. It would require a mind. You couldn't make any statement about Truth sans a mind, so there's not a point at which Truth is an empty set that includes a statement about itself.

                          That said, I would stick to the (imo) more salient point that 'truth' doesn't actually exist in the first place. It works pretty well as a category, but that doesn't make it any more real than kingdoms or phyla. They're just groupings we use.


                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          So what kind are you? Neutral monist? Dual aspect?
                          Neutral monist.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            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?
                            That's what I would say. It's a map vs territory thing. Facts are effectively claims about the map. The map is mind-dependent. The territory is not.

                            It's really messy since literally everything we say is a proposition, even when we're claiming that the proposition matches reality. A claim of 'fact' isn't so much a claim about the territory itself (though it's presented as such) but a statement which conveys the strength of our belief in the claim.

                            All we ever have is a map. The map doesn't affect the territory. We just feel really confident sometimes about what the territory looks like.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              I'm not sure I follow. "It is true that Truth is an empty set" is a statement. It would require a mind. You couldn't make any statement about Truth sans a mind, so there's not a point at which Truth is an empty set that includes a statement about itself.

                              That said, I would stick to the (imo) more salient point that 'truth' doesn't actually exist in the first place. It works pretty well as a category, but that doesn't make it any more real than kingdoms or phyla. They're just groupings we use.
                              But if you claim that Truth was an empty set, then you're saying that it was true that truth existed as an empty set (it's implicit in the statement). Also, if Truth is just a category and does not exist, then there was nothing true about anything before consciousness came to be. So, for example, it was not true that consciousness would eventually exist.
                              -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                              Sir James Jeans

                              -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                              Sir Isaac Newton

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                                But if you claim that Truth was an empty set, then you're saying that it was true that truth existed as an empty set (it's implicit in the statement). Also, if Truth is just a category and does not exist, then there was nothing true about anything before consciousness came to be. So, for example, it was not true that consciousness would eventually exist.
                                What is missing here the possible, and most likely, is the difference here from 'truth' and what is true from the fallible human perspective, and what may be 'True' or 'Truth' for an ultimate absolute perspective.

                                Question: Are fallible humans able to comprehend 'Absolute Truth,' or what is 'Absolutely True' from the human perspective?

                                I would consider the proposition the 'Truth is an empty set' is the relative truth claim from the human perspective. I believe that an 'ultimate absolute truth set' does exist. If God exists than the 'ultimate absolute truth set' exists with God. If God does not exist than it exists with the ultimate nature of Natural Law and the nature of our physical existence.

                                Yes, from the fallible humans perspective there are true objective facts (ie the sun exists.), and relative concepts of truth, which exist, but as described before as the 'mind being map dependent ( relative truth),' but the mind does not affect the the territory (Absolute Truth)' this exists from the human perspective. You cannot logically claim that observed 'true objective facts' is the same perspective of Absolute Truth claims of the existence of a 'Mind' some call God.

                                It would be fallacious to claim that the human perspective must be able to reflect absolute Truth to be considered True and and not reflect a relative truth, concerning the nature of our existence. That includes all belief, assertions, propositions, assumptions and claims on Tweb.

                                The possibility of a fallacy of 'Truth' claims is described in the following.

                                Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9/Is_it_an_absolute_truth_and_we_can_not_know_absolute_truths


                                It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask. "Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?" Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept, when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly, truth, or whatever.

                                The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position. Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                There is no certainty in Absolute Truth claims from the human perspective.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-03-2016, 06:40 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X