The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

James, your points are very philosophically-childish.

I have highlighted Wittgenstein’s ‘Language Games’ and the weakness of language which must be overridden by philosophical deliberations and critical thinking

Note a ‘mile’ is based on ‘feet.’
The original measurement of a ‘foot’ was actually grounded the ‘foot’ of someone or an average reading of a few feet.

The current popular measurements based on the metric system was once based on a standard bar of metal kept in a safe.

So as you can see all measurements of distance are fundamentally dependent on human consensus.

Note the general rule, there is no thing-in-itself [Kant], i.e. no absolute things.

So there is no such thing as a ‘mile-in-itself’ but rather there is only a mile-by-humanselves.

What kind of nonsense is that?

Where is the ‘reality’ that is embedded in a stone [object]?

The point is this;
-truth = facts = real = reality.

What is real must be verifiable and justifiable [rationally].
Truth per se is a statement of facts which must be verified and justified rationally/philosophically.

‘That apple on the table is green’ is true when such a statement of fact is verified and justified rationally with empirical evidences and proofs.
Why we need philosophical rational justifications is because on further philosophical deliberation ‘perhaps there is no apple at all’ note Russell,

Even with a sound basis of “truth = fact = real = reality” one should be humbled enough [because truth is human-made] there is no absolute certainty of what we declare as the highest ‘truth’ which from another perspective could be at best ‘polished conjecture’ [Popper].

Wherever the stone is, is where the reality of the stone is (assuming that it is a “real stone”). It is a tautological issue. If the stone is real, then OBVIOUSLY the reality is in the presence of the stone. #-o

Wrong again.

real => leads to => Reality => leads to => facts => leads to => Truth

Truth is a mental construct derived by observation and deduction of what appears to be real, appears to be Reality.

No. What is real is merely what is real. It needs no justification at all. It is what YOU BELIEVE TO BE REAL that “must be verified and/or justified”. It is the belief that must be justified by comparing it with what is found to be real.

There you go.

Truth is the thoughts or statements, not the reality itself. The thoughts must be verified to ensure that they “align with reality”, are “true to Reality”, properly form a “map of Reality”.

You are using tautology.

You are using IF, i.e. if the stone is real.
But what is meant by ‘real’ stone?

Note Russell again?

According to Russell, perhaps there is no real stone at all.

I wonder whether you understand the principle underlying the question, perhaps there is no real table or stone.

Don’t jump yet!
The stone is real, if you throw a stone at me I will avoid it.
But the stone is not absolutely real in the sense you are claiming it to be real.

What is a real stone is always interdependent with the subject[s] who realize and actualize the stone.

Wrong again.
How can you start with the ‘real’ when you have not known what it is?

How can you align with ‘reality’ before you know ‘what is reality’.
This is Meno’s paradox.

There various phases to understand what is reality?
'What you called ‘align’ with ‘reality’ is actually the testing and reproduction process for example in Science.

First Science established what is reality in accordance its Scientific Framework and System based on an intersubjective consensus basis. This is the Scientific Reality as actualized and realized.
Say the Scientific Reality that is established is, when one burns hydrogen, the result is water.
The alignment with Scientific Reality is thus testing and reproducing this theory to verify and justify such a Scientific truth and reality.

I anticipate most people will think, but there were ‘hydrogen’ burned by ‘oxygen’ before humans existed.
But the point is ‘hydrogen’ oxygen are Scientific based terms which are based on intersubjective consensus are human-based concepts and before is time based, i.e. human intuition [Kantian].
Therefore what is realized as reality, i.e. Scientific, common-sense, etc. are interdependent with human subjects. There is no reality-in-itself [Kantian] that appears to be real. ???

#-o

This is the idea that “reality” is whatever you put a name on. If you don’t put a name on, then it’s not “reality”.

A Realist would say that “reality” is outside of the mind and it doen’t matter if you have named it or not. It doesn’t matter if you have identified it rightly or wrongly or identified it at all. If a stone falls on your head and kills you, then you are still dead whether you saw it or not. If people find your body years later and can’t identify the cause of your death … you’re still dead. If your body is never found … you’re still dead. The “real stone”, “the absolutely real stone” acts in spite of what you think.

Now along come the “anti-philosophers” and they think that thinking is the ‘be all and end all’ of “reality”. :laughing:

Gyahd. Have you no comprehension of the language at all? [-(

It is not the name that counts in the consideration of Reality. What counts in its verifiability and justifications.

If both of us are standing on railway track and see a train coming in our way, I will jump off the track and I presume you will do the same. Both of us are realist.

The difference between you and me is how we philosophize ‘what is reality’ and the type of ‘realist’ view you hold.

Btw, I stated elsewhere there are two types of ‘realists.’ i.e.

  1. Empirical realist
  2. Transcendental realist

I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interacts with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

OTOH, in your case, you are a transcendental realist, i.e. your Reality is an independent external reality beyond your self and reach which you can never really get in touch to actualize it.

It is this transcendental view that compel and seduce you into believing a God that exists externally and independent of yourself. While such a belief is useful psychologically it bring forth terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone theists.

Note Russell again “Perhaps there is no table at all.” So perhaps there is no “stone” at all and I am ‘certain’ there is no absolutely real stone, except a ‘stone’ that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I believe you are not able to get a philosophical handle on this point at all. I suggest you suspend your current belief for a while and reflect deeply on Russell’s point ‘There may not be a table at all.’

A stone in a more realistic perspective is a denser bundle of molecules amidst other looser molecules of earth, etc.
Within common sense a real stone is what is defined and cognized as a stone.
A blind-bat will not see a stone like human or other non-sonar animals see it.
If one view the stone using an electron microscope, then it is just a bundle/cluster of atoms.
There are so many perspectives that one described that stone as real.
So what is the real absolute stone?

I am ‘certain’ there is no absolutely real stone, except a ‘stone’ that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I don’t doubt that. And it makes me think that your philosophy is just a lot of mental gymnastics and talk. When it comes to actually living, things get real. Not surprising … how could it be otherwise?

That kind of process of sticking ideas, people and things into labelled boxes doesn’t really interest me. I’m only interested in practical philosophy … philosophy which is useful, helps me, improves my life.

I believe that there is a real God because it explains some features of the universe which would otherwise be unexplainable. It’s possible that I am wrong but I think that the probability is in my favor. I really don’t lose anything by having this belief.

Perhaps there is no Russell or framework or system or “conditioning”.

Different levels of abstractions … you call them different realities.

What is IT that you are abstracting? You refuse to call IT reality.

That seems to sum it up.

I agree there is a lot of mental gymnastics and very complex ones but these are necessary for humanity’s sake.

The drive to believe in a God is psychological, critically necessary and primarily has significant psychological benefits to the individual [s] as a balm to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential crisis -the angst.
Basically theism as a psychological balm is a very SELFISH thing but there are no effective alternatives for the majority in their present psychological state.

However looking at the big picture in relation to humanity, whilst theism serves primarily* a selfish needs it has its double-edged with its inevitable unavoidable manifestation of terrible evils and violence by SOME [potential pool of billion+] evil prone theists.

The problem with the individual theists is they are driven naturally by SELFISH drives and that blinded them to see themselves as a whole group of theists with its malignant evils that is a threat to humanity -possible extermination of the species by SOME theists.

The theory is thus, no theism = no theistic related evils and violence, but this is not practical until there are effective fool proofs alternative replacements to deal with that inherent existential angst.

So at least at present I am discussing the theory only with the optimism it will be practical in the future.

Framework and System is imperative. But is possible for no framework Russell or even ‘you’ but only within the relevant Framework and System [Y].

‘Abstraction’ is a very limited description.
Take the Scientific Framework and its reality, there is abstraction in Science but the whole process to enabling scientific theories and knowledge very complex.

I understand one can think of ONE REALITY, but that is only in thought and such a ‘reality’ is an impossibility within an empirical-rational basis. There is a psychological basis to think of such an absolute reality just as one can only think of God which is an impossibility.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Prismatic, than are dreamt of in your simple-minded philosophy.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzforrealzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzohah?

To be more clear, the question had to do with whether the TRUTH existed about the mile 500,000 years ago, irrespective to time frame of the statement. Reference to time frame of the observation is irrelevant.

A consistent realist would properly confirm that the measurement 5,280 feet = 1 mile held 500,000 years ago as it does today. But mathematics is useless minus its reference to truth for at least the reason noted in the op, that mathematics is the beautiful language of perfect, immutable truth. Mathematics has no meaning without reference to truth; this is the only thing mathematics is about. If one affirms that mathematics existed 500,000 years ago, one is tacitly admitting that truth did too. If truth existed 500,000 years ago, then truth can’t be mind independent unless some other mind than a human mind existed then. So truth either is not mind independent or it is dependent on some mind other than a human mind.

Truth cannot exist until language exists. Truth is what describes Reality. If there is no one to describe Reality, there is no Truth.

That is true, although has nothing to do with mathematics, rather definition.

Mathematics is logic applied to quantities. Without mind, there is no logic. Without logic, there is no mathematics.

Neither existed 500,000 years ago.

Did you mean to say “mind dependent”? Otherwise, your sentence doesn’t seem to make sense.
But actually Truth certainly is mind-DEpendant, because Truth is language dependent.

I’m not seeing the point.

If truth be language dependent then it is also mind dependent because language is a product of the mind
A distinction should be made between truth which does not have to be known and knowledge which does

Truth is formed of the language by the mind, so yes, it is mind dependent. But also Truth must be known in order to have been formed by a mind (forgiving the infinite monkey theorem).

But comments like this show the superficiality of your thinking my friend. For example, your next comment….

…pretty much trips you up. First, it’s odd that someone who has done deep and extensive research into truth consistently posts links to SEP and Wikipedia. These are fine sources for the amateur like me, but are introductory explanations. Second, you infer the surprisingly thin (for someone of your reported depth of understanding) proposal that unless the view of truth I present is consistent in most or all of its significant points with those in SEP it is not actually about truth at all. This is just an attempt to use standing notions of truth as rules you wish to force on one, as though thinking outside the box somehow leads only to error–as evidenced in the following:

I gently suggest that your reasoning needs considerable further thought to shore up its ramshackle foundations.

Actually, it is not. I draw content from the concepts and ideas of those I find meaningful. You appear to discount Avicenna on the sole basis that he was Muslim [a theist], therefore his metaphysics can’t be true. But this presupposes the unproven proposition that God does not exist. Posting things like this might be why others respond to you the way they do. Food for thought.

  1. Impossible things have no information. Minds can only grasp information; thus any information the mind is able to grasp has passed the first and fundamental test for its possession of existence of some sort.

  2. The evidence of this is to carefully consider the impossibility of a square triangle. The mind can only grasp square and triangle because each of these singly possess information. But beyond this, the mind slams shut when “square triangle” is presented because “square triangle” is an impossibility. Impossibilities possess no information.

  3. The signifier “God” is one of the most—arguably the most—objectively discussed concepts in history. The sheer weight of this evidence flatly denies legitimacy to placing “God” in the realm of impossibilities, as you have so often recklessly done. What remains is to determine what sort of existence the information “God” might be, but that’s a separate discussion, not relevant to the question of God being an impossibility.

Think the above over carefully , Prismatic…when finished you can give me a million thanks.

One of the interesting things to me about the power of prescriptive truth as presented in the op lies in its predictive abilities. For example, using the principles laid out there, one can, with some degree of accuracy, predict how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear. I run into this in discussions with fellow Christians all the time. And there have been many times in my own past I have toed the line and stubbornly defended “truths” I thought were fundamental, only to have them rather painfully eroded over time and replaced by higher truths I fought to keep out of my worldview. The analytical methods that can be drawn from the op might even suitably anticipate forthcoming responses in this thread.

It’s also interesting to me that the principles noted in the op are tied closely to views and practices in various fields of psychology. For example, psychoanalysis is typically aimed at bringing patients to recognize and deal with (prescriptive) truths they don’t want to embrace. In the spiritual mechanics of truth, this has a very strong theoretical correspondence to the gradual restoration of some degree of falsity in the value content of the individual to a true state, suggesting at least some degree of capacity for human means of prescriptive value renovation—something traditionally thought in theological circles to be wholly beyond our abilities.

Does truth have to be formed by a mind? Can not something be true without it being formed by a mind? Truth pertains to
what is true so it is not necessary for it to be known. For it to be known would mean that it was knowledge not just truth

Nothing but language and/or thoughts can be “true” (to reality). What else is there to be true to reality (aka “aligned with reality”)?

Language and thoughts are not the only things that are true about reality. They are how truth is expressed. But reality by
virtue of its existence is already true. Language and thoughts just convey that truth. That is when it becomes knowledge

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

To say that “reality is true” is to say that “reality aligns with reality” … a bit tautologically pointless to express.

Statements and thoughts can be “true to reality”, “aligned with reality”. The word “true” does not apply to reality itself because it would be pointless. Reality is what affects you. Truth might or might not affect you, depending on communications. You might never hear Truth, but you can never escape Reality (Prism’s mind excluded).

Truth is the description, the map, not the terrain.