Tazz10m

I don't agree. Truth is a result of fact. No fact, no truth. No truth, no perception/cognition. Perception/cognition is just that, perception/cognition. Truth does not need perception/cognition in order to result from a fact. Truth may be found/understood through perception/cognition, but if the fact already exsists, the truth of that fact, (the fact that the fact is already a fact is truth) exsists in the fact that the fact already exsists. The truth about a particular fact may be intrinsic to one and extrinsic to another, but that is more a function/result of one or the others level of belief/understanding about that particular fact. Rather, perception/cognition are a result of truth.

No trick about it. Simple to some, not so simple to others.

John Page

If facts are stored by one's mind, and truth is derived from the facts, how can truth not be specific to one's mind?

If a statement can be true for me and false for you is this not the result of a diffeence between your "truth" and my "truth"?

Are you proposing that there is such a thing as the "absolute truth" external to the mind?

Cheers, John

Tazz10m

Of course there is "absolute truth".

Thoughts and memories are stored in the brain, programs, are stored in the brain... and, theoretically, in the mind, of our "selves" (as possibly, when we die, our memories go with us, but our physical brains do not).

Beliefs are specific to one or anothers mind. "Truth" is specific to the facts. The fact we exsist, in whatever form, is truth. What we think about that is "belief".

It's a fact we get confused, and that is true, but yet only part of the truth.

The fact that that is true, is absolute, and so absolute truth is shown to exsist.

yguy

Were it not so, delusion would be truth, would it not?

Or look at it this way: if the statement, "There is no absolute truth outside the mind" is true, then it is true that there is no absolute truth outside the mind. The blatant internal contradiction being unacceptable, we are forced to conclude the statement is false, it would appear.

yguy

That facts are stored by one's mind doesn't mean they are at all dependent on one's mind.

What would be an example of a statement that is true for you but not me?

John Page

It is thus that you believe! Your truths may be absolute to you, but are relative to others.

Cheers, John

John Page

Here:
This is not true for me. Facts are mental entities.

yguy

Here we have a semantics problem. If every mind in the universe should perish today, the earth would still revolve around the sun; therefore, it would be true that the earth revolves around the sun. I would call that truth a fact. What else could it be called?

John Page

If the earth was destroyed at the same time as the minds, your proposition would be false.
A supposition.

A truth is a mental entity and a fact is a mental entity. A fact is something that is accepted by a mind to be true about something else.

Cheers, John

yguy

Obviously, but I find qualifying every statement so as to make it bullet-proof a tedious waste of time.

The truth that the Earth would continue to revolve around the Sun if there were no sentient beings to perceive it is better called a supposition than a fact? Just who would be there to do the supposing?