Truth is merciless it cares not what you think, it just is what it is regardless of you. At least that is my understanding, anything else I do not call truth on principle, because what use is the word truth if it means something else? We have words knowledge, belief and opinion that are perfectly sufficient for describing the other epistemological subjects, so why Hijack the word truth like this?

True: Impossible to be False
False: Impossible to be True

Why would you think that it is impossible for a true statement to be false, or that it is impossible for a false statement to be true.

It is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but it is certainly possible that it is false. It is possible that in the last half hour, the Ecuadorean Assembly passed a measure which moved the capital for Quito to the second city of Ecuador, Guyaquil. It did not happen, But it was possible. And so, although it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, it is possible that it is false. And, of course, it is false that Guyaquil is the capital of Ecuador, but it is possible that it is true. For the same reason I gave above to show that it is possible that it is false that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. It is possible for a true statement to be false if the negation of that statement is logically possible. What is not a contradiction is logically possible.

as we get deeper and deeper confused as to what "do not disturb" really means.

William

But does not this discussion of something being true or not at a certain time, depend upon a particular definition of truth (that it is eternally true, absolutely true, or what have you). If one accepts THIS definition as binding, true, or appropriate, then some conclusions follow. But what if this definition were not appropriate in this, and like, examples?

If it is True that Quito is the capital of Ecuador and you are certain of this, then no, it is not possible for it to be false, because that would contradict Leibniz's law surely, that two things with alternate properties are identical! The reason you say it is possible to be false is that you are not certain that it is genuinely true. As far as I can tell, probability is a predictive system, and thus only applies to future events, in this case, confirmation that Quito is the capital, until you find out it is open to possibility i.e. alternative prediction. Once something is or has been, it either is or is not, was or was not, and thus either has a probability of 1 or 0. So if something "is", it can't "not be", for the two meanings are opposites, they have different properties, thus cannot be identical.

Certainty, knowledge and belief all revolve around our understand of a fact, which may be accurate or not depending on how resourceful and/or observant we are...but they have no impact on the reality of these facts that we think we understand, that are what they are regardless of our thoughts on them.

I think people confuse probability and chance. Random implies that an event has no cause, but probability is merely a method of predicting outcomes that we don't yet understand or know what they will be. The two often coincide of course but they are not the same thing. Just because I assign a 50/50 chance of the coin landing doesn't actually mean that nothing causes it to go one way or the other, it is confusing I know, but if there are a set of causes that balance it to land on heads, then those causes being so, it was always going to land on heads. The reason I assinged a probability of 50/50 was that all the causes where not known to me, so as far as my knowledge of the future was concerned it could have gone either way, but again, that doesn't mean that it wasn't always going to be heads. Maybe I've gotten off topic? I'll stop now...

But answering your post, you say the statement that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is "true", IF it is Really true, then how can it be false? Really? Think about it. Your knowledge or ignorance over it's truth value doesn't have affect the reality of it. It is a kind of solipsistic idea in fact to suggest that whole of reality will revolve around what I know or don't know!

But does not this discussion of something being true or not at a certain time, depend upon a particular definition of truth (that it is eternally true, absolutely true, or what have you). If one accepts THIS definition as binding, true, or appropriate, then some conclusions follow. But what if this definition were not appropriate in this, and like, examples?

I tend to agree........
The universe that my consciousness is involved with is one of interactions of ..... waves. Of course, we now have to imagine what are these waves and where are they coming from. Other consciousnesses?
Rich

Great observation.

That's an observation?

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 01:21 PM ----------

richrf;75913 wrote:

Hi,

I guess you have to ask yourself, how will you find the Truth? If you can, without using your own subjective mind (consciousness), then you may be able to find an independent truth. But the moment you use your mind, you may start introducing your own experiences, skills, knowledge, perspective, biases, senses, which may be different from someone else's.

Can you disentangle yourself from the event of knowing? I have not found a way, and I believe it is inherent the universe. Just like a hologram relies on light to illuminate and a mind (consciousness) to observe.

The concepts of right, wrong, true, false, may just be an expedient educational device to train people to live in a culture/society. These notions may come under duress in individual situations. Observe, how people will debate the notion of Truth, and observe the many different perspectives. You have articulated yours. I have articulated mine. There are many, many more to come. Which viewpoint is true?

Rich

Absolutely. It is true that it is pouring outside, is not a truth. It is just an expedient educational device. If it were not true that it is pouring, what would how would we be educating anyone by telling them it is pouring?

in death goes through such an overhaul that will slow him down so he can go from a volkswagan to a mazda for instance.

All within a structure that allows ease of advancement without that abuse of going too fast inevitably will lead to;

The mind in this relaxed state, taps into the universal mind that is connected to us all that will protect, guide and maintain that pace amid the "chaos".

Yes, Rich; in my opinion there are "other consciousnesses' some 6 and 1/2 billion of them and they will connect once we align with that "missing link".

Absolutely. It is true that it is pouring outside, is not a truth. It is just an expedient educational device. If it were not true that it is pouring, what would how would we be educating anyone by telling them it is pouring?

Yes. The way I look at it is a chance for a fresh start.

Yes, I think that the physical body has limits and when they are exceeded in either direction, it does not function well. For example, I can't believe that people run marathons. The first person to run a marathon died! Are we trying to replicate this feat?

In any case, we do things and then we die. Each person does as he/she sees fit. Now, if there is a transcendental soul, then we have a chance to a fresh start with the skills and knowledge that we learned. This is what it sometimes referred to as inherited characteristics, innate knowledge, or instincts, - which are different from person to person (soul to soul) depending upon what they have learned.

I would agree. It does seem that we become more aware as navigators in a relaxed state.

And maybe more. It is difficult for me to say for sure where individual consciousness begins and ends. :detective:

Rich
William

What makes you think that whether something is true has anything to do with whether you, or anyone, believes it is true?

Because I cannot see how one can disentangle the mind (consciousness) from the equation.

You see something that looks like rain.
You feel something that looks like rain.
You hear something that looks looks like rain.
You may even smell something that feels like rain.

So based upon your senses (your nervous system) your mind (consciousness) suggests to itself that this is something called rain. All o your senses are based upon the interaction of elementary particle/waves.

You can conclude as such, if you wish and you trust your senses and your mind enough. The mind appears to see things differently under different circumstances, e.g. sleeping, hallucinations, dementia, etc.

The word rain is a symbol that allows you (your mind) to communicate this sense within yourself that it raining. You can use different means to communicate this sense to someone else, and that person's mind (consciousness) will draw some conclusion.

In other words, the mind is totally entangled in every observation/event. It cannot be separated as far as I can tell. Therefore, what may be true in your mind may not be true in mine. They are different.

Rich

But whether it rains or not has nothing whatever to do with whether you are conscious of its raining, or even whether you are conscious, or even whether you exist.

How did you arrive at this? Did you use your mind?

Rich

Rich and Ken,
Perhaps the quibbling we are experiencing here, and pardon me for using that word, is maybe we can find a "difference" that is indeed that we can state as a "all conclusive fact" and what is truth. I understand what Ken is saying and to the extreme Rich is carrying it. It's when those "facts" are not all conclusive, we run into trouble, like evolution for instance, or the big bang.

Now in observing the term "pouring" as it relates to "just raining heavily" is IMO not accurate in that pouring would mean to me the same a "pouring water out of a glass", and it that respect it would not be true. Rain does not pour out of clouds. Yet most will conclude yes, it is pouring provided they speak the same language and use such expletives and are familiar with them. What is true, IMO is that ALL can understand without the need to "over-emphasize" it as it aligns harmonically with their own understanding. LIke "telling it like it actually is".

We have the uncanny talent of "twisting perceived truths" that will indeed make them "appear" as "universal truths" which I feel are two very different paradigms. One we can survive with that temporarily eases our mind, but if it is wrong, it will come to pass as we evidence what that "fabricated truth" reaps. Such as "abortion" for instance. We fabricated the idea that is was true that a woman had the right to destroy her unborn child. Yet, when we observe all the ramifications of that, it is apparent it was the wrong thing to do when we observe the reality that has IMO, damaged the universal man/woman/child paradigm that is necessary for life to exist.

So, I think, it is important to bring language down to the lowest common denominator so all can understand it as we travel forward. We have 'fabricated' a language that excuses all of our wrongs and that just ain't gonna git it.

So in my opinion, the statement "it's pouring rain outside" can be interpreted as un-true to those who do not understand the language. If we are to ever communicate this must be our first objective; to clean up our "manners" in how we communicate that will affect the manner in which we communicate.

I realize this amounts to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer, but I thought it appropriate. If what can be communicated as fact that which is perceived as fact to all, then it can be a truth until it is found to need some "altering" at which time all will agree such alterations are appropriate which is called positive, harmonic, collective effererscence, which the opposite is called mass hysteria which is close to what the chaos in the world is heading toward. Though I would like to think communication such as we are having now are inroads to repairing that "group think tank". IMMHO. :a-ok:

William

Rich and Ken,
Perhaps the quibbling we are experiencing here, and pardon me for using that word, is maybe we can find a "difference" that is indeed that we can state as a "all conclusive fact" and what is truth.