IMO,

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Factual truth is decided by scientific methods.

Analytic truths are decided by logical methods.

Truth is relative to the system that decides it.

There is no absolute truth because there is no system of decision that is absolute.

No system of decision contains all truths.

To know is to show.

Truth exists iff there are minds.

There are no 'eternal' truths.

What we show when we prove a proposition is its truth.

Aren't there, and haven't there, been truths that no one can show are true? The number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach is either odd or is even, but I have no idea how to show which is true. Have you?

I know I was born. But I don't know how to show it. Maybe by pointing to myself?

The truth that there is a Moon existed long before there ever were minds, since the Moon existed long before minds existed.

It is an eternal truth that it snowed in New York City on December 19, 2009, at 12 noon. It was true a billion years ago, and will be true a billion years from now.

I don't know what some of the other things you say mean. Like, both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Ken,
"Aren't there, and haven't there, been truths that no one can show are true? The number of grains of sand on Wakiki Beach is either odd or is even, but I have no idea how to show which is true. Have you?"

Yes, there are truths that cannot be shown because we don't have a method of decision for them.

Ken,
"The truth that there is a Moon existed long before there ever were minds, since the Moon existed long before minds existed."

It is assumed now, that the moon existed before mind.

When there are no minds, how is truth decided and by whom?

Ken
"It is an eternal truth that it snowed in New York City on December 19, 2009, at 12 noon. It was true a billion years ago, and will be true a billion years from now."

Wrong. It could not have been true at any time before December 19, 2009, at 12 noon.

Future tense statements do not have truth or falsity until they become part of the present. They cannot be decided.

Presumeably there were no minds present a billion years ago, if so how could your claim be decided??

Ken,
"I don't know what some of the other things you say mean. Like, both empirical truth and logical truth apply."

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.
Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Empirical truth is decided by scientific methods.
Logical truth is decided by abstract (mental) methods.
In both cases truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

There is no absolute truth because there is no system of decision that is absolute.

Truth exists iff there are minds.

Things are, no matter if I observe them, you observe them, if they're ever observed, or if they're even capable of being observed. Isn't this true?

IMO,
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

When there are no minds, how is truth decided and by whom?
.

There is a method for decision for the grains of sand. Count them, one by one. But in any case, you said that truth is what can be shown to be the case. And since we cannot show either there are an odd number of grains of sand, or an even number of grains of sand, but one is true, it is not true that truth is what can be shown to be the case.

I think this hinges on the problem of being. What is to be? Is consciousness an essential element of being? Are both consciousness and its object the co-creators of being?

So, how could consciousness be an essential element of being, if something can clearly be without consciousness?

For me it's just a matter of agreeing on how we want to use terms. Still, how is it that something can clearly be without consciousness? If you mean we can infer it and that this inference is justified by our experience, I agree. But "clearly" is a strong word for an inference. No human has ever known being except thru consciousness (I'll venture that.) Even our inference of mind-independent being is the conscious being of a present moment. (And look at this word presence...Husserl and Derrida and Heidegger go on and on about it. What is presence?)

My inference that there is a chair in the next room is not of a conscious being. It is of a chair.

Lincoln retorted, "Wrong. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg".

It doesn't seem to me that consciousness is an essential element of being, but may be an essential element of experiencing being. The sun has been around way before anything consciously observed it, and will be around way after anything consciously observes it. And the sun does exist - it has being, does it not? So, how could consciousness be an essential element of being, if something can clearly be without consciousness?

Calling it a "leg" in the first place is what makes it a "leg." In China in something else. Of course I understand your point, but names are based on consensus.

If we had no consciousness, nothing would exist.

Presumably it (existence) was here, waiting for us.

Lincoln was trying to teach his son that simply changing the name of something, does not make it something else. This is why calling a dog's tail a leg, does not make it a leg. A dog would not now have five legs, simply because we decide to call its tail a leg. And I think you agree with this. This is because tails are different than legs. I could call your chair a car, but you know that that would not make it a car.

And I do not know why you think it would be different in China. In China, they would still be two different things. A leg would not be a tail there, or anywhere else in the world, no matter what the translation of "leg" or "tail" was.

Consensus isn't usually just some arbitrary process. There are usually reasons for why we have consensus for things. Wouldn't you agree that one of the reasons we call chairs chairs and not cars, is because chairs are different than cars? Do you think that because there is consensus for names of referents, that that in some way discredits the consensus, or makes the things we refer to not the things we refer to?

Next you say:



but then you say:



These two statements, in your context, seem contradictory to me. Are they to you, or am I misunderstanding?

As far as "presumably," I was trying to politely see it from what I thought was your angle, that consciousness and being are separate. The position I favor is that raw consciousness is divided into subject and object by the mind (William Jame's nondualism).

Sure a dog has those little things it walks with no matter what we call them. But "leg" is a word, a name. So I think you misunderstood what I meant there. If we all called those little dog-appendages "tails," then they would be tails. Names are based on consensus. I suspect you will agree to this. And sure, consensus has its reasons. Absolutely. I would never suggest otherwise. I think there's a natural selection of memes. I think words tend to have sounds that go well with their meanings. That humans will choose the word they find most satisfying on an emotional and physical level even. Also, I have no grudge against consensus. It's necessary. To begrudge the necessary is the opposite of my policy. At the same, a writer who is not creative is not worth reading. As I fancy myself a writer, I highly value and defend the idiosyncratic. But there can be no figure without ground. We must assimilate the ground before we can judge figure is worth inventing, I think.

I don't see any deep disagreement here. Perhaps only on the definition of being, but I don't claim to own the word. It just has certain associations for me with certain treasured German philosophers. The dictionary is a bit ambiguous on the question as usage is generally ambiguous.

But a tail isn't a word.

"Tail" is a word. Yes, the word "tail" refers to what we call a tail. But "tail" is a word. With or without the quotation marks.

There is a method for decision for the grains of sand. Count them, one by one. But in any case, you said that truth is what can be shown to be the case. And since we cannot show either there are an odd number of grains of sand, or an even number of grains of sand, but one is true, it is not true that truth is what can be shown to be the case.

Wrong. It could not have been true at any time before December 19, 2009, at 12 noon.

Of course the statement was true before it was they case. Are you saying that future contingent statments are not true?


Presumeably there were no minds present a billion years ago, if so how could your claim be decided??

It could not have been decided then, for the reason you gave. But what has that to do with whether or not it was true then? It could not be decided in the Middle Ages that germs caused disease. But it was true that germs caused disease. Deciding that something is true has nothing to do with whether it is true.

Empirical and logical truth apply to what?

Truth, language and logic/mathematics etc., are constructions of mind not of the world.

I'm curious about this, though. Our ability to know the truth is clearly dependent on our minds, but how is it that truth exists iff there are minds? For doesn't truth exist no matter if any minds are present, or exist at all? Things are, no matter if I observe them, you observe them, if they're ever observed, or if they're even capable of being observed. Isn't this true?