Is Truth Value Merely an Occurence?

[popeye1945]

Experience is the act of change as we only know transitions, what is experienced is inseparable from the relation of bodies.

You got it! Experience is how energy, frequency and vibrations alter the state of our biology, giving experience as a biological readout of your apparent reality.

Biology is a byproduct of experience as it is a classification made by experience. Biology does not exist outside of experience. To say that it does puts it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

Biology is an energy form sensitive to other forms of energy such as objects. Science tells us that all is energy, but for biology, we experience a world of objects, which are themselves two forms of energy.

[Impenitent]

Last time I checked a rock is conceptual experience, even the senses are reduced to conceptualism by though and memory as what is currently sensed is always the past.

the point is that you have no idea what it is like to be a rock (it is beyond human comprehension)

-Imp

If it is impossible to know what it is to be a rock than how can you speak for whether or not a rock has experience or not?

touche- enjoy being a rock

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

You got it! Experience is how energy, frequency and vibrations alter the state of our biology, giving experience as a biological readout of your apparent reality.

Biology is a byproduct of experience as it is a classification made by experience. Biology does not exist outside of experience. To say that it does puts it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

Biology is an energy form sensitive to other forms of energy such as objects. Science tells us that all is energy, but for biology, we experience a world of objects, which are themselves two forms of energy.

Science is the experience of conceptualization of how reality unfolds with how it empirically unfolds. Science is subject to experience.

[popeye1945]

Biology is a byproduct of experience as it is a classification made by experience. Biology does not exist outside of experience. To say that it does puts it in the realm of experience and a paradox ensues.

Biology is an energy form sensitive to other forms of energy such as objects. Science tells us that all is energy, but for biology, we experience a world of objects, which are themselves two forms of energy.

Science is the experience of conceptualization of how reality unfolds with how it empirically unfolds. Science is subject to experience.

Everything is your subjective experience, relative to the nature of your biology and another reality of energy, frequencies, and vibrations, much of which you do not sense or experience.

[Trajk Logik]

If constructs determine truth values and there is no law as to what construct is determined as the standard then is truth value merely occurence?

Reality is the construct that determines truth - the reality of the rock, the reality of your experience of the rock, the reality of your interaction with the rock, the reality of the rock without you experiencing it (does the Moon exist when you do not look at it?), are all part of reality. You cannot escape the fact that truth is inherently objective. If it were anything else we would not be able to communicate using the rules of the English language (a truth).

Any statement you make that is intended to inform others of some fact of reality (whether the speaker knows the statement to be true or not) is a truth statement. Every statement in this thread is a truth statement as the writers are intending to communicate a fact of reality to the readers of the thread. If you are not communicating a fact of reality, then what use is your statement in the first place, other than to be humorous (but even then humor is only funny when reflects reality to some degree).

[Pistolero]

Truth is a term used as a synonym to perspective.
When a man speaks of 'truth' we means his perspective's superiority.
Only an ill man would use the term to imply absolute knowledge and understanding, i.e., omniscience.

Mortal men are not gods, so when they speak of truth they mean what is more probably so, not absolutely so.

Our religious infections have indoctrinated us into the idea that 'truth' is found in text, representing thousands of years of human knowledge and understanding.
Some men are so sick with existence that they claim a supernatural being has written their texts,, giving them a 'truth' they cannot prove nor justify.
These are the ones being exploited and manipulated by charlatans, preying on human anxieties and insecurities.

I would say that not only is truth not absolute but existence is unknowable, because of chaos and because existence is dynamic, not static...not encompassed within a box with boundaries..
Man can only know and understand part of existence, not its entirely.

[Eodnhoj7]

Biology is an energy form sensitive to other forms of energy such as objects. Science tells us that all is energy, but for biology, we experience a world of objects, which are themselves two forms of energy.

Science is the experience of conceptualization of how reality unfolds with how it empirically unfolds. Science is subject to experience.

Everything is your subjective experience, relative to the nature of your biology and another reality of energy, frequencies, and vibrations, much of which you do not sense or experience.

If that is the case than that is purely your subjective experience and you cannot speak for others.

[Eodnhoj7]

If constructs determine truth values and there is no law as to what construct is determined as the standard then is truth value merely occurence?

Reality is the construct that determines truth - the reality of the rock, the reality of your experience of the rock, the reality of your interaction with the rock, the reality of the rock without you experiencing it (does the Moon exist when you do not look at it?), are all part of reality. You cannot escape the fact that truth is inherently objective. If it were anything else we would not be able to communicate using the rules of the English language (a truth).

Any statement you make that is intended to inform others of some fact of reality (whether the speaker knows the statement to be true or not) is a truth statement. Every statement in this thread is a truth statement as the writers are intending to communicate a fact of reality to the readers of the thread. If you are not communicating a fact of reality, then what use is your statement in the first place, other than to be humorous (but even then humor is only funny when reflects reality to some degree).

If reality is a construct and truth is a construct of that construct than reality is purely the occurence of a loop with a loop as a loop.

Occurence through occurence as an occurence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth is a term used as a synonym to perspective.
When a man speaks of 'truth' we means his perspective's superiority.
Only an ill man would use the term to imply absolute knowledge and understanding, i.e., omniscience.

Mortal men are not gods, so when they speak of truth they mean what is more probably so, not absolutely so.

Our religious infections have indoctrinated us into the idea that 'truth' is found in text, representing thousands of years of human knowledge and understanding.
Some men are so sick with existence that they claim a supernatural being has written their texts,, giving them a 'truth' they cannot prove nor justify.
These are the ones being exploited and manipulated by charlatans, preying on human anxieties and insecurities.

I would say that not only is truth not absolute but existence is unknowable, because of chaos and because existence is dynamic, not static...not encompassed within a box with boundaries..
Man can only know and understand part of existence, not its entirely.

If truth is not absolute and you claim reality is unknowable than by default it is not absolutely unknowable.

[popeye1945]

Truth is an experience, until the experience is proven otherwise. Truth is always true to biology, doing the experiencing, in changing biology, you change its experiences, it's reality.

[popeye1945]

Science is the experience of conceptualization of how reality unfolds with how it empirically unfolds. Science is subject to experience.

Everything is your subjective experience, relative to the nature of your biology and another reality of energy, frequencies, and vibrations, much of which you do not sense or experience.

If that is the case than that is purely your subjective experience and you cannot speak for others.

I speak for biological consciousness; I am not sure about you!!

[godelian]

If constructs determine truth values and there is no law as to what construct is determined as the standard then is truth value merely occurence?

Reality is the construct that determines truth - the reality of the rock, the reality of your experience of the rock, the reality of your interaction with the rock, the reality of the rock without you experiencing it (does the Moon exist when you do not look at it?), are all part of reality. You cannot escape the fact that truth is inherently objective. If it were anything else we would not be able to communicate using the rules of the English language (a truth).

Any statement you make that is intended to inform others of some fact of reality (whether the speaker knows the statement to be true or not) is a truth statement. Every statement in this thread is a truth statement as the writers are intending to communicate a fact of reality to the readers of the thread. If you are not communicating a fact of reality, then what use is your statement in the first place, other than to be humorous (but even then humor is only funny when reflects reality to some degree).

Truth can be about correspondence between a sentence and physical reality, but it can also be about the correspondence between a sentence and abstract Platonic reality. Say that I construct an abstract universe in which a=3, b=4, then the sentence a+b=7 is true because what it says, corresponds to the Platonic reality constructed.

Say that sentence S = "This is a rock". So, S corresponds to physical reality and is therefore true. When we define S2 as "S is in English", then S2 corresponds to the Platonic reality created by sentence S and is therefore true.

A lot of truth is abstract Platonic and not physical.

[Eodnhoj7]

If constructs determine truth values and there is no law as to what construct is determined as the standard then is truth value merely occurence?

Reality is the construct that determines truth - the reality of the rock, the reality of your experience of the rock, the reality of your interaction with the rock, the reality of the rock without you experiencing it (does the Moon exist when you do not look at it?), are all part of reality. You cannot escape the fact that truth is inherently objective. If it were anything else we would not be able to communicate using the rules of the English language (a truth).

Any statement you make that is intended to inform others of some fact of reality (whether the speaker knows the statement to be true or not) is a truth statement. Every statement in this thread is a truth statement as the writers are intending to communicate a fact of reality to the readers of the thread. If you are not communicating a fact of reality, then what use is your statement in the first place, other than to be humorous (but even then humor is only funny when reflects reality to some degree).

Truth can be about correspondence between a sentence and physical reality, but it can also be about the correspondence between a sentence and abstract Platonic reality. Say that I construct an abstract universe in which a=3, b=4, then the sentence a+b=7 is true because what it says, corresponds to the Platonic reality constructed.

Say that sentence S = "This is a rock". So, S corresponds to physical reality and is therefore true. When we define S2 as "S is in English", then S2 corresponds to the Platonic reality created by sentence S and is therefore true.

A lot of truth is abstract Platonic and not physical.

So the line of differentiation between the Platonic and the Empirical (I will use that term given is reflects the basic aristotelian paradigm which existed for...well...quite a while), is what? Is it Platonic or Empirical?

[godelian]

Is it Platonic or Empirical?

If the object can be translated into Spanish, then the object is Platonic.
Can the rock you see be translated into Spanish? No, then it is empirical.
Can "5" be translated into German? Yes, Fünf, then it is Platonic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is it Platonic or Empirical?

If the object can be translated into Spanish, then the object is Platonic.
Can the rock you see be translated into Spanish? No, then it is empirical.
Can "5" be translated into German? Yes, Fünf, then it is Platonic.

So basically if the thing can be translated it is platonic, and yet translation is a transference of meaning. Picking up a rock and chiseling it into a statue is also a transfer of meaning so a rock can be platonic by that standard.

You have no real evidence of platonic truth other than subjective abstractions in your own head. You cannot point to one nor see a perfect circle but in your mind and this makes these truths merely reflections of oneself.

Now to the question you ignored, is the line of differentiation between platonic and empirical truths platonic or empirical?