i'll take that as no response.

Muddle means unnecessarily confusing. What is experiencing something as true? Specifically, what does experiencing a statement to be true look like, and/or mean - because that is the focus of the thread and what you responded to?

Really?

If we could all know the truth, there would be no arguments or discussions about it. The problem is we all have single narrow points of view. We are not all knowing. We each gather and process information individually. No single entity can know it all, or know the truth. By "truth" I mean the whole of it. We can only know small parts of it. We can only 'know' and "think we know.'

(Example from an episode of series "Lie to Me.")

"There is a bomb in the truck." <------Is the statement.

The man in the truck thought/believed there was a bomb in the truck.
The FBI also thought/believed there was a bomb in the truck.

There was a small chance that there was not a bomb in the truck.

Either there was a bomb in the truck or there was not.

The only guy who knew for sure was dead.

Shall the FBI blow up the bomb and kill the man (who is an innocent victim whose wife is being held hostage) to save lives?

It depends if the statement is true.

What would it take for the statement to be true?

The statement is true if and only if there is a bomb in the truck.

The truth was, there was not a bomb in the truck. Deception expert ascertained that there was no bomb in the truck and saved the day and saved the innocent man. (But he told everyone to clear the area just in case he was wrong.)

There was no bomb in the truck.

(Its a great t.v. series called "Lie to me" about human deception experts. I watched it on Netflix. )

a statement alone about someone's experience is true only to that person. the statement is not true to the person who listens to the statement. he might conclude that the statement is credible but that does not make in in fact a true statement. to think it true one would require faith that the person's statement is truthful.

that i experienced someone making the statement means that my truth is that the statement was made to me but not that the statement itself is true.

homerun, jeannie!!! ya got good wood on that hanging curve. it's outta the park!!! if we all could agree on the truth we wouldn't need laws.

Thanks jrbogie.

I think everyone knows that we can imagine that truth exists but we, as individuals, can't know truth.

So "truth" is hypothetical in relation to human consciousness. It undoubtedly exists, but an individual does not have access to the whole truth. Only parts of it.

If a single individual had more access to truth than average, he or she would have an advantage over others.

If a single individual instantly knew the truth of something, they would have enormous power.

I recently became interested in deception training and face reading and I'm taking a course in that. I use it in conjunction with doing tarot card readings. You can instantly know what a person is feeling by looking at their face. You can also determine a lot about their personality by evaluating their face or just by looking at a picture of them.

Understanding what truth is and how it works does not require omniscience.

My cup is on the table.

That statement is true(or not) to everyone. It may not be believed by everyone. But whether or not it is true is in no way contingent upon everyone's agreement. It is true if and only if my cup is on the table.

Knowing "truth" as a whole does require omniscience.

You think you understand truth when you find a definition of it that satisfies you. You understand what the term "truth" represents.

I agree. (Nobody said it was.)

And I think you know that Jrboogie is talking about something else. He is talking about personal experience and belief. He is talking about personal judgement from experience.

You two need to realize that you are on a different page and are not talking about the same thing.

Creative is talking about actual truth and Jrboggie is talking about personal experience and belief. Jrboogie is talking about determining truth from experience.

Is true and is believed to be true are two distinctly different notions, there can be no doubt.

Personal judgment about experience does not equate to being true. It equates to being believed to be true.

Agreed.

"Truthiness!" - Stephen Colbert

OK Creative, - we seem to continue getting STUCK at this junction, can we get past it?

Of course it makes sense that the statement cannot be true unless the condition exists that make it true. In language you have made the condition true with the IFF. So what's next step in you thought process here?

There is no next step.

Ok Di, let's move the conversation in a sensible direction regarding the universally human instantiation of true belief. When we are young children, we are actively believing that things are here and there, things are everywhere. These things interact and that is the basis for thought content; We think about the things that are happening. Believing that things are here and there and everywhere is required in order to form complex thought/belief about these events. We begin to identify things and ourselves. The accumulation of belief begins.

--

How we use this presupposition of truth/reality in order to form more and more complex belief is what interests me, and surely you'll agree that that is one aspect of human life that beckons our attention. We know that all thought/belief necessarily presupposes truth as correspondence; Making correlations between external objects of perception and/or ourselves is an autonomous process and has the necessary supposition of truth and external reality for it's glue. We think about things that we experience. That is the beginning of simple belief. The simple combine to produce complex, and then again with compound-complex, etc. To the best of our knowledge, there are certain categories of thought that we all share. Categories of thought are not products of thought/belief and/or knowledge, rather they are are necessary for the formation thereof. THAT is crucial to grasp. Thought/belief begins with the necessary presupposition of truth. We believe that things are around us and happening.

We know that truth is not contingent upon thought/belief for anything more than it's being put to autonomous use as the single thread which ties all belief together.

--

From the previously agreed upon conclusion that truth cannot being subject to the mind for it's active ingredients we can know some other things. Surely we'll all agree here.

Truth is the necessary basis for semantics.

If a listener knows what it would take for a statement to be true, then s/he knows what the statement means, and vice-versa.