No, it's not. It's like saying euphoria is the extreme of happiness. — John Harris

Is that the truth? Or is that fact?

So how would you define truth?

If you could travel back in time and ask for the definition of "truth" you would probably get different answers in different historical periods.

In other words, it is not something concrete and external like rain. It is a concept that depends on cultural context for meaning and application.

At least that is the way that I see it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I like the way this dude puts it

Come join the "Post-Truth discussion" and look at the last page, currently having a discussion on this very thing

I'm going to go another step and say that truth is present when fact is not sufficient.

I like what you're saying here

the Holocaust happened. That is the Truth, and those denying it are making untruthful statements. — John Harris

however, would you agree that for someone in China during the Holocaust, their truth is that they are not experiencing the Holocaust, however, the fact is that there is a holocaust going on. Fact does not change, however, my truth is that because I look a certain way, I am treated a certain way. You may look different and are therefore treated differently, but when we come together and tell the stories about how we are treated by the same individual, our truths are different, I would closely relate truth to the experience, but I'm not saying that I am relating them or saying that they are the same thing.

If that is the case, then you can't fight fact with truth, but you can fight truth with fact. I would say that this argument is much like my argument about the brain/mind. The mind rests inside the brain, holding your character, emotions etc. You can't hurt the physical brain through the mind, but you can hurt the mind through the physical brain.

Suppose I tell you my height is 6 ft tall.
How is that fact just an interpretation? — m-theory

Because you have to interpret what 6 foots means, you have to interpret what the visual image of you are.

There is observable phenomena, and the repeatability + logic = it's fact. — intrapersona

If you can't know that there is or is not objective truth then you can't claim that something is or is not objectively true.

You can only say that you don't know. — m-theory

would you agree with me that truth and fact lie parallel on the same spectrum?

Revised below

Would you agree that Truth is relative to the beholder? An oppressor has a different truth than the oppressed, yet a truth they hold nonetheless. The oppressor may believe that he is doing all good, and the oppressed may believe that they are being treated unfairly

So, why respect the dead when there's nothing good achieved in dying? — TheMadFool

But what if there is something good in dying?
There are many ways people die, including accidents, old age, and disease. To name a few. some of these ways are fast, others are slow, some are painless, some agonizing. Can you say that for someone who has cancer, and is suffering for years, their passing away is an end to their agony? After death, they know nothing, so they are finally freed from their pain. However, it is us, the survivors that suffer from the loss of a family member, or friend. It is the survivors that must respect them, and live on to remember them for who they were. It is up to us, those alive, to pass on their legacy, and it is up to us, the ones who didn't go with the dead, to respect the memory of them, and to continue to love the memories that they have with that person.
Everyone dies, so why does everyone make such a big deal out of the dead?

There is no logical reason to honour a dead body — charleton

I would disagree with you in that dead bodies, throughout time have a special meaning, and symbolize many different spiritual, physical, and emotional constructs. In the case of certain religions, dead bodies alone have symbolic meaning and are the basis of that religion. At the same time, the Catholics put a big emphasis on your life and who you were. The worship of saints, and other important persons, not because of their death, but because of who they were.
So, yes, while there is no logical reason to honor a dead body, there is also no logical reason to eat breakfast foods at breakfast time, lunch foods at lunch time, and dinner foods at dinner time, it is just something that is done because of the reverence that we give the action

Probably for the best

Thank you 'multiple symbols that I don't have on my keyboard'

Even in a morgue with many dead bodies, or in a cadaver lab, with many dead people, there is still much respect that surrounds the room, and the people, dead or alive in it.

Well, the question you asked is the basis of my question. Why do we respect the dead? Is it because of the memories we have of them, or because of the fact that they are dead bodies?

Creates and uses what?
In my original "essay" I was simply stating about the physical connections of the brain, not the complexity of the mind, which in itself, is another monster alltogether

I am going to add on my point, as well as yours, because your statement above helped me think through this.
Meditation teaches you to be aware of the multi dimensions of the brain, it is the silencing of the rational brain, which we so loudly acknowledge in this society. Because it is in control and makes irrational decisions, by shutting down the rational brain you give space for the other aspects of the brain: realities, emotions, and feelings. Stick a knife in the brain and you have no more awareness, no more thought.
Meditation brings awareness to the body, it comes from your mind. Sure, your brain reaches out to your body and makes connections and further helps interpret those connections to your being.
Whether the brain extends throughout the body and beyond, it is the brain the allows, controls, and navigates all the data you receive as well as the "beyond" that you are going to. (This is especially seen in the spiritual realm of the brain I mentioned. I do not however believe that the brain is reduced to intellect, it is not just one function. I concur with you that the brain is just a tool, it just happens to be the tool that interprets you who you are. In saying that I am stating that the brain is the navigator of all the realities you are becoming aware of. Unlike modern humanistic theories that revolve around intellectualism, I, like you, see the brain as as a multi-functioning tool whether it be through the arts, meditation, or other, as relevant and or equal interpreters of reality. However it is the physical brain that interprets this, not an external source.

When you say

The source is the thousands of creative minds that produce the programming. — Rich

are you saying that we are made up of all that is around us? Or that there is another dimention in which are realities lie? For instance, in your exlpanation of a TV, there is a central database where the information is sent to your TV. In the case of the brain, what is the database that is sending our vast emotional "programming"?

Thank you phil, I appreciate and recognize your explanation, and perhaps because of the late night, or the fact that I was so excited to get this posted, I hadn't realized that I used a word, not fitting my needs. I have changed that in my short essay and have replaced it with a more fitting explanation

Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life — Anonymys

Thank you again.
-A

I suppose I should have been more clear, but I was just generalizing. When I stated " Some may call it identity, others may call it your inner being." I was simply saying that your identity is something that is there when others are not, who you truely are, or, your inner self. Not just how you appear to be.

But since you are a prestigious member of the community, I shall leave it at that as to not waste your precious time.