I would say if you can't know there is no truth in world x — m-theory

But no one was saying we can't know this (in world y)

You are claiming it is neither true or false that there is no truth in world x.
As a consequence it is then neither true or false that truth is exclusively mind dependent.
If you can't know the truth about whether there are truths or not truths in some world (x,y, it doesn't matter), then you can't know the truth of your claim either.

Well that is not entirely true, as you can see the truth of your claim still depends on world x, witch means truth is world dependent as well as mind dependent.

But I will concede anyway and give the benefit of the doubt that it just can't be known.

To make this clearer, let's restate this as being about judgments:

You are claiming it is neither true or false that there is no truth in world x. — m-theory

In other words, there are no judgments in world x.

As a consequence it is then neither true or false that truth is exclusively mind dependent. — m-theory

So this would be saying that (in world x?) there are no judgments that judgments are exclusively mind-dependent. That's a fact of world x as a fortiori, there are no judgments in world x.

If you can't know the truth about whether there are truths or not truths in some world (x,y, it doesn't matter) , then you can't know the truth of your claim either. — m-theory

But it does matter what world we're talking about making judgments from. We can make judgments from worlds where there are persons with minds that judge. We can't make judgments from worlds where there are not persons with minds that judge. So I'm not sure why you'd say the world we're talking about being located in doesn't matter. We're located in a world where we can make judgments and where we can know things, including making judgements about and knowing about worlds where there are no creatures to make judgments and to know things.

Well that is not entirely true, as you can see the truth of your claim still depends on world x, witch means truth is world dependent as well as mind dependent. — m-theory

Ah--here is yet another confusion to clear up. When. I say something about truth being x-dependent, I'm talking about where truth obtains ontologically, what it's an ontological phenomenon of. I'm not saying something like, "People do not make judgments about the non-mental world." I'm saying that truths are a mental phenomenon. Namely, it's a judgment.

In other words, there are no judgments in world x. — Terrapin Station

That depends on world x.
So judgments depend on minds, and worlds.
Which contradicts the notion that judgement depend exclusively on minds.

But it does matter what world we're talking about making judgments from. We can make judgments from worlds where there are persons with minds that judge. We can't make judgments from worlds where there are not persons with minds that judge. So I'm not sure why you'd say the world we're talking about being located in doesn't matter. We're located in a world where we can make judgments and where we can know things, including making judgements about and knowing about worlds where there are no creatures to make judgments and to know things. — Terrapin Station

Whether there are judgments in world x or not judgments in world x, depends on the facts about world x, not the judgments of world y.

Ah--here is yet another confusion to clear up. When. I say something about truth being x-dependent, I'm talking about where truth obtains ontologically, what it's an ontological phenomenon of. I'm not saying something like, "People do not make judgments about the non-mental world." I'm saying that truths are a mental phenomenon. Namely, it's a judgment. — Terrapin Station

That is fine, you can believe what you like.
I have no issue with you believing that truths are exclusively mind dependent, but we can demonstrate that the truth of claims are not exclusively mind dependent, so you don't get to claim that what you believe applies to any world.

That depends on world x. — m-theory

Yes, of course, and we posited that in world x there are no minds. So are there judgments in world x?

If there are no judgments in world x because there are no minds in world x, that means there is truth in world x even though there are no minds or judgments in world x.
Which means existence of minds, truths, and judgments depends on world x, and not on minds in world y.

IF there are no judgments in world x because there are no minds in world x, that means there is truth in world x even though there are no minds in world x. — m-theory

If truth-value is a judgment, and there are no judgments in world x, then there is no truth-value in world x.

Truth value is not equal to a judgment and truth does not depend on judgment.
If it is true that there are no judgments on world x, then truth value is not equal to judgment and does not depend on judgment, but instead it depends on world x.

Truth value is not equal to a judgment — m-theory

But this is just the point. In my view, truth-value is a judgment.

Of course, you believe that this is wrong. And of course, I believe you are wrong.

But this is just the point. In my view, truth-value is a judgment.

Of course, you believe that this is wrong. And of course, I believe you are wrong. — Terrapin Station

Well I tried to reason with you, but it is your right to believe what you choose.

What you don't get to do is claim that what you believe is a truth about any world.

It is simply a truth about what you believe in your own mind.

If truth-value is a judgment, and there are no judgments in world x, then there is no truth-value in world x. — Terrapin Station

Yes but the truth, or lack thereof, of this depends on world x, meaning that truth depends on world x not minds in world y.

Yes but the truth, or lack thereof, of this depends on world x, meaning that truth depends on world x not minds in world y. — m-theory

You're saying that that is the case if truth-value is a judgment?

If truth value is a judgment there is a contradiction.
It would be the case that there is a truth value in world x when there are no minds, which would mean either that judgments are not dependent on minds, or truth values are not equal to judgments.

It would be the case that there is a truth value in world x when there are no minds, — m-theory

Are there judgments in world x?

If there are then that means that judgments are not dependent upon minds.
If there are not then that means judgments are not equal to truth values.

I'm not asking you to state conditionals. I'm asking you a yes or no question.

If that answer is yes, your position is contradicted, if the answer is no, your position has been contradicted.
I pointed this out, and that was my only concern.

We can demonstrate that if the answer is no, this contradicts the claim that truth value is equal to judgments and that this truth value of yes is dependent on world x not minds.
If the answer is yes we can demonstrate that judgments depend also on world x, which contradicts the claim that judgments are exclusively mind dependent.

Is your user-name on this site "m-theory"?

?
Why?

I'm seeing if it's possible for us to tackle a simple yes or no question, or if we've gotten to a point where even such basic conversational interaction is no longer feasible.

So you want to derail the thread in hopes of making some point?

Why not just make the point and stay on topic?

We can't have any sort of conversation if we can't even tackle the simplest yes or no questions.

We are not conversing about simple yes or no questions.
We were debating a very particular yes or no question that is not so simple as you would like it to be, as I pointed out to you.

I asked you a simple yes or no question. "Are there judgments in world x?" I don't want to approach anything as a debate. I want to have a conversation where you're interested in understanding different points of view.

If it's that you feel that you cannot answer yes or no for some reason, then simply explain why that is in your view--"I cannot answer yes or no because . . ."

I did explain.
It does not matter what answer I give, both answer contradict claims you have made.

I don't really care what the answer should be, I care about the logical consequences of each answer.

asked you a simple yes or no question. — Terrapin Station

It was not as simple a question as you would have liked it would seem.

I did explain. — m-theory

Again, it would have to start with, "The reason that I cannot answer yes or no is because . . . " for there to be a chance that I'd count it as an explanation why you feel that you can't answer yes or no.

The reason it does not matter if I answer yes or no is because your claims are contradicted either way.

Happy now?

Happy now? — m-theory

No. Because I wasn't asking you why you thought it mattered or not. If you have a view on it where your answer is yes or no, you should answer yes or no--simply because I asked and we're supposedly having a conversation. Otherwise if you feel that you can't answer yes or no--not that "it doesn't matter," but that it's not possible for you to answer yes or no, then you should explain why it's not possible.

Is there some issue you have related to the topic?

We are derailing the thread at this point.