Is there some issue you have related to the topic? — m-theory

For one, I'd like to explain a point of view that you don't understand, but you'd need to be able to have a conversation where you can answer simple questions in a straightforward way where you don't assume that you're lecturing instead.

I would say that it is not that I don't understand the point view you have expressed here, it is more that I don't agree that it is logically valid.
I pointed out the reason why, namely your position leads to contradictions.

We are discussing a topic.
Simple questions like whether or not my screen name is m-theoryrules or not are not related to the thread topic and I regard them as irrelevant.
If I do not see your point in asking this simple question this is not my fault, you failed to do anything to illustrate that it was in fact related to the topic of the thread.

The other question you asked is not as simple as you would have liked it to be and I pointed that out.

If you insist that I can only explore the logical consequences of the answer in one of two ways, then that is an example of a false dichotomy.

There is in fact a third option, the one I choose, which is to explore the logical consequences of BOTH answers.

I would say that it is not that I don't understand the point view you have expressed here, — m-theory

Well, there's an easy way to test that. Go ahead and relay a summary of the view as I would.

You claim that truth is exclusively mind dependent and you stated that in your view that truth value is logically equivalent to Judgments.
.
Is there something I am missing?

So far so good if "logically equivalent to" is "is identical to."

But yeah, you're missing something. Why isn't it contradictory on my view to say from world y (as defined earlier) that it's true that in world x (as defined earlier) there is no truth-value?

To be honest I am getting kind of tired of repeating myself here.
I was hoping you had something new to contribute?


Again I pointed out, that if there is no truth value in world x, then the claim "truth is mind dependent" is refuted because truth value still depends on world x and not a minds in world y..
Which means there is a truth value in world y, and that truth value is false.

But I also conceded this point, you can claim it cannot be known what is the truth value in world x, in which case the truth value of the claim "truth is mind dependent" cannot be known either.

Which is not a contradiction, it simply means we can't (for some unnamed reason) know what whether or not truth is mind dependent or not.

I conceded this point because I understand how you are trying to justify your views.
Your view is that if ever there is a mind we can simply say that truth depends on that mind regardless of what world that mind inhabits.

But we can imagine that there was some state such that there are no minds in any worlds.
In such a state is it true that there are no mind?

If it is true then truth does not depend on minds.
You might argue that it is not true or false in that example.

So that is why I conceded your point.
But again you don't get to claim that you know it is true that truth depends on minds.

Let me simplify further.

Your position is basically if there are no minds then there are no truths.
I pointed out this leads to a contradiction because we can imagine the case where there are no minds, and then point out if it is true that there are no truths, then there is at least one truth, which contradicts that there are no truths.

You rebut saying, yes but right now literally there are minds that is why we have truths.
But it isn't so that this proves truth is dependent upon the mind, it proves rather that there are minds at this time.
These two are not one in the same thing.
However let's assume, by some feat of mental gymnastics, you have decided that because there are minds this proves that truth is mind dependent
Well then the problem now becomes that you are left with a circular argument.
A circular argument is not valid reasoning.

Note this point because it is critical.

You still don't get to claim that if there were no minds there would be no truths, that still leads to contradiction or amounts to circular argumentation.
Well I suppose you can claim that if you like, but that claim has no logical force that compels me to accept it as valid.

What you could claim instead is that if there were no minds we could not know if there were truths or not.
That is not a contradictory or circular position and I will not challenge that claim.

To be honest I am getting kind of tired of repeating myself here.
I was hoping you had something new to contribute? — m-theory

That super-cliched move at this point does not count as understanding my view. So do you not know why it isn't contradictory on my view to say from world y (as defined earlier) that it's true that in world x (as defined earlier) there is no truth-value? (And why we do know that it's true (from world y) that in world x there is no truth value?)

It's fine if you don't know. It doesn't mean that you're inferior or anything. It also wouldn't imply that you agree with me if you're able to relay my view so that I'd agree with it. You can still be superior and eventually play the role of teacher where you assume I'm only fit to be your student. But how about slowing down and trying to understand a view you're not familiar with? That's what I'd be interested in us doing. I can explain my view so that you'd understand it, but you'd have to play along and answer questions when I ask them and so on--I'd be going slow, one step at a time. It wouldn't work if you just keep impatiently going back to why you're right and I'm wrong. You need to understand my view in the first place to be able to say why I'm wrong.

What I know, so far, is that you have not put forth a view that does not lead to contradiction.

That's what I'd be interested in us doing. I can explain my view so that you'd understand it, but you'd have to play along and answer questions when I ask them and so on--I'd be going slow, one step at a time. It wouldn't work if you just keep impatiently going back to why you're right and I'm wrong. — Terrapin Station

From what you describe here, you don't need me at all, you need someone to follow along and take cues from you and answer how you want when you want.
You can do that for yourself.

Also I never said you were wrong or that I was right, I said that there are logical issues with your claims.

What I know, so far, is that you have not put forth a view that does not lead to contradiction. — m-theory

Sure, that's your opinion.

But re MY view, explain in a way that I'd agree with why it's not a contradiction. That would show that you understand my view, which is important for critiquing it.

Ok.
I believe you.
In your mind your view is not contradictory.

lol
I just reread this.
You are basically saying that unless I agree with you, I don't understand and can't critique your view.

lol
That is not very reasonable.
How old are you?

No, I'm not saying anything about you agreeing with me.

I'm saying something about whether you even understand the view you're critiquing. If you understand it, you should be able to state it so that the person whose view it is would agree with the paraphrase.

In other words, this is no different than, say, a teacher asking on an exam, "Give a summary, primarily in your own words, of Descartes' argument in the Second Meditation, Part 1." They're checking to make sure that you understand Descartes' argument. You can think that his argument sucks, that Descartes is wrong, etc., but that's different than knowing what his argument is in the first place, understanding it, and being able to paraphrase it in a way that Descartes would agree with.

I am glad you understand that it is not reasonable to insist that some one must agree with you first, before what you claim can be understood.

However...
It is not my duty to paraphrase you such that your arguments are not claiming something which is contradictory.
That is your duty.
I understand, from what you have posted so far, that your claims have logical issues and I have pointed those issues out already.

Either address the issues I have raised and/or provide further information to clarify your position.
If you fail to do this in the next post I will consider our discussion to be stagnant and will pursue it no further.

I don't care anything about "duty" pro or con here. So I don't care whether anything is or isn't anyone's duty in anyone's opinion.

You had said:

I would say that it is not that I don't understand the point view you have expressed here, — m-theory

I'm challenging that. I believe that you don't at all understand my point of view on this (well, at least not beyond the rudimentary start you made above). But you have an opportunity to show that I'm wrong and that you weren't just talking shit there, that you do in fact understand it.

The importance of this is that you can't "understand my claims to have logical issues" if you don't even understand just what my claims are in the first place.

Please identify at least one specific view put forth in this thread by @Terrapin Station that leads to contradiction. Even if you believe that you have already done so, this might help clarify where things stand at this point. Do not explain (yet) why you think it leads to contradiction, just restate what you perceive to be his position.

Terrapin's view is that truth is entirely and exclusively dependent upon minds such that if there were no minds there would be no truths.
This leads to a contradiction.
If there were no minds then it could not be true that there were no truths.

Notice that I use the word if here.

Terrapin does not see this as an issue because there are minds now, so the condition in which there would be a contradiction is not met.
However in logic we do not have to meet the condition of the argument to see that it is contradictory.

I also pointed out another possible issue with Terrapin's views.
Terrapin might hope to argue that we can be sure that truth is entirely and exclusively dependent upon minds, because minds exist now and thus the truth of what is said about anything depends entirely and exclusively upon them and there is no issue because as of now those minds do exist.
This would be circular argumentation.
That minds exist now proves only that there are minds now, it does not prove that truth is entirely and exclusively dependent upon those minds and these are not logically equivalent things.

If there were no minds it could not be true that there were no truths. — m-theory

Would I say that in world x, where there are no minds, it's true in world x that there are no truths?

You said there were no truths in world x, which does not deal with the issue, it is still a contradiction that it cannot be true that there are no truths.

Would I say that in world x, where there are no minds, it's true in world x that there are no truths? — Terrapin Station

That's a yes or no question. Either I would say that or I wouldn't (and I'll give you a 50/50 chance--either yes or no is correct here). At the moment, I'm only interested in your answer to this yes or no question. You should be able to answer this easily, because I explained it all in detail earlier in the thread, in responses to you that you responded back to.

lol
This again?

I'm interested in the conversation getting somewhere (in my assessment). This is how it would get somewhere.

It seems to me that the disagreement here is over the very definition of truth, which is tied to the nature of propositions. On your (mind-independent) view, there are truths in a world without minds, including the proposition that there are no minds. On @Terrapin Station's (mind-dependent) view, there are no truths in a world without minds, because (I gather) there are no propositions (true or false) in such a world. The latter is only a contradiction given your definition of truth; it is not a contradiction given @Terrapin Station's definition. In other words, you cannot simply refute his definition by presupposing yours.

Answering his yes-or-no question will reveal whether you fully understand his position, so I encourage you to do so. Admitting that his view is not self-contradictory does not entail that it is correct; you can still reasonably disagree with it (as I do), but on other grounds.

Here's an illustrative aid that makes it a bit easier to think about the question:





So--would I say that inside of possible world x the proposition in quotation marks "There are no truths in possible world x" is true?

It seems to me that the disagreement here is over the very definition of truth, — aletheist

Yes I pointed out a contradiction with Terrapins view that truths were logically equivalent to judgments.
We imagined a world x where there were no minds.
The dilemma then becomes is it true in world x that there are no judgments?
If it is true then truths do not depend on minds and judgments are not equal to truths.
If it is not true then judgments do not depend on minds and judgments are not equal to truths..
Our disagreement about what truth ought to mean does not resolve the logical issues associated with Terrapins position I am afraid.

there are no truths in a world without minds, because (I gather) there are no propositions (true or false) in such a world. — aletheist

I conceded this point, but it has a consequence, if there is no truth value in a world without minds, then we cannot know the truth value of the claim that truth value is exclusively and entirely dependent upon minds.

The proposition that truth depends on minds cannot be validated even if it avoids invalidation from contradiction.

Answering his yes-or-no question will reveal whether you fully understand his position, so I encourage you to do so. Admitting that his view is not self-contradictory does not entail that it is correct; you can still reasonably disagree with it (as I do), but on other grounds. — aletheist

No, I will not have him dictate to me how I can post to the forum.
I can answer his questions how I choose.
That I fail to follow his desires in my answering does not prove that I don't understand his position.
That does not follow.

The dilemma then becomes is it true in world x that there are no judgments? — m-theory

Would I say that inside of possible world x, that is, limiting it to what's inside of that circle above marked as "Possible World X," it's true or false that there are no judgments?

Again as I have pointed out already.
Claiming that there is no truth value will mean, as a consequence that the claim that truth is equal to judgments has no truth value either.

Claiming that there is no truth value will mean, as a consequence that the claim that truth is equal to judgments has no truth value either. — m-theory

As stated, that's not at all a consequence. You'd have to spell out the implication, because as it stands it's a non-sequitur. You're simply claiming that it's a consequence of it.

If you're talking about immediately above where you wrote:

I conceded this point, but it has a consequence, there is truth value in a world without minds, — m-theory

The last part of that makes no sense. There is truth value in a world without minds by virtue of what?

If there is no truth value in a world without minds, then it does not obtain that it is false that truth value is world dependent.

Similarly with your claim that truth and judgment are logically equivalent.
If it does not obtain because there is no truth value in a world without minds, it does not obtain that it is true that judgments are logically equivalent to truth.