Can you nail down precisely where your own thoughts are that made this post?

Can you nail down precisely where your own thought were, when you made this post?
No I can not. I can give you a speculation of the general region of space in which my thoughts were contained. Can you do the same for truth?

I can give you a speculation of the general region of space in which my thoughts were contained. — Perdidi Corpus

Oh? Where?

Can you do the same for truth? — Perdidi Corpus

I would argue that truth is not of material quality, therefore it need not have a specified "place."

Truth is a concept derived from experience. There's no need to attempt to locate it in physical space. For instance:

for something to exist, it must be somewhere. — Perdidi Corpus

Is a concept derived from experience. This concept doesn't exist in physical space either.

Within the area occupied by the brain. I could be more specific but you might start arguing that in a way it is the hole brain that ends up having the idea.
If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? What would it mean to "be" in that way which truth "is" to you?

I don't think it follows that because thoughts emanate from the mind, then thoughts, therefore, are "trapped" within the brain, that that's where the location is.

If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? What would it mean to "be" in that way which truth "is" to you? — Perdidi Corpus

Well I dunno. Thoughts "are" because they interact within the world. It's like wave-particle duality, if you're familiar with that, or more complex quantum mechanics. Sense of place isn't always very clear.

If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? — Perdidi Corpus

Because concepts aren't objects in the physical world.

Than in what world "are" they?

They exist in consciousness, which is generated by both the spiritual and physical aspects of reality. Actually, in my view, spirituality, physicality and consciousness are all generative aspects of the same reality. Concepts exist in consciousness and they can act upon the physical aspect of reality; I can come up with an idea for a book, then write the book. The book could end up changing aspects of the world, if the ideas were widely accepted. The ideas themselves aren't aspects of physical reality, but they can change reality.

Why do you begin with the assumption that something must have a spatial location in order to "be"?

Why do you begin with the assumption that something must have a spatial location in order to "be"? — Noble Dust

Yes, OP you should look in to the distinction between subjective and objective as I think you are getting confused about this.

You're line of thought follows from the patterns of activity that result in sensory perception and therefore us perceiving an outside world. light hits the retina -> goes to brain -> brain constructs an outside world -> brain thinks an outside world actually exists in the outside world....... This is just an illusion and we have no way to actually garantuee the existence of objectivity whatsoever... This becomes so convincing it actually ends up causing people like you to think truth exists in the same way that tables do (as a product of sensory information rather than an abstract concept tied to concepts integrated from sensory information). All we can ever know is our minds and what is in our minds (including sensory perception). For sake of understanding this better just scrap all notions of objectivity and you will see that truth can only exist within the mind because there is no where else for it to exist in unless you want to argue that objectivity is the same as subjectivity.

In my view, truths are judgments we make about propositions. This, the location in question is our brains.

There is only consciousness, reality is experienced constantly, reality is truth.
The act of seeing is truth, hearing is truth, thinking is truth, smelling is truth, tasting is truth, being is truth. — eb0t

Reality is both truth, when the mind is awaken, and a lie, when the mind is asleep. Reality is everything because it is just a sensation.

All you're saying there is that it must be spatially located. But that doesn't apply to numbers, laws, concepts, grammar, and the like.

Where is '7'?

And no, you can't 'nail down' where in the brain such things occur, because 'the brain' is able to generalise the activities involved in understanding these things. In other words, there's isn't a kind of 1:1 relationship between 'neural activities' and 'meaning', in the same way that there isn't a 1:1 relation between symbols and what they denote.

If you got brain damage (heaven forbid), then the mind will often work out ways to 're-purpose' other areas of the brain to compensate. This is one of the discoveries of neuro-plasticity.

All you're saying there is that it must be spatially located. But that doesn't apply to numbers, laws, concepts, grammar, and the like.

Where is '7'? — Wayfarer

It does apply to numbers, laws, concepts, grammar and the like. "7" is located in our brains just as truth is.

And no, you can't 'nail down' where in the brain such things occur, because 'the brain' is able to generalise the activities involved in understanding these things. In other words, there's isn't a kind of 1:1 relationship between 'neural activities' and 'meaning', in the same way that there isn't a 1:1 relation between symbols and what they denote.

If you got brain damage (heaven forbid), then the mind will often work out ways to 're-purpose' other areas of the brain to compensate. This is one of the discoveries of neuro-plasticity. — Wayfarer

If you're thinking of it as something like a static "nugget" that's "7," say, then you're thinking of it incorrectly for a couple reasons. (1) "Nuggets" aren't really static. Nothing is. Everything is dynamic and obtains via a matter/structure/process "complex" ("complex" being in quotation marks because these things are not metaphysically separable) (2) So "7," in brains, isn't static either. It's a matter/structure/process "complex," and neural activities have a "1:1" relation to meaning in that we're talking about logical identity just as we are with "morning star" and "evening star." That doesn't imply a denial of neuroplasticity. "7" is identical to brain/structure/process "complex" A at time T1, and it's identical to brain/structure/process "complex" B at time T2.

Without a functioning brain, a human can't form concepts, that is true. But the 'furniture of reason' - concepts, numbers, and the like - are no more 'in' the brain, than a television drama is 'in' a television.

no more 'in' the brain, than a television drama is 'in' a television. — Wayfarer

It depends on what you're referring to with "a television drama" exactly--are you referring to something with meaning applied? Are you referring to the script? The filming of it? The medium it's stored on? The transmission? We can detail each part of that to make it clear just what we're talking about, and we can specify the location of all of those things.

So are you saying that when you talk about concepts, numbers, etc., you're talking about something other than the mental phenomena actually being concepts, etc. in some sense, where we can detail just what we're talking about in different cases and specify just where they're located?

This concept doesn't exist in physical space either. — Noble Dust

And yet there it is, on the screen.

Odd.

Within the area occupied by the brain. — Perdidi Corpus

The brain? There is only one?

The question arises out of the idea that for something to exist, it must be somewhere. Am I wrong in thinking this? If so, than in what way does truth exist? — Perdidi Corpus

A classic example of the wrong question leading one down the philosophical garden path.

Where is space? It doesn't appear to have a location, so it must not exist. X-)

And yet there it is, on the screen. — Banno

Ah yes, the occurrence of this concept on your particular computer screen was the only, original, physical occurrence! How silly of me

the occurrence of this concept on your particular computer screen was the only, original, physical occurrence — Noble Dust

This seems to imply that you think there can only be one occurrence of a given concept. But it would seem that the same concept occurs both here and there - otherwise each of us would be talking about something quite different.

Isn't it simpler to suppose that the concept can be in many places?

It doesn't appear to have a location, — Pneumenon

There it is - out there.

And time is in here? :P

Is it? Why would you think that? Time and space are intimately related, aren't they?

I have no idea. I was being silly.

This seems to imply that you think there can only be one occurrence of a given concept. — Banno

Definitely not. My post was sarcastic, perhaps you misread?

Space and time have locations, it's just that it's not only one location.

But that shouldn't be confusing.

You don't think that, say, Picasso paintings don't have a location just because there are thousands of them, do you?

Why do you assume I think that

truth exists in the same way that tables do — intrapersona

? All I am attempting to defend is the view point that for anything to exist, then it must exist in the same way as tables do. I am therefore arguing towards the non-existance of truth . You seem to be doing the same when you state that

truth can only exist within the mind — intrapersona

. I would say that about true propositions, not about truth. There is a true proposition which tells you the number of stars in this Universe. But does the truth about the number of stars in the Universe exist? Where would lay bare such a truth?

It depends on what you're referring to with "a television drama" exactly--are you referring to something with meaning applied? Are you referring to the script? The filming of it? The medium it's stored on? The transmission? We can detail each part of that to make it clear just what we're talking about, and we can specify the location of all of those things.

So are you saying that when you talk about concepts, numbers, etc., you're talking about something other than the mental phenomena actually being concepts, etc. in some sense, where we can detail just what we're talking about in different cases and specify just where they're located? — Terrapin Station

A drama consists of the script, production, sets, actors, performance, transmission, and the rest - which is an analogy for the issue at hand.

If you say that 'experience equals brain states', this is analogous to saying that a TV drama is 'a state of the circuitry of the TV'. At every instant, all the pixels on the screen are the result of binary operations within the logic board of the television - so in one sense, that is true. But those binary operations are not themselves 'the drama', they are simply one aspect of it. Without the script, actors, story, etc, the logic board has nothing to display.

Likewise, 'the brain' is both embodied (situated within a matrix of the nervous system, the environment, etc ) and also en-cultured (drawing on memory, expectation, language, symbolism, etc) which are not meaningfully 'inside' the brain; in other words, you're not going to be able to understand them in terms of proteins or synapses or neuro-chemistry.

That is the sense in which it is fallacious to say that such things as ideas and concepts can be 'located' in the brain - which is the basic claim of 'neurological reductionism'. I'm saying that such an attempt is a 'category mistake' - it is treating abstract realities as if they're concrete.