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.

This isn't about justifying and individual life to others... It is about finding out whether ALL of human life is completely pointless. — intrapersona

Again relative to what?
Am I to imagine some cosmic being that judges the value of all of human life?
Do I take a consensus of the living and ask them to decide if humanity is worthy pursuit?

If an individual says "my life has value", how are we to know that is true? Just because it is true to him? I am talking about collective value, not the subjective valuation of ones own existence. — intrapersona

Assume it is not true, as long as you are not actively trying to prevent me from being content why should I care what you believe?

That is not my issue though, just because some people find no teleological purpose that justifies their own existence, this does not mean that it is futile for me to form and realize my own goals for my own existence.

I don't feel any obligation to justify my own existence, or human existence, or the entirety of all existence.
At least not to anyone but myself.

Just because I don't justify these things to you does not mean I lead a futile life, for it is not for you to judge my life's futility or fruitfulness for me.

Perhaps your's is a fate of futility, but I am content that mine is not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are issues with the blockchain that concern me.
The first issue is privacy, it is possible to monitor each transaction of the blockchain.
The second issue relates to resources, as the blockchain grows it takes increassing computing power to produce transactions and increasing memory to store the information of the ledger.

The promise of blockchain decentralization is somewhat misleading because of this.
For example blockchain proponents claim that the blockchain will decentralize transactions but because it will cost more resources to process the transactions of a blockchain it will mean that current centralized organization, that can afford the expensive mining rigs, will remain advantaged compared to the average consumer.

You said religion is not about the natural world, science is.
Religion has no place then, if what you say is true, trying to tell people facts about the natural world.
Be it physics or biology or chemistry or what have you.

As you agreed, religious methods are not suited for producing knowledge about the natural world, so as far as I am concerned it has no business trying to do this in any area.

Most of us will not contribute profoundly to the benefit of all of humanity, yes that is true.
But for the 99% we do contribute profoundly to each other's lives.
And I can live with that, it is enough for me.

This brings up an interesting point, if religion has nothing to do with the natural world, then they should stay out of the classroom.
Religion has no place in a science class.

Science, as compared to other methods, works.

That is to say it is the most reliable method for producing applicable knowledge about the world.
This is why, when people become injured or ill they go to the hospital to be treated with science, rather than to some religious institution to be treated with mysticism.
One method produces reliable results, the other does not.

You are served well to put your faith in science.

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.

Been over this already, I have contributed all I care to on this subject, and you can review my previous posts where I have discussed the issues of contradiction in your diagram.

I will accept that my diagram does not depict what you view as accurate about the world and minds, but again I pointed out that my diagram does depict a logical conjunction and yours does not.

No one is saying that there is no truth (unqualified) by the way. What we'd say is that if in world x there are no minds, then in world x there is no truth, and in world x, it's neither true nor false that there's no truth. However, with us in world y where we do have minds, we could say in world y that there is no truth in world x, and we could say this is true in world y (about world x), because in world y we're judging it to be true. — Terrapin Station

Ok.
I would say if you can't know there is no truth in world x, then you can't say for sure that truth depends exclusively on minds, it may well be that it also depends on worlds.
You just can't know.

Adding "exclusively" to "mind-dependent" just says that there's no part of the world that's not mind that is a part where truth obtains. — Terrapin Station

Again if you can't know if there is or is not truth in world x, then you can't claim to know that truth is exclusively dependent upon minds, that claim is not true or false.

I am not as interested in the content of your argument as I am in trying to sort out its logic. What you seem to be saying is that any truth about the world is necessarily a truth that depends on the world. You may be right, but you have yet to offer an argument to demonstrate it... — aletheist

I did make the case that truth about worlds are world dependent and not mind dependent.
I used a proof by contradiction.
If it is true about the world that all truth depends on minds.
Then we can imagine a world without minds.
In which case it is not true about the world that there is no truth.
For were it is true that there is no truth, then that contradicts the claim that there is no truth.

I am not sure but it seems to me you could prove with contradiction in each case, however I will concede your point, perhaps, if you had some counterexample of a truth about something that does not depend upon that thing?

...since this is the first time (as far as I can tell) that you have clearly articulated this additional premiss. — aletheist

This is not the first time I have articulated my grievance, in fact I set out with this quibble from the start in my very first post to this thread.

In addition, I am not sure that anyone seriously claims that all truth is exclusively mind-dependent in the way that you have sought to establish here. As a couple of us have pointed out, if all minds are world-dependent, and all truth is mind-dependent, then there is no contradiction in acknowledging that all truth is (also) world-dependent. — aletheist

I agree it is absolutely reasonable to say truth is mind dependent and world dependent.

Sigh
It can't be a truth about the world because then it would be a truth that depends upon the world and would contradict "all truth depends on minds."


By saying "no truth depends on the world" you have indicated that "all truth exclusively depends on minds."
Which cannot, without contradiction, be a truth that is dependent/about any world.

Look you want to claim "all truth depends upon minds"
Go for it.
That is no problem for me because I don't have to accept that as a truth about the world as, by definition, it is not a truth about/dependent upon the world.

What bothers me is when people want it both ways.

They want it to be a truth about the world that "all truth is mind dependent"
But of course this cannot be a truth about the world, because if it was then that truth would then also be world dependent which would render the claim self refuting.

It is not true of any world that "All truth depends on the mind"
If that was true about the world it would be a contradiction.
So it is not a truth about any world that "All truths depend upon the mind."

Exclusive

1.excluding or not admitting other things.
"my exclusive focus is on San Antonio issues"

2.restricted or limited to the person, group, or area concerned.
"the couple had exclusive possession of the condo"
synonyms: sole, unshared, unique, only, individual, personal, private
"a room for your exclusive use"

noun
1.
an item or story published or broadcast by only one source.
synonyms: scoop, exposé, special
"a six-page exclusive"


So if it is true that truth has no dependency other than the mind.
Then it can not also be true that truth also has dependency upon the world.

I am claiming that it the statement "truth is exclusively mind dependent and truth is world dependent" is a contradiction.
If truth is also world dependent, then truth does not have exclusive mind dependence.

???
I do not claim that truth is exclusively mind dependent so I do not have to provide the diagram of that claim.

I provided the diagram from my claim.
Because I claim a conjunction that "truth is mind dependent and truth is world dependent" I provided the corresponding diagram.

So you'd say you're depicting a contradiction there? — Terrapin Station

I don't see a contradiction here.

Perhaps you could point it out if there is one.

I do see a contradiction here

I pointed out that it is a contradiction to say that φ is exclusive to F
Because the statement
Some G's are not F's is true about the world, not minds.
I also pointed out that if φ means truth is exclusively dependent upon F, this is a contradiction in the depiction because F's are dependent upon G's which means that φ is also dependent upon G's.
So it can't be that φ means exclusively dependent upon F

All truth is exclusively mind-dependent, — aletheist

Not in this diagram.

In that diagram truth is NOT exclusively mind dependent.
That would be a contradiction.

The labels that I applied were G=World, F=Minds, and phi=Truth. All truth is exclusively mind-dependent, and all minds are part of the world; i.e., world-dependent. Therefore, all truth is (also) world-dependent. — aletheist

Then it is not a truth (φ is only in F) that some G's are not F's.
Which contradicts what is depicted in the diagram, the diagram illustrates that some G's are not F's is true.
If it is true that some G's are not F's then that means not all φ are in F.

Also that diagram does not depict any conjunction like
"Truth is mind dependent AND world dependent"
To depict that you would have to use this diagram that includes the conjunction.

\

Which is not identical to this diagram in any way.


As this diagram does not depict any conjunction.

The Venn diagram for "truth is dependent upon the mind" (by itself) is identical to your diagram, except that the portion of the circle for "World" that is outside the circle for "Mind" is omitted. Hence the conjunction does not set up a contradiction; both statements can indeed be true. If we say instead (as you did above) that "truth is exclusively dependent upon minds," and then add the premiss (as suggested by ↪Terrapin Station) that "minds are part of the world," we get his diagram (Gs=World, Fs=Mind, phi=Truth). In this case, "truth is dependent upon the world" is necessarily true; more precisely, "truth is exclusively dependent upon part of the world." The only way I can see to make the two statements genuinely contradictory is to say that "truth is exclusively dependent upon minds" and "minds are not part of the world." — aletheist

Again 'Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds"
Is not logically equivalent to the statement
"Truth is dependent upon mind and upon the world"
One has a logical connective and the other does not.

So if in the diagram it were that
φ = "truth is exclusively mind dependent"
this leads to a contradiction because
φ is itself dependent upon F, which in Turn is dependent upon G.
That is to say if there is no F and/or no G, then there is no φ by definition.

So the diagram above cannot hope to illustrate that φ="truth is exclusively mind dependent" without also being in contradiction because as you should notice that φ is dependent upon F, which is dependent upon G.

Let us say you hope to redeem the diagram and state that φ=any and all truth
Then it is not true that "Some G's are not F's" without arriving at a contradiction.
The statement "Some G's are not F's" cannot be true(found only in set F). If Some G's are not F's this is only true if it also true that not all φ are F dependent.
If all φ are F dependent then it is not true that some G's are not F's.
Or in other words some G's (those which are not F's) have the property φ.
Hence the diagram is wrong/contradictory with the labels you have applied to the variables used in the diagram.

There is also no contradiction between "this product is exclusively for women" and "this product is for people." This becomes clearer if we change the second premiss to "this product is for some people." There would only be a contradiction if the second premiss instead was (as you rewrote it above) "this product is for all people." — aletheist

The only way to avoid contradiction is to say
"This product is exclusively for women and the product is for SOME people"

Using the term people denotes the set containing both men and women which leads to contradiction.

What's contradictory about that? — Terrapin Station

Note the venn diagram for a conjunction.

So the statement "Truth is dependent upon the mind and truth is dependent upon the world" looks like this.


And not like this

I pointed out that the statement
"Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds"
is not logically equivalent to
"Truth is dependent upon minds and truth is dependent upon the world"
As long is no one claiming this then ignore my posts.

I also pointed out that it is in fact a contradiction to say that
"Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds and truth is also dependent on the world"
As long as no one is claiming that this would not be a contradiction you can ignore my posts.

No.

I am saying that if some G's are F, and some G's not F.

Then you cannot say that All G's have

φ — Terrapin Station

Who argues that inequity is wrong?

This is not equivalent to my example.

So if you say "This is exclusively a triangle and it is also a shape"

It does not have set membership of exclusively triangles, it also has set membership of shapes.

If the set of people contains men then it is a contradiction to say.

"This product is exclusively for women and this product is for all people" because some people are not women.

Ok but it would be a contradiction to say that it is both.
"This product is exclusively for women and this product is for people."
The set of people also contains men.

this product is exclusively for women — Michael

Is not logically equivalent to
"This product is for people"

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction
Note the truth table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Truth_table

So "that man" must be both Barrack Obama AND the potus.
If one or the other is not true, then the entire statement is regarded as false.

Not in my view, it is a rule of logic.

I did explain the difference.

The logical operator AND is the difference.

No, they are not.

(2) Everest's peak is exclusively Everest-dependent.

That's not contradictory. Everest is part of the world. — Terrapin Station

If Everest is part of the world, then the peak of Everest is NOT exclusively Everest depedent, because Everest is part of the world, then Everests peak will be world depedent as well.

Note the logical operator AND that I have used.

It is a contradiction to say "The peak of Everest is exclusively Everest dependent and world dependent"

Except saying "truth is exclusively mind dependent" and "truth is mind dependent and world dependent" are not the same thing.
They are actually different.

Ok.
But then we have the statement "Truth is mind dependent and world dependent."
You can't have the statement "Truth is exclusively mind dependent" and then claim that the truth of this statement is world dependent, that too is a contradiction.