I don't care about minds.

I am pointing out that the truth of the statement "Truth is mind dependent" is not a world dependent truth by definition.

Regardless if the mind is part of the world or not part of the world.

Making sharp distinction by pointing out that the statement "The truth is mind dependent" is not a truth, without contradiction, about the world.

No that is a truth about minds, because truth is mind dependent not world dependent.
It cannot be that the statement "Truth is mind dependent" is a world dependent statement.

At no T absent of minds is it true that there are no truths.
If it is true that there are not truths at T then this is a contradiction.

The point is the statement "Truth is mind dependent" is not a truth about any world.

Saying that there are no minds is equal to saying P is not true.

So to say that truth is mind dependent is true means that it cannot be a truth in a world absent of minds.

So where there are no minds there are no truths.
But this is a contradiction.
In the absence of mind/truth, it is not true that there are no truths without contradiction.

P = Truth is mind dependent
~P = The world is absent of minds

The contradiction is that in the statement "There is no truth because there are no minds" is not a truth about the world absent of minds if truth if mind dependent.

You can't have truths about the world if truth is mind dependent, that leads to contradiction.

So it is not a truth about the world, that truth is mind dependent.

If the statement "truth is mind dependent" is true, it is not a truth about any world.

You can't make mind dependent claims about the truth of worlds if truth is mind dependent.

At least not without arriving at a contradiction.

This is also a contradiction you might notice.
It cannot be a truth about that world that there are no truths

If truth is mind dependent, and there are no minds in the world, then there are no truths about that world.

Futile relative to what?

Suppose I decide to pursue one of two goals.
To spin gold from straw
Or
To get a glass of water from the tap

Obviously one of these goals is less futile than the other.

a world lacking minds also lacks truths — Pneumenon

The problem is this cannot be a truth about the world without minds by definition.

Sigh

I just hate the idea that people can content themselves that they were outright censored because they were heretics.

With a banned threads area the site moderators and users can say..."No, you were not censored, your post just failed to contribute productively to the serious pursuit of discussing philosophy in the main threads.".

I guess I like the idea because it seems like it is a way to take the higher road than outright deletion.

That is too bad.

I guess that is the price you pay for letting some one else go through all the trouble of starting a social forum where philosophy is discussed.

I know if I were the person that put in all that effort, I would do things a bit differently.

Tisk tisk.

I think there is a place where deleted threads go right, at least with the old PF they did not outright censor dissenters.

My mistake.

I did address something you claimed.

You claimed that faith is infallible.
But then you failed to demonstrate that this is in fact true.

Knowing is different from beliefs.

Knowledge is demonstrable, beliefs are not necessarily so.

So this is where atheists and theist often clash.
A religious person will claim to know something, that they then cannot demonstrate.

Why should a non-religious person accept that religious person does in fact know, when instead it is more likely that the religious person simply believes.

But I haven't anywhere said that beliefs that don't count as fallible insofar as they cannot be in principle disproven are thereby infallible. I already said they are outside the context of fallibility/ infallibility altogether. — John

You give examples of something that has not been disproved relative to some given personal belief.
Not an example of something that cannot be altogether disproved.
You do not have an example of infallible faith except according to a given set of personal standards of proof.

Of course and that would be a spiritual consequence too. The point was only ever that beliefs which are not fallible may have spiritual consequences. And since religious beliefs and beliefs associated with spirituality are generally of that kind.... — John

You have not provided an example of infallible beliefs.
The lack of evidence of chi is evidence of it's absence.

Of course you will argue

We cannot know with absolute certainty that chi does not exist.

But as I pointed out that just because something is not absolutely disproved in accordance with every standard of proof, this is not the logical equivalent that such a belief is infallible.
Recall my link to the argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

So again, if you claim that religious or spiritual beliefs fall in line with option 3 or 4, this is not the logical equivalent that they are infallible
.

Amen to this.

The discussion was about whether beliefs that are not fallible or truth-apt such as a belief in God, or chi can have spiritual consequences. — John

And I pointed out that saying that something is not yet disproved is not the logical equivalent that therefor that something is necessarily infallible.

Of course they can. A person might not practice Tai Chi at all if she did not believe in chi, so your demand for quantifiably different results has nothing to do with whether beliefs have spiritual consequences. — John

Similarly a person may believe in chi and not practice tai chi.

I fail to see your point here?

What does that have to do with consequences of practice and belief?

There are plenty of people that do not believe in the existence of chi that practice tai chi, and become better at it's motions, simply as a way to remain more physical fit.

That is so cool.

I feel like you have changed the subject.

I am not saying that different personal beliefs do not lead to different life experiences.

I am asking if you can show a quantifiable difference in results.
If person A and B practice the motions of tai chi, can you demonstrate that person A will perform quantifiably better than person B, with the only difference being that person A believes in chi while person B does not.

Again I am not disputing that a person can derive personal satisfaction from their beliefs.

But as far as a consequence goes, any faith can be personally satisfying.

I feel like you are splitting hairs.

Do you have any evidence that if person A believes in chi they will become better at tai chi than person B who does not believe in chi, given that each person practices tai chi the same amount?

To my mind it seems the particular beliefs about the philosophy has nothing to do with practicing and become good at the physical motions, but if you can quantify the difference I would concede the point.

If it is not a quantifiable difference, then how can you claim there is a from the belief in chi consequence?

No becoming better is a consequence of practice, not belief.

I believe we have different criterion for justified beliefs.

It is a fallacy to say a claim is true as long as it has not been proven false.
This is called an argument from ignorance.

Also you don't explain any consequence.
You basically just say that if a person believes in chi, the consequence is they believe in chi.

That is not so.

The speed of light is universal, it applies to any particular photon.

So it would be interesting for you to explain how there are consequences but that there is no fallibility.

.Are the physical constants examples of universals or particulars?

I am a pantheist.

Units of measurements are particulars?

I believe that if god does exist.

It is no accident that we have a capacity for reason and rationality and it seems to me that if god exists then god also intends for us to use these capacities as best as we are able.

The same is true of a war on christianity though.

People of that religion could be persuaded to abandon their faith and we could prevent their religious beliefs from becoming law.

Nothing controversial there?

Sure, let me know your thoughts.

Well I agree, if your declaration of war has no real consequence, then there can be no controversy.

It does raise an interesting question though.

If your war on islam has no consequence, what is the point of declaring it?