No it's not odd when you understand how your mind works. Remember, your mind fills in the blanks. It uses the images of stored memories as the filler.

How many times have you looked at something and then immediately questioned what you saw and have to look again. We do that so often we have a phrase for it; the double take.

The fact that we may not be 'cognizant' of what we are seeing does not mean that our eyes are not seeing. In fact if we are not cognizant of what our eyes are seeing and then later (even moments later) we are trying to remember what we just saw, we are likely to remember a memory rather than the actual object or event.

That's the reason perseption is not the same thing as seeing. There is a delay between what we see and the realization or understanding of what we have seen.

Dreams are often a product of sensual perception and the cognitive process. Our eyes may be closed and our awarness diminished by sleep, but the physiological responce to sound can cause our eyes to flutter. The brain immediately thinks there is something to see and be translated. Obviously there is not data coming from the eyes, so the brain processes all of the current sensual data, smell, hearing, sense of touch, and even the mental state that is driven by hormones and it takes all that information and fills in the blanks with bits of memories that might equate to the conditions the body is experiencing at the time. Of course it doesn't usually make any sense - and our cognitive process is in sleep mode.

When we awake and remember a strange dream, we may not really be remembering the actual dream becasue it would probably make no sense. So in the waking cognitive process of trying to remember a dream - the brain is filling in the blanks with something that makes more sense to us.

That does not account for all dreams or nightmares or sleep disorders. But its a great example to use when trying to explain why we do not perceive the world when or as we acturally see it.

Perception is the result of the conitive process that is often stimulated by sensual data.

I really will get back to respond to your last response to me, I've just been really busy.

So you're claiming that our perception is not what we see. I must ask then, what is it that we see?



I'm aware of the brain's ability to autonomously 'fill in the blanks'. I'm aware of the need to do a double-take. I've found myself believing that I had saw this or that, and upon looking again realized that I had not been looking at what I thought I was. The object of perception was different the second time around.

You are confusing between truth & fact.There is difference between truth & reality too.Truth is in accord with fact or reality.

Facts are state of affairs & exists regardless of our knowledge,belief,understanding where as reality of truth depends on our perception.

Truth is actual existence but actual existence can not be always in the state of truth.Also,truth is paradoxical & has different levels,something that we consider today as truth,may not be considered as truth tomorrow.

Truth is always relative & it is not irrelevant here to say that there are many things in the universe which are still not understood & verified.We are not yet into the position to call them as truth,we don't know them at all,we aren't aware of their existence.It is fact that they exist,but we are unable to tell the truth about them.

I disagree.

Lets just say that I know that I exist.

Everything else is just opinion.

Your response is your opinion obviously.

You don't know how to follow my argument from the premise. You do have a right to your own opinions of course.

"If truth is/equals actual existence, then anything that is not truth does not exist."

I put my sincere efforts to be to the point while following arguments & in my opinion I did well.

I also noticed that my exact points are being ignored comfortably. Originally this thread is about finding something that is not a statement but can be true or false.I did pretty well while answering, despite of that I got some undesirable taunts.No issue!!

I'm not agreed to your "if-then" logic.I was also to the point while following your argument. I said that "Truth is actual existence but actual existence can not be always in the state of truth."
I provided it's explanation too,so I don't think that I don't know 'how to follow arguments'.It is a fact that there exists many things that is not yet been truth & I'm to the point over that argument. I'm aware that you are pointing out your logic towards non-existence of false,but it is not successful as the if-then conditions is not satisfying there.

It's okay that you disagree,you have all the rights.

Anyway,I'm agreed to you about "wrong opinion" in one's opinion.

Please explain or give an example of what you mean here.

"Facts are states of affairs and exist regardless of our knowledge. <--true.

However:

Belief, understanding and perception are subjective. They are within the mind of the individual.

Truth, (like facts) exist regardless of our knowledge or awareness. No single individual can know the whole truth. One would have to be all knowing to know the (whole) truth.

Like facts, an individual can know specific things and specific truths about things.

Reality is what it is. Each person/individual sees it differently. No person or individual can see it as it truly is.

Perhaps...

Or it could be that a not-truth can exist for only a 'short' time (and create momentary 'damage' the the line of truth.

For example.

Hitler built an empire upon a not-truth. It created much damage to the 'truth' of the forming global interactions. Yet because it was a based upon a not-truth it became dust but for its latent
'reverbrations' warning us of a non valid path.

If it really exists,then it's a fact that there is life on some another planet too,but no one of us is still able to tell the exact truth about it.It means that the actual existence is not yet in the state of truth.
As we'll discover further,truth about it will keep changing it's state & hopefully we will know one day that life on another planet is a truth.


May be you will find it irrelevant but below examples are about explaining relation of truth with our understanding,perception.

Yesterday a gentleman asked me a question,"Prashant,isn't our service support prompt?"

I replied "No".

Gentleman got irritated & said to my superiors,"We always provide prompt service support" My superiors also denied his claim.

Gentleman pleaded "tell the truth prashant,tell the truth,don't we attend your complaints within 24 hours??"

I replied YES,you do!!

Gentleman was of the view that I was lying.

To the best of my knowledge & belief I told him the TRUTH both times.

As an end user when a productive machine breaks down,I expect a prompt service where minutes costs for me whereas in his view "promptness" meant within 24 hours.

In another instance

I told my friend " This road is built recently,just last year" don't know why,but he was surprised to hear that & for confirming he asked to another person "Is this road built recently??"

The person replied "No,No...it's quite old".

Now it was my turn to get shocked.

My friend looked at me strangely,as if I lie...I felt accused,still managed to be calm & asked him to ask that person again," How old is the road?"

To this question the person replied "it's built last year...."

Our perception plays an important role in according a truth to the fact or reality.

What we call "truth" is different from what is actually the case, or "true."

As for you post, one can say that everything is relative. Old, and new depends on what you consider to be old or new. Its relative.

Also, most of your examples are examples of perception and opinion. Personal perception and opinions will vary with each individual as I have stated before.

But actual truth and actual fact does not change. Opinions and perceptions do.

Actual fact & reality does not change but truth keeps on changing person to person as per our knowledge,belief,understanding,perception.

No, only what we think or believe to be the truth changes. Its the same with what we call facts. An actual fact and actual truth does not change. Only what we think or believe changes.

No individual can ever know the whole of truth or of any set of circumstances.

Truth is what it is.

This, quite clearly, is horribly confusing statements about fact/reality with what makes them true, and then calling statements believed to be true "truth". We can see that this is the case because of the red part in the first run-on sentence above. This whole line of argument is fatally flawed as a result. This was also manifested earlier when prashant attempted to say that statements are called "true" because they are.

Rubbish.

Fact does change by the way. Facts are states of affairs, and those are in an ongoing state of change. If we confuse true statements with facts, then we can say that facts do not change. Seeing how true statements are about fact/reality, these kinds of conflations between truth and fact, fact and reality, reality and truth, truth amd true statements, etc., will serve only to utterly confuse one's mind.

Fact and reality does not change, but truth does? Really now?

Reality is the way things were/are. Facts are states of affairs.

Knowledge is justified true belief, aside from the rare cases of pure epistemic luck(Gettier cases). Knowledge must be true. Knowledge changes, simply because knowledge is accrued. Sometimes we find out that what we thought was a bit of knowledge, was not. The reason that it was/is not knowledge is because it was/is not true, although we once thought that it was. As our verification/falsification methods improve, so too does our ability to ascertain whether or not statements correspond to the way things are. If they correspond, then they are true. Truth is that correspondence.

This is a friendly reminder do not direct your responses towards other members. The forums are for debate not for insulting others.

I have edited some post at this time. Please make sure that responses are keep to the subject in hand.. Everyone has an opinion and not everyone is going to agree with it. But at least give them the chance to have that opinion.

Site Mod
Kristi

I stand corrected. Yes, facts, as defined as "states of affairs" do change because states of affairs change.

That way we won't be able to differentiate between fact & truth.


That's quite right!

one has to strive hard for finding & discovering the truth.

'whole' of the truth or "part" of the truth is also termed & believed only as truth at stage.



We try acknowledging facts by discovering truth about it,Fact & reality remains unchanged with respect to the truth.Fact is rigid,truth is fluid.Fact is destination,truth is journy towards it.

Too rubbish

horrible understanding in fact!

Fact / reality are not needed to be made true.

Any person of ordinary intelligence ( like me) would easily understand what am I saying.