Truth is a choice

It's quite impossible to actually interpret something on behalf of something else because it would have to pass through our own perceptions first. What it seems like you're talking is "knowledge" which is basically stored experiences developed through our perceptions. To me it works in a circle. We experience something through perceptions, which then adds to our collection of knowledge. Our collection of knowledge then aid's us with our perceptions...which is cycle of "learning".

This may be a case of us talking past eachother again. I have no objections to what you say here, but I still think it is possible to interpret something on behalf of someone else. Like I said, it is still my interpretation, but I am adopting criteria that are not relevant to me directly.

I know, I was just sort of elaborating on that process, same thing though.

I asked this questions on Yahoo Answers and here are a couple of responses that I got:

"Truth is an intellectual concept, therefore choice does not enter into it. I think what you're trying to avoid is - Is truth relative or not? Some are absolute, we call them facts, others are relative to the situation. Most of the "facts" are of natural origin while most of the relative truths are metaphysical in nature. The only "choice" is in determining whether or not your are dealing with a natural or metaphysical truth."

and

"I noticed something the other day. A child was playing with something and it broke. When his mother asked him how and who broke it he replied that it was the friend next door.
Why did a three and a half boy lie to his mom? Was his a free choice or was it a choice of alternatives non of which offered freedom from the tension and punishment involved with the truth, which would surely have come had the truth been told. Even though it was a minor thing and natural that the object would break in the hands of a young boy, the choice was made by him to avoid more tension and possible punishment. Was this a free choice? Or was it a natural effect of the instincts that had a young boy avoiding pain and conflict and his choice was actually a natural response and involved no choice. Could he have chosen to tell the truth?
He would have if he had the confidence in his mother that no tension or pain or punishment were involved.
When we choose to obey the law do we do so out of choice or out of an atomic respect for the guns on the side of the police and really have no choice if we want to live. Are we making the choice to live and avoid the tension involved? What about people who choose to do the contrary of reality as we know it? Are they making a free choice or are they just mere configurations of carbon atoms intelligently making no choices as to how they wish to manipulate reality to make life better for themselves? Is there any choice in all this or is survival a natural thing given and no choice is involved. So what happens when we make the wrong choices? Are we free to do that? Or are wrong choices configured into the original programming and so we really have no choice, that the right choice or wrong choice are configured from the beginning and therefor we have no control over our lives actually?
When it comes down to it we have to live with the choices we make."

What was the question you asked? How did you word it?

The first answer sounds like a classical materialist's point of view. The second sounds like a derivative of a debate on free will. Both deal with "truth" in a very constricted sense, in my opinion, and I get the impression that these answers come from people who have a desire to "keep it simple".

The question was stated as: "How is truth a choice? Any thoughts?" I had to extend it because there was a 20 character minimum. I think there are a lot of atheists on Y!A

The link to the question is: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Agad.DNPRhfZaQcYB0u_GHTty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110510071031AAXfWjf

I added in the extra details to try and keep "trolls" away. A lot of people really like to give stupid and ridiculous answers. I decided to put those ones on here specifically because the seemed a little...off...to me.

Yes, they do seem a bit off to me too. I think we can say that 'truth' is an intellectual concept. But both the answers seem to disregard the notion that no matter what the presented facts are, wether or not we believe in them is a matter of choice. The choice one makes between creationism and evolution theory, for instance. And many of the choices are not made by the individuals, but by the culture they were born in. And many choices are made while unaware that we are making choices.

If an ostrich sticks it's head in the sand, does it become invisible?

I do not claim to know "truth" or that truth itself exists in any concrete form outside of the human mind as anything more than an ideal based upon our own subjective experience. Like truth belief itself may only be a concept.

And If what you have stated were true, would it be possible that in discovering the truth one could formulate a belief based upon that perception of what is experienced to be true?

So I as a person cannot dispute your claim or agree with it, thats just my opinion though.... or is it?