Truth is a choice

Please share your views rl, wether or not they are directly related.

What I take offense at is when people misunderstand me, elaborate on that misunderstanding and then proceed to diagnose me on the basis of how ridiculous my ideas seem to them. If they realized that they are arguing against something they themselves introduced to the conversation it would be a small comfort. But I am not holding my breath.

But all that aside, I would say that you are correct in saying that our environment is a factor in our psychology.

It is an oversimplification to say that truth is a matter of a choice. The mechanism is choice, but these choices are made over generations, socially within groups of many or few individuals, and on an individual basis, and they can be made subconsciously as well as consciously.

The motivation for making the initial statement in the first place was to explore what gives statements their truth value when there are no facts that directly support the statement we wish to evaluate the truth of. Given the definition of "truth" i suggested earler, I cannot think of anything but a mechanism of choice.

If you agree with that definition, though, remains to be seen.

I do not recall the exact wording of it, but I am interested in "truth" as it relates to statements. It is my opinion that to assign meanings to the concept "truth" beyond this is to mis-apply the concept.

I do not know truth but with what little I think I know about it," you seem to have a better understanding about it than what your peers do. This is only my observation and I am sure that I can be wrong.
Good luck on your voyage of truth. Robin

Thanks you

It may well be that I am wrong as well. But I will not take anyone's word for it just because they say they have written a book. If they will offer arguments, if they will answer the questions put forward, we can contrast our ideas against eachother and perhaps learn something. Then I may be proven wrong, but someone telling me that I do not understand cannot expect me to take their word for it unless they are capable of showing that my reasoning is flawed. Neither kennethamy, fil alberquerk or noOne phil have offered anything but opinions and beliefs without reasonable argumentation. Fil even put me on ignore when I asked him for such argumentation...

Could you be so kind to disclose how is it that non-mutually local systems inter-relate ?
...at best you have the exception of entanglement for which no one has yet a decent explanation.

Be more than glad to. However, since predication is the inverse function of abstraction, you will first have to construct a grammatically correct sentence. I will wait.

Come on now NoOne phil he was being some what nice about it maybe you could do the same and explain it in layman terms so that we all know that you are at least trying to work with us.
Was it Einstein that said when you know someting very well that you will be able to explain it to your own grandmother. Now I can only hope that einstein's grandmother was not a genius as well!

But he isn't trying to work with us. He is here to show us, out of the kindness of his heart, how inferior we all are to him.

Actually, you missed it again. It is you who are teaching me--I learn about human psychology through interaction, i.e. experience.

You just prove my point.

If truth is a choice, what good is your notion of "prove"? You really cannot connect ideas can you? Must have slipped through one of dimensional cracks.

I do have to agree with the both of you at times!
When I seen your last attacking reply Cyracuz I thought to my self that we may not have a chance in hell of NoOne phill explaining to us his view even if he was wrong it still would be nice to hear his point of view!

I´m opening an exception just for purpose of clarification on this stupid complain which goes on and on with no foundation whatsoever...

Its far to much to keep hearing without end at sight your childish complain that no explanation was given after several pages and an innumerable amount of answers provided by several respectable members on this forum including the rare intervention of Kenneth (probably out of scandal) with whom I particularly have some periodic disagreement but that undoubtedly is a specialist on formal Logic and has the merit of clarity and coherence in is assessments no matter how stubborn or provocative he can be at some times...but as I was saying, not just Ken as many others have in fact provided in a varied manner their opinion and given their justification which you promptly have been ignoring since to keep at your as usual mumbo jumbo monologue...you are one such philosopher, the kind who cannot distinguish an Ontological from an Epistemic problem as it was made clear given your acknowledgement of actual state of affairs for events, confusing the knowledge that we may have on them, the events, which amounts for the search for Truth, with Truth itself, or the actual state of affairs in which those very same events reside. Its sad, and more then justifying to not address you any more, as such would just be yet another waste of time !...

I honestly which you best, and good luck in the future !
Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

By the way, I followe the link in your profile to the work you have published. Then I did a google search of it, and do you know what the search yielded? Absolutely nothing. So it seems your work isn't really relevant to anything... Please provide the links to prove me wrong if I am indeed wrong.

If you do a little reading you will soon discover that if you wait to hear noOne phil explain his views you are in for a long wait. He doesn't do explaning. Maybe he thinks it's beneath him...

...finally something I can agree upon...

Why would you go off link to google? That entire page that came up is work I posted. The top of the list on language is in English. Is English a problem?

Where are you peers ???
...Let me guess they run off...

I will not put people down no matter how stupid I think they may be! Well maybe I should take that back because I am aware that I have done that before and I am not proud of it but instead ashame that I have. This may help to understand where I am coming from!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QObhuLxso

You said it yourself, I have no peers, save one. And you would never guess who that was.

I ran it through google because all works of any relevance are always commented on by other specialists working in the same field, referenced by people working in related areas. This means that a google search on just one of the titles on your page would give several hits if it had any relevance. But I found nothing. So excuse me if I don't bow down and worship your extensive knowledge just because you are a self-published writer... What name do you publish under? John J. Clark? I ran a search on that too. Nothing of any relevance to this topic...