Is truth subjective or objective?

Nothing silly about my arguments, Cyracuz.

The topic is "the truth"...and at other times "REALITY."

You keep insisting that your "experience" is what determines what is "truth" and what is "reality."

All you can be sure of is that your experience tells you is what your experience is. Whether it tells you anything about "truth" or "REALITY' is a question quite different.

But obviously we both enjoy discussing this, because we have done it so often over the years...and here we are at it again.

Yes, we are obviously both enjoying this. Wouldn't have it any other way.



No. Not at all. I am saying that the "truth and reality" I do experience is the only kind of "truth and reality" I can possibly have knowledge about.

What reality may be outside of this human-world relationship, and if there even is reality outside of it, are things we can only speculate about. We do not even know if there is a reality outside this relationship, or if the relationship itself is what constitutes reality.

We may be on to something here, Cyracuz.

Let me take it point by point…because I agree with damn near everything you said HERE.




Good. I am enjoying it…and I am happy you are also.




I may have been misunderstanding you over the years, Cyracuz...so allow me to apologize if that is the case.

I certainly agree that the only kind of “truth and reality” you can possibly have knowledge about are the elements you gain through your experience. Same goes for me.

But I have conceded that repeatedly in our many discussions…and you seem to have taken issue with me on that.

When discussing "truth" and "REALITY", I am never talking about your experience of reality or truth…because there is absolutely no way I can have knowledge of that myself. I am talking about “truth” and “REALITY”…as it MAY EXIST…the way it was proposed in the title of this thread. I thought I've made that clear.

Your reality, Cyracuz…may be the REALITY...but it may not be THE REALITY at all. Your perceptions may be defective.

And all this talk between you and JL about the need for agreement to arrive at REALITY or truth seems to be unnecessary considering where we are in this discussion now.

But we will leave that be…and I will accept what you have written here. If I see you taking a position that I consider substantially deviates from what you have said here, I’ll question you about it while referring to this post.



I agree totally and without reservation. I am sure I have been saying variations of that sentiment in damn near every discussion we've ever had.

But whatever the REALITY is...that is what it is, regardless of whether that includes human agreement or not.




We most assuredly do not...and I have conceded that innumerable times.

So any assertions that agreement among humans is necessary for “truth” or “REALITY” is out –of-line. At best, the assertion would have to be: “It is possible that reality and truth are the result of human construct”…which of course can just as easily be stated, “it is possible that the agreement of humans and the considerations and knowledge of humans may have absolutely no impact whatsoever on truth or REALITY.”

We really do not know.

I don’t think we’ve ever come this far along in our discussion, Cyracuz. I am happy we are here.

We can define "reality" in two ways for the purpose of illustrating this point.
One is "a world in which creatures can exist." According to this way of thinking I would agree with the quote above.

The other way to define reality is "the experience of existing as a being in a world". In that case I am not sure how the quote above would apply.

Truth cannot be subjective it's not an experience, it doesn't even exist, it is simply the signal that deception isn't occurring.

Truth is the default state, and when the clinging to deception is not
Obscuring it,

It is revealed, and is therefore available and present without the retirement of any Action.

Truth cannot be objective, for the same reasons.

Truth is a dysfunctional term, it isn't pointing towards anything, but to a verbal claim regarding sick intent.

But to express this, it suffices to claim that this is deception free.

But to utilize a word representing this pure state, gives the deceivers an edge (if you analyze how language functions, it should be self evident), as it pulls you away from grounded reality into a world of floating virtual phenomenon.

On the contrary truth is in everything.
Sub sets systems of a bigger set system are not less true because their state of affairs is incomplete without requiring justification from above.
While you can make the case of incomplete justification you cannot make the case phenomena is not there in the form of experience.
Again remember the tautology: An ilusion is a true ilusion. Every incomplete perceptual pov is onto itself an object from which cousciousness is both part and proof. A "meta-object" a compilation of subjective NATURAL NECESSARY aproaches onto a system, an object. This object of multiple experiencing needs not more proof then the experiencing itself
To put it in a single simple sentence, Truth is in the relation itself.
When you say "the Sun is setting" you are not lying about the legitimacy of your experience.

We could go a step further because this all shebang revolving around consciousness and awareness is not the heart of the matter.
When a space rock in its orbit processes heat coming from the Sun, its "pov" of processing is just as phenomenal as ours in the sense it is incomplete regarding to what it refers. The position and speed of the rock take the Sun heat from a single angle at X time. The rock does not process information about the Sun which did not reach the rock. Is the rock information coming from the Sun being processed on its mass as heat less true because it is not all what the Sun is doing? Of course not.

There is this confusion going on that consciousness has magical properties like authorship of willing and volition...consciousness is just processing data. The data being computed from any given X does not describe anything other than a subset of X which is the relevant part of X interacting with it. This process, the relation itself is objective.

Truth is fact or reality. It is absense of bias.
It is night or day.

Bias is having a pov a frame of reference from where you interact with a subset of an object. Counts for you aswell as just a part of you interacts, and equally counts for the object, not all of it will interact.Nvertheless there is a specific relation going on.
When you see a plane from below you are not seeing it as from above. Your pov from below is limited, the information you get is limited. If you change frames and go above the same happens, you trade one pov for the next. You never have a simultaneous complete picture of the plane. Now you could argue you could just collect all the povs right? No! To get to all possible POVs you would have to be much more than human and you would have to get the set of all possible relations with said object including those which are not framed from your own self-constrictions as a specific subject/observer. How do other ppl look at said plane? Some will find it appealing or uggly or in between and other qualities... How does a computer "understands" the plane? A binary code program in the world of its computing. How does the Earth interacts with the plane? Gravity, light colour spectra, wind resistance, drag...what else?
...now how does the light of the plane affects the Universe?
How many sets of possible and ocurring interactions are going on?

You're talking about a field that can have many characteristics. You need to talk about an object that is essentially viewed the same no matter who the viewer is. Talk about the sun or the moon as viewed by the naked eye from the same location and time.

Whne Y interacts with X you get say Z. What happens when, not Y, but J interacts with X? Obviously the established relation can't produce the same exact result, even if we suppose J is largely similar to Y, like in the case you framed another human being looking at the plane at the same place and time. Even then the experience of the plane although very similar won't be equal. Say X fella is with an headache while J is feeling fine. X fella might consider the plane noisy while J thinks the roaring of the plane is lovely.

Truth is not about the completeness of knowledge but rather the completeness of a specific form of experiencing between any 2 things that are interacting or exchanging information, each piece of the two, computing it towards its own system needs and focus.

Please take note I am not saying there is no objective finite object. I am rather saying your view of said object cannot be complete. By definition taking a POV requires a perspective which again by definition is incomplete.
Furthermore you don't access the object just per se but rather the subset of raw information you get from the object is reprocessed according to your own essence, your particularities, your system needs.
I suspect a kanguru thinks of a plane as a shape in the sky roaring like an animal, not as a transport. Well you might think since humans "invented" the plane, they alone have the authority to establish what it is, but of course this is false. All interactions and povs are phenomenologically valid. The criteria is the happening of the interaction, the Kanguru is having an experience just as valid and real as yours.

You're wrong. The fact that highways and transportation systems work proves people see and act accordingly. Most people who work or go to school create a habit that is repetitive. Those actions are completed regularly by many people every day of the week. Those are objective truths.

No you are wrong my dear CI...no person will give you the exact same description of the road as everybody else will have a distinct specific relation with it. You have argued the specificity of each personal relation doesn't change the function of using the road correctly as a road. Everybody knows what its purpose is, right, but that is a rough description of what a road is. Try asking the engineering who build the road and knows the ins and outs of its making vs a common citizen and the description might be miles apart. None of the perspectives is wrong. The interactions of a common commuter and the interaction of the engineer are just distinct. And yes both know the usefulness of the road but their descriptions in detail are no equal. For instance, say, a trucker can find the road short or narrow while a biker thinks its fine. You are just falling for the simple-minded non-complex approach to what a road can be as an experience. Appealing to its basic function as a road is a start not the end of its complete description.

Your analogy between an engineer and non-engineer doesn't make sense. We don't try to equate a kindergarten student with a college student for obvious reasons, nor a doctor to a construction worker.

Missed the point again. Its not about maturity but distinct frames of reference in your experties and interests.
By the way CI my point is not hard to grasp. You are being deliberately antagonistic. Either that or you don't follow...