What is the difference between Consciousness and Truth?

[Age]

"ultimate truth"

Why are you composing "ultimate" with "truth", before you have defined "truth"? What does "truth" mean? If you really think about it, truth is a feeling, which means it can only exist in a mind. "ultimate truth" therefore becomes the axiomatic foundation of all truths which is god.

Do we know who we are or what this is?

Yes, we are god dreaming himself as multiple characters in his dream world of planet earth. Reality is the universal consciousness of god. This is 100% true because Truth only exists in Consciousness so we know we are living in a mind.

LOL

"we are living in a mind" BUT "we also have our OWN minds".

As can be seen here these human beings, back in the days when this was being written really were VERY CONFUSED individuals.

[Age]

No definition of Truth is possible.
Because the Truth is what allows every possible definition.

So, to you, 'Truth' existed BEFORE ALL definitions came about, correct?

Truth is Being itself.

This is like saying, 'Tree is Being itself', but then one wonders what IS 'Tree', Exactly?

If you can NOT define A word, then according to your "logic" this would infer that 'Truth' is NOT YET existing.

Which might speak a DEEPER or BIGGER 'truth' than there was on first reading.

See, if you can NOT define 'Truth', then this means 'Truth' does NOT YET exist for you. Because, as you say and claim here, the Truth is what allows EVERY possible definition.

But if you now just want to say or claim, that it is NOT 'possible', for you, to define the word 'Truth', then WHY NOT?

Indeed Being = Being True.

I KNOW a LOT of 'you', human beings, who are NOT being true AT ALL.

And Being, as far as we are concerned, coincides with Nothingness.

WHO does the word 'we' here refer to, EXACTLY?

Because as far as 'we' are concerned 'Being' coincides with BOTH the 'Nothingness' and the 'Thingness' of Life, Itself.

To ONLY LOOK AT or SEE ONE "side" ONLY of thee TWO that are NEEDED for Life to EXIST would Be, literally, to just have a VERY "one-sided" view of 'things'.

As well as the Truth.

But 'you' can NOT YET define the word 'Truth'. So, what this literally means is that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW the Truth.

[Age]

No definition of Truth is possible.
Because the Truth is what allows every possible definition.

So, to you, 'Truth' existed BEFORE ALL definitions came about, correct?

Truth is Being itself.

This is like saying, 'Tree is Being itself', but then one wonders what IS 'Tree', Exactly?

If you can NOT define A word, then according to your "logic" this would infer that 'Truth' is NOT YET existing.

Which might speak a DEEPER or BIGGER 'truth' than there was on first reading.

See, if you can NOT define 'Truth', then this means 'Truth' does NOT YET exist for you. Because, as you say and claim here, the Truth is what allows EVERY possible definition.

But if you now just want to say or claim, that it is NOT 'possible', for you, to define the word 'Truth', then WHY NOT?

Indeed Being = Being True.

I KNOW a LOT of 'you', human beings, who are NOT being true AT ALL.

And Being, as far as we are concerned, coincides with Nothingness.

WHO does the word 'we' here refer to, EXACTLY?

Because as far as 'we' are concerned 'Being' coincides with BOTH the 'Nothingness' and the 'Thingness' of Life, Itself.

To ONLY LOOK AT or SEE ONE "side" ONLY of thee TWO that are NEEDED for Life to EXIST would Be, literally, to just have a VERY "one-sided" view of 'things'.

As well as the Truth.

But 'you' can NOT YET define the word 'Truth'. So, what this literally means is that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW the Truth.

[Age]

Age, I sometimes refer to all persons as 'man'. Gender stereotyping is such nonsense that for practical purposes whatever one's biological sex, each of us is a man.

WHY NOT just call all persons 'human' instead? That way there is NEVER ANY CONFUSION. Or, is it okay with you that I call 'you' a 'man' sometimes also, "belinda"?

Also, WHY do you refer to all persons as 'man' only sometimes? if you referred to all persons as 'man' ALWAYS, then there would be LESS CONFUSION. But AGAIN, if you referred to all persons as 'human' ALWAYS, then there is NO CONFUSION EVER. Although it is STILL a VERY Wrong MISUSE of the words.

[Iwannaplato]

Your response seems confusing to me.

Well, let me come at it from another angle then.
I wouldn't use those words in sentences the same way.
To me they refer to things that are not the same kinds of 'things'.
Consciousness as word seems to me to refer to the ongoing experiencing, that I as a subject have/am.
Truth seems to me to be a category of ideas about reality/experience.

That's true
That's conscious

Those seem to indicate very different 'things'.

Actually, I suspect we are saying the same thing only differently and differently as to how we get there. Truth is perception/experience/knowledge and meanings, it is truth until the understanding has reason to question it.

Well, that's not what I am saying. I think consciousness and truth are quite different words. Given the vastness of things they relate to, they connect to many of the same things. But then so do words like falsehood and consciousness. I see the words as not having the same meaning. I can't imagine using them interchangably when talking to people IRL.

You didn't tell me the consciousness.
He hit is head and lost truth.
That sentence is conscious.
The mice are now true again, so we can test them in the maze.
Pantheists believe all matter has truth.
The patient is untrue. We can begin the operation.
It turned out his story was unconscious.

My experience of the words is quite different. I wouldn't use them in the same ways. I focus on different facets of reality when I use them or think or them or hear them.

[popeye1945]

Well, let me come at it from another angle then.
I wouldn't use those words in sentences the same way.
To me they refer to things that are not the same kinds of 'things'.
Consciousness as word seems to me to refer to the ongoing experiencing, that I as a subject have/am.
Truth seems to me to be a category of ideas about reality/experience.

That's true
That's conscious

Those seem to indicate very different 'things'.

Actually, I suspect we are saying the same thing only differently and differently as to how we get there. Truth is perception/experience/knowledge and meanings, it is truth until the understanding has reason to question it.

Well, that's not what I am saying. I think consciousness and truth are quite different words. Given the vastness of things they relate to, they connect to many of the same things. But then so do words like falsehood and consciousness. I see the words as not having the same meaning. I can't imagine using them interchangably when talking to people IRL.

You didn't tell me the consciousness.
He hit is head and lost truth.
That sentence is conscious.
The mice are now true again, so we can test them in the maze.
Pantheists believe all matter has truth.
The patient is untrue. We can begin the operation.
It turned out his story was unconscious.

My experience of the words is quite different. I wouldn't use them in the same ways. I focus on different facets of reality when I use them or think or them or hear them.

Hi Iwannaplato,

Well, I am not using these words interchangeably, the first stage of consciousness is perception and perception means to experience, and truth is an experience that is true to the biology that experiences the matter. The instant of experience/perception is not questioned at the moment/instant, it is truth until the understanding finds some reason to question the experience. Even where one's experienced truth does not agree with physical reality it is still true to the subject biology experiencing what might be termed a delusion or illusion. This might be due to the subject biology being impaired in some way but even for impaired biology the experience is true to that impaired biology. The old saying truth to the individual is experience but to the group, it is agreement, thus the group agreement is somewhat more reliable yet it too is not infallible.

[popeye1945]

Actually, I suspect we are saying the same thing only differently and differently as to how we get there. Truth is perception/experience/knowledge and meanings, it is truth until the understanding has reason to question it.

Well, that's not what I am saying. I think consciousness and truth are quite different words. Given the vastness of things they relate to, they connect to many of the same things. But then so do words like falsehood and consciousness. I see the words as not having the same meaning. I can't imagine using them interchangably when talking to people IRL.

You didn't tell me the consciousness.
He hit is head and lost truth.
That sentence is conscious.
The mice are now true again, so we can test them in the maze.
Pantheists believe all matter has truth.
The patient is untrue. We can begin the operation.
It turned out his story was unconscious.

My experience of the words is quite different. I wouldn't use them in the same ways. I focus on different facets of reality when I use them or think or them or hear them.

Hi Iwannaplato,

Well, I am not using these words interchangeably, the first stage of consciousness is perception and perception means to experience, and the truth is an experience that is true to the biology that experiences the matter. The instant of experience/perception is not questioned at the moment/instant, it is truth until the understanding finds some reason to question the experience. Even where one's experienced truth does not agree with physical reality it is still true to the subject biology experiencing what might be termed a delusion. This might be due to the subject biology being impaired in some way but even for impaired biology, the experience is true to that impaired biology. The old saying truth to the individual is experience but to the group it is agreement, thus the group agreement is somewhat more reliable yet it too is not infallible. So, consciousness provides the hardware of the experience and truth is true to the biological consciousness having the truth experience.

[Iwannaplato]

I am not using these words interchangeably, the first stage of consciousness is perception and perception means to experience, and truth is an experience that is true to the biology that experiences the matter. The instant of experience/perception is not questioned at the moment/instant, it is truth until the understanding finds some reason to question the experience. Even where one's experienced truth does not agree with physical reality it is still true to the subject biology experiencing what might be termed a delusion or illusion. This might be due to the subject biology being impaired in some way but even for impaired biology the experience is true to that impaired biology. The old saying truth to the individual is experience but to the group, it is agreement, thus the group agreement is somewhat more reliable yet it too is not infallible.

I think I would use the word real instead of truth in the above. What one experiences as present in the moment one considers real in that moment. To me truth is more about models, assertions.

Well actually 'real' has a problem in those sentence also. But I think it is closer to what is meant, as it is generally used.

I wouldn't call an experience true. I might call my interpretation of it true or false. Partially true.

I understand the idea that we do not question what we experience in the moment. I think this is mostly true. I think there are times when we experience something we did not expect and don't accept what we are experiencing, even in the moment (and don't react emotionally. IOW we are not a monad, a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have more than one reaction about the reality of what we are experiencing in the same moment. But generally I agree. We accept it, generally, as reality.

[popeye1945]

I am not using these words interchangeably, the first stage of consciousness is perception and perception means to experience, and truth is an experience that is true to the biology that experiences the matter. The instant of experience/perception is not questioned at the moment/instant, it is truth until the understanding finds some reason to question the experience. Even where one's experienced truth does not agree with physical reality it is still true to the subject biology experiencing what might be termed a delusion or illusion. This might be due to the subject biology being impaired in some way but even for impaired biology the experience is true to that impaired biology. The old saying truth to the individual is experience but to the group, it is agreement, thus the group agreement is somewhat more reliable yet it too is not infallible.

I think I would use the word real instead of truth in the above. What one experiences as present in the moment one considers real in that moment. To me truth is more about models, assertions.

Well actually 'real' has a problem in those sentences also. But I think it is closer to what is meant, as it is generally used.
I wouldn't call an experience true. I might call my interpretation of it true or false. Partially true.
I understand the idea that we do not question what we experience in the moment. I think this is mostly true. I think there are times when we experience something we did not expect and don't accept what we are experiencing, even in the moment (and don't react emotionally. IOW we are not a monad, a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have more than one reaction about the reality of what we are experiencing in the same moment. But generally I agree. We accept it, generally, as reality.

True is when an experience is unquestioned, only with the engagement of processes of the understanding can an experience be concluded as false. All organisms are reactionary creatures so much so that the very term motivation spells reaction and not action, for there is no such thing as human action. The organism indeed can be considered a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have a choice of reactions at least apparently so, but one must be moved within before one can move without read motivation. One will react to change/alter something in the outer world or alter our positions relative to the said stimulus. No doubt that our biology, as complex as it is, is reacting to the environment subconsciously all the time but the willed conscious reaction to alter something in the physical world is indeed a reaction not an action.

[popeye1945]

I am not using these words interchangeably, the first stage of consciousness is perception and perception means to experience, and truth is an experience that is true to the biology that experiences the matter. The instant of experience/perception is not questioned at the moment/instant, it is truth until the understanding finds some reason to question the experience. Even where one's experienced truth does not agree with physical reality it is still true to the subject biology experiencing what might be termed a delusion or illusion. This might be due to the subject biology being impaired in some way but even for impaired biology the experience is true to that impaired biology. The old saying truth to the individual is experience but to the group, it is agreement, thus the group agreement is somewhat more reliable yet it too is not infallible.

I think I would use the word real instead of truth in the above. What one experiences as present in the moment one considers real in that moment. To me truth is more about models, assertions.

Well actually 'real' has a problem in those sentences also. But I think it is closer to what is meant, as it is generally used.
I wouldn't call an experience true. I might call my interpretation of it true or false. Partially true.
I understand the idea that we do not question what we experience in the moment. I think this is mostly true. I think there are times when we experience something we did not expect and don't accept what we are experiencing, even in the moment (and don't react emotionally. IOW we are not a monad, a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have more than one reaction about the reality of what we are experiencing in the same moment. But generally I agree. We accept it, generally, as reality.

True is when an experience is unquestioned, only with the engagement of processes of the understanding can an experience be concluded as false. All organisms are reactionary creatures so much so that the very term motivation spells reaction and not action, for there is no such thing as human action. The organism indeed can be considered a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have a choice of reactions at least apparently so, but one must be moved within before one can move without, read motivation. One will react to change/alter something in the outer world or alter our positions relative to the said stimulus. No doubt that our biology, as complex as it is, is reacting to the environment subconsciously all the time but the willed conscious reaction to alter something in the physical world is indeed a reaction not an action.

[popeye1945]

I think I would use the word real instead of truth in the above. What one experiences as present in the moment one considers real in that moment. To me truth is more about models, assertions.

Well actually 'real' has a problem in those sentences also. But I think it is closer to what is meant, as it is generally used.
I wouldn't call an experience true. I might call my interpretation of it true or false. Partially true.
I understand the idea that we do not question what we experience in the moment. I think this is mostly true. I think there are times when we experience something we did not expect and don't accept what we are experiencing, even in the moment (and don't react emotionally. IOW we are not a monad, a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have more than one reaction about the reality of what we are experiencing in the same moment. But generally I agree. We accept it, generally, as reality.

True is when an experience is unquestioned, only with the engagement of processes of the understanding can an experience be concluded as false. All organisms are reactionary creatures so much so that the very term motivation spells reaction and not action, for there is no such thing as human action. The organism indeed can be considered a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have a choice of reactions at least apparently so, but one must be moved within before one can move without, read motivation. One will react to change/alter something in the outer world or alter our positions relative to the said stimulus. No doubt that our biology, as complex as it is, is reacting to the environment subconsciously all the time but the willed conscious reaction to alter something in the physical world is indeed a reaction not an action.

[Iwannaplato]

I am not using these words interchangeably, the first stage of consciousness is perception and perception means to experience, and truth is an experience that is true to the biology that experiences the matter. The instant of experience/perception is not questioned at the moment/instant, it is truth until the understanding finds some reason to question the experience. Even where one's experienced truth does not agree with physical reality it is still true to the subject biology experiencing what might be termed a delusion or illusion. This might be due to the subject biology being impaired in some way but even for impaired biology the experience is true to that impaired biology. The old saying truth to the individual is experience but to the group, it is agreement, thus the group agreement is somewhat more reliable yet it too is not infallible.

I think I would use the word real instead of truth in the above. What one experiences as present in the moment one considers real in that moment. To me truth is more about models, assertions.

Well actually 'real' has a problem in those sentences also. But I think it is closer to what is meant, as it is generally used.
I wouldn't call an experience true. I might call my interpretation of it true or false. Partially true.
I understand the idea that we do not question what we experience in the moment. I think this is mostly true. I think there are times when we experience something we did not expect and don't accept what we are experiencing, even in the moment (and don't react emotionally. IOW we are not a monad, a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have more than one reaction about the reality of what we are experiencing in the same moment. But generally I agree. We accept it, generally, as reality.

True is when an experience is unquestioned, only with the engagement of processes of the understanding can an experience be concluded as false. All organisms are reactionary creatures so much so that the very term motivation spells reaction and not action, for there is no such thing as human action. The organism indeed can be considered a unit that reacts as one thing. We can have a choice of reactions at least apparently so, but one must be moved within before one can move without read motivation. One will react to change/alter something in the outer world or alter our positions relative to the said stimulus. No doubt that our biology, as complex as it is, is reacting to the environment subconsciously all the time but the willed conscious reaction to alter something in the physical world is indeed a reaction not an action.

I think we are writing past each other. I don't see anything here that opposes what I said or fits it really.

[shelby]

Consciousness refers to the state of being aware and able to think, perceive, and experience. It is the subjective experience of the world and one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations.

Truth, on the other hand, refers to the quality or state of being true, accurate, or factual. It is the correspondence between a statement or idea and reality.

In other words, consciousness is the subjective experience of the world, while truth is the objective reality of the world. They are distinct concepts, but they can be related in the sense that our consciousness allows us to perceive and understand the truth about the world around us.

[Iwannaplato]

Consciousness refers to the state of being aware and able to think, perceive, and experience. It is the subjective experience of the world and one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations.

Truth, on the other hand, refers to the quality or state of being true, accurate, or factual. It is the correspondence between a statement or idea and reality.

In other words, consciousness is the subjective experience of the world, while truth is the objective reality of the world. They are distinct concepts, but they can be related in the sense that our consciousness allows us to perceive and understand the truth about the world around us.

I agree. I would just fussily change one thing....

In other words, consciousness is the subjective experience of the world, while truths are descriptions/assertions/models about reality that have been rigorously justified and are not contradicted.

I bolded where I changed things.

[popeye1945]

The processes of understanding are not perception itself; it is the understanding that questions the relation between perception and the physical world. Perception before this, is truth and true to the biology having the experience. Truth to the individual is experience.