What is the difference between Consciousness and Truth?

[Age]

Precisely, what is the definition and meaning of Consciousness and how is it different than the definition and meaning of the word Truth?

My conclusion is that both "Truth" and "Consciousness" mean the totality of experiences. "Truth" just like any other word in language, can only be known through its correspondence to a feeling. In other words "Truth" is simply a feeling we know of, and that has profound implications on what reality actually is. If "Truth" is nothing beyond a feeling (how could it be??), then any statement claiming truth outside of consciousness is linguistically false because no word in language can reference something unknowable.

In other words, the word "Truth" exists because it is known, and only because it is known. A reality outside of "the known" is a reality outside of Truth.

'Truth' is commonly associated with absolute truth, but 'consciousness' commonly refers to living individuals, as in the clinical usage of 'conscious'.Therefore 'consciousness' is not the best word to link with absolute truth i.e. "totality of experiences". I can think of a more precise word that fits.

No man knows absolute truth.

LOL WHY do 'you', "belinda", express this 'absolute truth', as an 'absolute truth'?

Is it BECAUSE 'you' are NOT 'a man', and ONLY 'a woman' can KNOW 'absolute truth'?

WHY can 'you', posters, here REALLY NOT SEE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION in CLAIMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing in regards to, 'there being NO truth'.

For example, here, ONCE AGAIN, IF, and ONLY IF, 'NO man knows absolute truth', then what are 'you' that KNOWS, ABSOLUTELY, that NO man knows 'absolute truth'?

Absolute truth is 'known' only as an item of faith.

Who and/or what is SAYING and MAKING THIS CLAIM?

What happens if one just says, the 'absolute truth' is just 'that, which could NEVER be refuted for ever more', for example?

In other words, WHY does the term and phrase HAVE TO be DEFINED as some 'thing' that is an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY?

Individual consciousnesses are not absolute consciousness. Absolute consciousness is also an item of faith but as such it is a lot less credible than absolute truth.

WHY do 'you', an individual consciousness, CLAIM to KNOW, with 'absolute certainty', that 'absolute consciousness' AND 'absolute truth' are just 'items of faith' and that 'absolute truth', which, supposedly, NO man (and/or woman) knows, but which is, supposedly, MORE credible?

And, 'credible' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

[popeye1945]

Truth is the instant of perception and this is consciousness there is no difference, any contradiction of instant perception/truth is due to the workings of the latter understanding to affirm or negate instant perception/truth.

[Iwannaplato]

Precisely, what is the definition and meaning of Consciousness and how is it different than the definition and meaning of the word Truth?

My conclusion is that both "Truth" and "Consciousness" mean the totality of experiences. "Truth" just like any other word in language, can only be known through its correspondence to a feeling. In other words "Truth" is simply a feeling we know of, and that has profound implications on what reality actually is. If "Truth" is nothing beyond a feeling (how could it be??), then any statement claiming truth outside of consciousness is linguistically false because no word in language can reference something unknowable.

In other words, the word "Truth" exists because it is known, and only because it is known. A reality outside of "the known" is a reality outside of Truth.

Consciousness to me refers to experiencing. That process of being aware...of stuff.

Truth is some kind of knowledge, assertion about reality, generally some portion of it.

So, to me they are the same kind of category of word.

A: The Sun is the nearest start to earth.
B: Ain't that the consciousness.

That just doesn't work for me.

She hit her head on a rock and lost truth.

That doesn't work for me.

[bobmax]

Truth prescinds from knowledge.

Because Truth is Being itself.
While knowledge is only ever a reflection of being.

All knowledge requires negation.
Because to know one must distinguish, divide, separate, that is, deny.

While the Truth is the negation of the negation!

All existence, all knowledge, all awareness need the Truth, but are only a shadow of it.
They refer to the Truth but in themselves they are non-being, they are negation.

While Truth is Being, it is One!

[Age]

'consciousness' commonly refers to living individuals, as in the clinical usage of 'conscious'

Yes, but we are in a philosophy of mind forum, obviously by "consciousness" I mean the accurate definition and not the medical jargon definition.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And what, EXACTLY, is the LOL 'accurate definition' of 'consciousness'?

It never ceases to AMUSE me just HOW MANY people ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they HAVE the 'accurate definition' for words.

No man knows absolute truth.Absolute truth is 'known' only as an item of faith.

If no man knows "absolute truth", then the words correspond to nothing so I can just remove them from your sentence and nothing will change, right?

No man knows [cleoniclosel].[cleoniclosel] is 'known' only as an item of faith.

If the word "absolute truth" has no mapping to a feeling we can just replace it with a nonsense made-up word and the sentence has the same meaning.

The point I am making is that every single word maps to feelings we have. You can play around with definitions, defining one word through other words and concepts, but you cannot go on forever in language. Eventually, you just end up creating circular definitions. All words ultimately lead to conscious felt experiences.

The words "Truth" and "Consciousness" both reference the same thing. That is: the essence feeling of knowing

[Magnolia5275]

Precisely, what is the definition and meaning of Consciousness and how is it different than the definition and meaning of the word Truth?

The word 'conscious' refers to 'being aware' as in when one is 'conscious' of some 'thing', then they are 'aware' of 'that thing', and, 'consciousness' refers to the action, behavior, or state of just 'being aware'. The word 'Consciousness' with a capital 'C' refers to the state of 'being Aware' of ALL 'things' and NOT just some 'things'.

'truth' is reached or obtained through 'agreement and acceptance'. And, 'Truth' capital 'T' is when there is 'agreement and acceptance' by ALL or EVERY 'thing'.

My conclusion is that both "Truth" and "Consciousness" mean the totality of experiences. "Truth" just like any other word in language, can only be known through its correspondence to a feeling. In other words "Truth" is simply a feeling we know of, and that has profound implications on what reality actually is.

So, if I am wonder what 'life' is, EXACTLY, and I am 'feeling' sad, for example, at that time, then 'Life is sad' would be the 'Truth', following this 'logic' of 'yours' here, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If "Truth" is nothing beyond a feeling (how could it be??), then any statement claiming truth outside of consciousness is linguistically false because no word in language can reference something unknowable.

Wow you JUMPED from one ASSUMPTION to ANOTHER ASSUMPTION then to A CONCLUSION here VERY QUICKLY.

Also, WHY do you ask questions here, which you, OBVIOUSLY, have NO interest in HEARING what "another" has to SAY in regards to 'your question'?

What 'you' are doing here is just REVEALING and SHOWING what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE.

In other words, the word "Truth" exists because it is known, and only because it is known. A reality outside of "the known" is a reality outside of Truth.

Did it NOT 'stand to reason' PREVIOUSLY that ONLY what is KNOWN could ACTUALLY be 'true', and 'True'?

You insult me. I have a delicate ego, and I will not tolerate the questioning of my genius writings. As a punishment, I shall present you with an impossible to refute argument that will force you to admit that I am right. You asked for it. Here it is:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A truth outside the knowing is unknowable
3. Mind is the knowing
4. A truth outside the mind is unknowable
5. The truth outside my mind is unknowable
6. I don't know the truth outside my mind
7. I know only the truth inside my mind
8. Inside my mind truth is what I know
9. I am my mind and truth is my knowing
10. My knowing is the truth
11. A truth outside my knowing is a truth outside the truth
12. "A truth outside the truth" is false
13. A truth outside my knowing is false
14. There is no truth outside my knowing
15. There is no truth outside my mind
15. Truth is all I am

[Advocate]

Precisely, what is the definition and meaning of [i]Consciousness [/i]and how is it different than the definition and meaning of the word [i]Truth[/i]?

Truth is whatever continuously replicates. There is an external/consensus version and an internal/perspective version.

Consciousness is an amalgum word, not a specific thing, and most ideas that try to treat it as a specific thing add nothing and go nowhere. Neuroscientifically it's something to do with suppression of the default mode network and basal ganglia and probable GWT (global workspace theory). Anthropologically it's a feedback loop in our theory of mind. Phenomenologically it's an awareness fairy.

>My conclusion is that both "[i]Truth[/i]" and "[i]Consciousness[/i]" mean the totality of experiences. "Truth" just like any other word in language, can only be known through its correspondence to a [i]feeling[/i]. In other words "Truth" is simply a feeling we know of, and that has profound implications on what reality actually is. If "Truth" is nothing beyond a feeling ([i]how could it be??[/i]), then any statement claiming [i]truth [/i]outside of consciousness is [i]linguistically false[/i] because no word in language can reference something unknowable.

>In other words, the word "Truth" exists because it is known, and [i]only[/i] because it is known. A reality outside of "[i]the known[/i]" is a reality outside of Truth.

A truth is an instance of the truth, such as a fact or a perspective.
Consciousness can be understood as perspective, but that's only one of infinite perspectives on The Truth. Consciousness is the totally of experience To you, to not in general. Truth is the totally of experiences in general (consensus) not an individual perspective.

[popeye1945]

If all meanings are the property of a conscious subject, as subjective knowledge, and meanings are derived from conscious experience, how could consciousness and truth/experience not be one and the same thing?

[Iwannaplato]

If all meanings are the property of a conscious subject, as subjective knowledge, and meanings are derived from conscious experience, how could consciousness and truth/experience not be one and the same thing?

Well, there's one hint in your single sentence argument/question above: the meanings, some of which get considered truths, are, as you say, derived from conscious experience. We decide things based on experience and put them into words or concepts or perhaps visual presentations of information. They are not the same things, even if the latter is dependent on the former. Falsehoods are also derived from conscious experiences. Confusions are derived from conscious experience. Hallucinations, recipies, preferences, fantasies, love letters, hatemails, deja vu, false memories, non-false memories, Naziism, Stalinism, monisms and dualisms...etc.

Let's rearrange your single sentence arguement question...

If all meanings are the property of a true subject....
What's a true subject?
Is there a false one?
Is the false one not conscious?

[Belinda]

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.

[Belinda]

If all meanings are the property of a conscious subject, as subjective knowledge, and meanings are derived from conscious experience, how could consciousness and truth/experience not be one and the same thing?

Absolute truth and absolute experience is indeed the same.

[popeye1945]

If all meanings are the property of a conscious subject, as subjective knowledge, and meanings are derived from conscious experience, how could consciousness and truth/experience not be one and the same thing?

Well, there's one hint in your single sentence argument/question above: the meanings, some of which get considered truths, are, as you say, derived from conscious experience. We decide things based on experience and put them into words or concepts or perhaps visual presentations of information. They are not the same things, even if the latter is dependent on the former. Falsehoods are also derived from conscious experiences. Confusions are derived from conscious experience. Hallucinations, recipies, preferences, fantasies, love letters, hatemails, deja vu, false memories, non-false memories, Naziism, Stalinism, monisms and dualisms...etc.

Let's rearrange your single sentence arguement question...

If all meanings are the property of a true subject....
What's a true subject?
Is there a false one?
Is the false one not conscious?

Your response seems confusing to me. Do you understand the relationship between subject and object? If you do understand this relation which is really an inter- re-action what is the result? How do you arrive at your knowledge of apparent reality?

[Iwannaplato]

If all meanings are the property of a conscious subject, as subjective knowledge, and meanings are derived from conscious experience, how could consciousness and truth/experience not be one and the same thing?

Well, there's one hint in your single sentence argument/question above: the meanings, some of which get considered truths, are, as you say, derived from conscious experience. We decide things based on experience and put them into words or concepts or perhaps visual presentations of information. They are not the same things, even if the latter is dependent on the former. Falsehoods are also derived from conscious experiences. Confusions are derived from conscious experience. Hallucinations, recipies, preferences, fantasies, love letters, hatemails, deja vu, false memories, non-false memories, Naziism, Stalinism, monisms and dualisms...etc.

Let's rearrange your single sentence arguement question...

If all meanings are the property of a true subject....
What's a true subject?
Is there a false one?
Is the false one not conscious?

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'.

[popeye1945]

Well, there's one hint in your single sentence argument/question above: the meanings, some of which get considered truths, are, as you say, derived from conscious experience. We decide things based on experience and put them into words or concepts or perhaps visual presentations of information. They are not the same things, even if the latter is dependent on the former. Falsehoods are also derived from conscious experiences. Confusions are derived from conscious experience. Hallucinations, recipies, preferences, fantasies, love letters, hatemails, deja vu, false memories, non-false memories, Naziism, Stalinism, monisms and dualisms...etc.

Let's rearrange your single sentence arguement question...

If all meanings are the property of a true subject....
What's a true subject?
Is there a false one?
Is the false one not conscious?

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.

[Age]

Precisely, what is the definition and meaning of Consciousness and how is it different than the definition and meaning of the word Truth?

The word 'conscious' refers to 'being aware' as in when one is 'conscious' of some 'thing', then they are 'aware' of 'that thing', and, 'consciousness' refers to the action, behavior, or state of just 'being aware'. The word 'Consciousness' with a capital 'C' refers to the state of 'being Aware' of ALL 'things' and NOT just some 'things'.

'truth' is reached or obtained through 'agreement and acceptance'. And, 'Truth' capital 'T' is when there is 'agreement and acceptance' by ALL or EVERY 'thing'.

My conclusion is that both "Truth" and "Consciousness" mean the totality of experiences. "Truth" just like any other word in language, can only be known through its correspondence to a feeling. In other words "Truth" is simply a feeling we know of, and that has profound implications on what reality actually is.

So, if I am wonder what 'life' is, EXACTLY, and I am 'feeling' sad, for example, at that time, then 'Life is sad' would be the 'Truth', following this 'logic' of 'yours' here, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If "Truth" is nothing beyond a feeling (how could it be??), then any statement claiming truth outside of consciousness is linguistically false because no word in language can reference something unknowable.

Wow you JUMPED from one ASSUMPTION to ANOTHER ASSUMPTION then to A CONCLUSION here VERY QUICKLY.

Also, WHY do you ask questions here, which you, OBVIOUSLY, have NO interest in HEARING what "another" has to SAY in regards to 'your question'?

What 'you' are doing here is just REVEALING and SHOWING what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE.

In other words, the word "Truth" exists because it is known, and only because it is known. A reality outside of "the known" is a reality outside of Truth.

Did it NOT 'stand to reason' PREVIOUSLY that ONLY what is KNOWN could ACTUALLY be 'true', and 'True'?

You insult me. I have a delicate ego, and I will not tolerate the questioning of my genius writings. As a punishment, I shall present you with an impossible to refute argument that will force you to admit that I am right. You asked for it. Here it is:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A truth outside the knowing is unknowable
3. Mind is the knowing
4. A truth outside the mind is unknowable
5. The truth outside my mind is unknowable
6. I don't know the truth outside my mind
7. I know only the truth inside my mind
8. Inside my mind truth is what I know
9. I am my mind and truth is my knowing
10. My knowing is the truth
11. A truth outside my knowing is a truth outside the truth
12. "A truth outside the truth" is false
13. A truth outside my knowing is false
14. There is no truth outside my knowing
15. There is no truth outside my mind
15. Truth is all I am

If you really think or believe that 'that' is impossible to refute, then 'you' really are, literally, one of 'the unknowing'.