What is the difference between Consciousness and Truth?

[Belinda]

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.

Shelby describes correspondence theory of truth. Theologically correspondence theory fits with theism and pantheism. Coherence theory of truth is mind-dependent. Theologically coherence theory fits with God as human construct, and panentheism.

[bobmax]

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, but I would like to add that the "objective truth" would be the thing in itself, the noumenon.

Which is not experienceable.
And as it cannot be experienced, it does not exist, there is not.

So that experience is always relative to existence.
And existence is such only as experience.
Which is never objective truth.

In fact truth is being itself.
Which cannot be experienced and therefore does not exist.

Absolute Truth does not exist precisely because it is!

[promethean75]

"In other words, consciousness is the subjective experience of the world, while truth is the objective reality of the world."

u gotta be reeel careful about how u use these terms cuz phrased that way would lead to these inferential confusions:

an unconscious person can still have and be effected by 'subjective experiences' in the sense that their body would respond to stimuli, both internal and external. for instance the heart rate rising after administering a drug or the pupils dialating in extreme light. these are certainly experiences.

that being the case, there'd have to be some other special thing about being conscious that produces something more than 'subjective experience', which can be had while unconscious.

as far as the claim about 'truth', there can be performative truths, which are different from descriptive truths. for example (i think Kierkegaard made an example of this) it would be an objective truth if i got married, but the 'getting married', the act of it, the intention and commitment involved in doing it, is a unique performance that only I can experience, and is therefore subjective.

now of course one would have to aks: what, is there some special qualia called the what-it-is-likeness to get married that all bachelors have, but which is nonetheless completely unique and original and cannot be objectively true?

for the performance theory of subjective truth to be true, it'd have to be 'yes'. but then this would violate a reductive materialist's interpretation of the 'mind'. if your experiences are correlated to and caused by neurological activities, anything 'subjective' about your experiences should be able to be reproduced by duplicating such neurological activity. but reproduced for whom? an AI, a genetic clone?

u can avoid all this conceptual mess by not treating 'consciousness' as a Wittgensteinian beetle inna box.

Anyway normally normal philosophers qualify the term 'conscious' rather simply as being awake and aware, both kinds of behaviors... not some strange internal state of being. While 'truth' usually refers to a binary quality of a statement or proposition. X is the case or not the case, etc.

[Impenitent]

the difference?

think about it

-Imp

[Walker]

the difference?

think about it

-Imp

I Am Conscious, therefore I think about Truth.

I Am, Therefore I Think.

[Impenitent]

the lispy dentist isn't going to extract your consciousness...

-Imp

[popeye1945]

That which is considered objective reality can only be known subjectively and is the result of the energies of the cosmos making alterations to the biology of the subject. As Spinoza stated, the body is the idea of the mind and it is through the body that the subject comes to know the physical world. Truth is a biological readout and is apparent reality, in other words, apparent reality is the biological reactions of the subject. Truth is what biological consciousness believes it is, thus truth is meaning and a biological reaction.

[Advocate]

[quote=Magnolia5275 post_id=612892 time=1670524733 user_id=22856]
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]?

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.
[/quote]

Consciousness is a word that doesn't admit of a particular definition yet. It's best understood as an amalgum, like love includes psychology, endocrinology, and culture.

Neuroscientifically, consciousness is something to do with suppression of the default mode network, basal ganglia, and probably Global Workspace Theory (not Integrated Information Theory). Anthropologically it's a feedback loop in our theory of mind. Phenomenologically it's an awareness fairy.

We've only had rigorous science for a couple hundred years and neuroscience much less than that. It's still in the platonic stage if development; working out the mereology and vocabulary.

Truth is whatever continuously replicates. Consciousness, as embodied awareness, is one perspective on The Truth.

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=616904 time=1672637699 user_id=15238]
[quote=Magnolia5275 post_id=612892 time=1670524733 user_id=22856]
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]?

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.
[/quote]

Consciousness is a word that doesn't admit of a particular definition yet. It's best understood as an amalgum, like love includes psychology, endocrinology, and culture.

Neuroscientifically, consciousness is something to do with suppression of the default mode network, basal ganglia, and probably Global Workspace Theory (not Integrated Information Theory). Anthropologically it's a feedback loop in our theory of mind. Phenomenologically it's an awareness fairy.

We've only had rigorous science for a couple hundred years and neuroscience much less than that. It's still in the platonic stage if development; working out the mereology and vocabulary.

Truth is whatever continuously replicates and is a shared, consensus understanding. Consciousness is one perspective on The Truth from a limited embodied perspective. They're polar opposites in that respect.
[/quote]

[popeye1945]

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 is a word that doesn't admit of a particular definition yet. It's best understood as an amalgum, like love includes psychology, endocrinology, and culture.
Neuroscientifically, consciousness is something to do with suppression of the default mode network, basal ganglia, and probably Global Workspace Theory (not Integrated Information Theory). Anthropologically it's a feedback loop in our theory of mind. Phenomenologically it's an awareness fairy.

We've only had rigorous science for a couple hundred years and neuroscience much less than that. It's still in the platonic stage if development; working out the mereology and vocabulary.
Truth is whatever continuously replicates. Consciousness, as embodied awareness, is one perspective on The Truth.

You are getting the processes that are immediately entangled confused with outward communication, which only muddies the waters and is not to the point. We have many organs of sensation and more are in play than we are aware of, all of this is full body consciousness which in its totality allows us the experience/s, and experience is truth for the individual. All the hardware that you have brought to bear on the problem is covered by the term full body consciousness. Experience is awareness is consciousness and again communication and/or language is not relevant to the problem at hand, which is, how one comes to know the physical world. You must remember that we only know the physical world subjectively, meaning we come to know the world through the energies present making alterations to our bodies and so, apparent reality is a biological readout or apparent reality is biological reactions to the energies present, which then manifest as objects. That which continuously replicates is called a pattern and any arrangement repeated becomes a pattern. I find your thoughts on the matter a little scattered. It might help if you spend some time on understanding the relation between subject and object and things might fall into place much easier.

[Dontaskme]

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.

I totally agree. Good post.

There has to be consciousness in every experience. There is no experience without consciousness. There cannot be 'experiencing' without consciousness. And that would be a truth inseparable from the conscious knowing of this truth. Consciousness being the only knowing there is, and is in all things known.

[popeye1945]

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.

I totally agree. Good post.

There has to be consciousness in every experience. There is no experience without consciousness. There cannot be 'experincing' without consciousness. And that would be a truth inseparable from the conscious knowing of this truth. Consciousness being the only knowing there is, and is in all things known.

Through experience, the subject gains knowledge/meanings and knowledge/meanings never belong to the object for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless. The only meaning the physical world has is that which the conscious subject then bestows upon it.

[Dontaskme]

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.

I totally agree. Good post.

There has to be consciousness in every experience. There is no experience without consciousness. There cannot be 'experincing' without consciousness. And that would be a truth inseparable from the conscious knowing of this truth. Consciousness being the only knowing there is, and is in all things known.

Through experience, the subject gains knowledge/meanings and knowledge/meanings never belong to the object for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless. The only meaning the physical world has is that which the conscious subject then bestows upon it.

Yes, only in the story is meaning/knowledge there/here at all.

[Trajk Logik]

Through experience, the subject gains knowledge/meanings and knowledge/meanings never belong to the object for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless. The only meaning the physical world has is that which the conscious subject then bestows upon it.

Meaning is the relationship between causes and their effects, and effects and their causes. Meaning = causation = information. Meaning is everywhere causes leave effects. It is only by making observations of causes and their effects can we learn to predict what causes will lead to which effects. The meaning is already there in the causal relationships. It is only by observation and reason can we know what the meaning of, say tree rings in a tree stump mean (the age of the tree). Tree rings are the effect of how the tree grows throughout the year and over several years, not by some mental projection of some observer.

[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.

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.

I call all persons "man" when I feel like defying the stultifying effect of gender stereotypes. 'Mankind' and 'man' are well within traditional use of English which is part and parcel of how English is a living language which you cannot alter as if you are a language tzar.

It would sound silly to call me "a man" when my username is so traditionally feminine. However for all purposes here I am an honorary man like everyone else.