No.

I am saying that if some G's are F, and some G's not F.

Then you cannot say that All G's have — m-theory

But no one was saying that truth is dependent on everything in the world. Rather, truth is just dependent on one part of the world, namely minds.

I pointed out that the statement
"Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds"
is not logically equivalent to
"Truth is dependent upon minds and truth is dependent upon the world"
As long is no one claiming this then ignore my posts.

I also pointed out that it is in fact a contradiction to say that
"Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds and truth is also dependent on the world"
As long as no one is claiming that this would not be a contradiction you can ignore my posts.

What's contradictory about that? — Terrapin Station

Note the venn diagram for a conjunction.

So the statement "Truth is dependent upon the mind and truth is dependent upon the world" looks like this.


And not like this

So the statement "Truth is dependent upon the mind and truth is dependent upon the world" looks like this. — m-theory

The Venn diagram for "truth is dependent upon the mind" (by itself) is identical to your diagram, except that the portion of the circle for "World" that is outside the circle for "Mind" is omitted. Hence the conjunction does not set up a contradiction; both statements can indeed be true. If we say instead (as you did above) that "truth is exclusively dependent upon minds," and then add the premiss (as suggested by ) that "minds are part of the world," we get his diagram (Gs=World, Fs=Mind, phi=Truth). In this case, "truth is dependent upon the world" is necessarily true; more precisely, "truth is exclusively dependent upon part of the world." The only way I can see to make the two statements genuinely contradictory is to say that "truth is exclusively dependent upon minds" and "minds are not part of the world."

There is also no contradiction between "this product is exclusively for women" and "this product is for people." This becomes clearer if we change the second premiss to "this product is for some people." There would only be a contradiction if the second premiss instead was (as you rewrote it above) "this product is for all people."

The Venn diagram for "truth is dependent upon the mind" (by itself) is identical to your diagram, except that the portion of the circle for "World" that is outside the circle for "Mind" is omitted. Hence the conjunction does not set up a contradiction; both statements can indeed be true. If we say instead (as you did above) that "truth is exclusively dependent upon minds," and then add the premiss (as suggested by ↪Terrapin Station) that "minds are part of the world," we get his diagram (Gs=World, Fs=Mind, phi=Truth). In this case, "truth is dependent upon the world" is necessarily true; more precisely, "truth is exclusively dependent upon part of the world." The only way I can see to make the two statements genuinely contradictory is to say that "truth is exclusively dependent upon minds" and "minds are not part of the world." — aletheist

Again 'Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds"
Is not logically equivalent to the statement
"Truth is dependent upon mind and upon the world"
One has a logical connective and the other does not.

So if in the diagram it were that
φ = "truth is exclusively mind dependent"
this leads to a contradiction because
φ is itself dependent upon F, which in Turn is dependent upon G.
That is to say if there is no F and/or no G, then there is no φ by definition.

So the diagram above cannot hope to illustrate that φ="truth is exclusively mind dependent" without also being in contradiction because as you should notice that φ is dependent upon F, which is dependent upon G.

Let us say you hope to redeem the diagram and state that φ=any and all truth
Then it is not true that "Some G's are not F's" without arriving at a contradiction.
The statement "Some G's are not F's" cannot be true(found only in set F). If Some G's are not F's this is only true if it also true that not all φ are F dependent.
If all φ are F dependent then it is not true that some G's are not F's.
Or in other words some G's (those which are not F's) have the property φ.
Hence the diagram is wrong/contradictory with the labels you have applied to the variables used in the diagram.

There is also no contradiction between "this product is exclusively for women" and "this product is for people." This becomes clearer if we change the second premiss to "this product is for some people." There would only be a contradiction if the second premiss instead was (as you rewrote it above) "this product is for all people." — aletheist

The only way to avoid contradiction is to say
"This product is exclusively for women and the product is for SOME people"

Using the term people denotes the set containing both men and women which leads to contradiction.

Again 'Truth is exclusively dependent upon minds"
Is not logically equivalent to the statement
"Truth is dependent upon mind and upon the world"
One has a logical connective and the other does not. — m-theory

No one is claiming that they are logically equivalent. You seem to think that they are contradictory, but they are not. "All dogs are exclusively mammals" and "All dogs are mammals and animals" are not logically equivalent, and also not contradictory, given the additional premiss, "All mammals are animals." Again, the only way that your two propositions are contradictory is if we add the premiss, "No minds are part of the world."

Hence the diagram is wrong/contradictory with the labels you have applied to the variables used in the diagram. — m-theory

The labels that I applied were G=World, F=Minds, and phi=Truth. All truth is exclusively mind-dependent, and all minds are part of the world; i.e., world-dependent. Therefore, all truth is (also) world-dependent.

Using the term people denotes the set containing both men and women which leads to contradiction. — m-theory

"This product is for people" is vague regarding the quantification of "people." I read it more naturally as implying "This product is for some people," which does not contradict "This product is exclusively for women." As I said, it was only when you changed it to "This product is for all people" that it did create a contradiction.

The labels that I applied were G=World, F=Minds, and phi=Truth. All truth is exclusively mind-dependent, and all minds are part of the world; i.e., world-dependent. Therefore, all truth is (also) world-dependent. — aletheist

Then it is not a truth (φ is only in F) that some G's are not F's.
Which contradicts what is depicted in the diagram, the diagram illustrates that some G's are not F's is true.
If it is true that some G's are not F's then that means not all φ are in F.

Also that diagram does not depict any conjunction like
"Truth is mind dependent AND world dependent"
To depict that you would have to use this diagram that includes the conjunction.

\

Which is not identical to this diagram in any way.


As this diagram does not depict any conjunction.

All truth is exclusively mind-dependent, — aletheist

Not in this diagram.

In that diagram truth is NOT exclusively mind dependent.
That would be a contradiction.

So the statement "Truth is dependent upon the mind and truth is dependent upon the world" looks like this. — m-theory

So you'd say you're depicting a contradiction there?

Which is not identical to this diagram in any way. — m-theory

Why would you think it was supposed to be? I specified what that diagram was.

Please provide the diagram for "All truth is exclusively mind-dependent." In particular, please clarify the particular significance that you are attaching to the word "exclusively." Be sure to include the world in the diagram so that I understand how you are thinking it relates to truth and minds.

So you'd say you're depicting a contradiction there? — Terrapin Station

I don't see a contradiction here.

Perhaps you could point it out if there is one.

I do see a contradiction here

I pointed out that it is a contradiction to say that φ is exclusive to F
Because the statement
Some G's are not F's is true about the world, not minds.
I also pointed out that if φ means truth is exclusively dependent upon F, this is a contradiction in the depiction because F's are dependent upon G's which means that φ is also dependent upon G's.
So it can't be that φ means exclusively dependent upon F

???
I do not claim that truth is exclusively mind dependent so I do not have to provide the diagram of that claim.

I provided the diagram from my claim.
Because I claim a conjunction that "truth is mind dependent and truth is world dependent" I provided the corresponding diagram.

You lost me. What two propositions are you claiming to be contradictory?

I am claiming that it the statement "truth is exclusively mind dependent and truth is world dependent" is a contradiction.
If truth is also world dependent, then truth does not have exclusive mind dependence.

Again, what exactly do you mean by "exclusively"? How could there be minds that are not world-dependent?

Exclusive

1.excluding or not admitting other things.
"my exclusive focus is on San Antonio issues"

2.restricted or limited to the person, group, or area concerned.
"the couple had exclusive possession of the condo"
synonyms: sole, unshared, unique, only, individual, personal, private
"a room for your exclusive use"

noun
1.
an item or story published or broadcast by only one source.
synonyms: scoop, exposé, special
"a six-page exclusive"


So if it is true that truth has no dependency other than the mind.
Then it can not also be true that truth also has dependency upon the world.

Okay, got it. All truth depends on the mind. No truth depends on the world. Therefore, some mind does not depend on the world.

It is not true of any world that "All truth depends on the mind"
If that was true about the world it would be a contradiction.
So it is not a truth about any world that "All truths depend upon the mind."

Sorry, you lost me again. What is contradictory about "All truth depends on the mind" being true about the world? What happened to your key word "exclusively"?

Sigh
It can't be a truth about the world because then it would be a truth that depends upon the world and would contradict "all truth depends on minds."


By saying "no truth depends on the world" you have indicated that "all truth exclusively depends on minds."
Which cannot, without contradiction, be a truth that is dependent/about any world.

Look you want to claim "all truth depends upon minds"
Go for it.
That is no problem for me because I don't have to accept that as a truth about the world as, by definition, it is not a truth about/dependent upon the world.

What bothers me is when people want it both ways.

They want it to be a truth about the world that "all truth is mind dependent"
But of course this cannot be a truth about the world, because if it was then that truth would then also be world dependent which would render the claim self refuting.

I am not as interested in the content of your argument as I am in trying to sort out its logic. What you seem to be saying is that any truth about the world is necessarily a truth that depends on the world. You may be right, but you have yet to offer an argument to demonstrate it, since this is the first time (as far as I can tell) that you have clearly articulated this additional premiss.

In addition, I am not sure that anyone seriously claims that all truth is exclusively mind-dependent in the way that you have sought to establish here. As a couple of us have pointed out, if all minds are world-dependent, and all truth is mind-dependent, then there is no contradiction in acknowledging that all truth is (also) world-dependent.

any truth about the world is necessarily a truth that depends on the world. You may be right, but you have yet to offer an argument to demonstrate it — aletheist

A statement is only true about the world if the world is a certain way, and thus depends on the world. "The world contains elephants" is true iff there are elephants in the world, and false otherwise.

I am not as interested in the content of your argument as I am in trying to sort out its logic. What you seem to be saying is that any truth about the world is necessarily a truth that depends on the world. You may be right, but you have yet to offer an argument to demonstrate it... — aletheist

I did make the case that truth about worlds are world dependent and not mind dependent.
I used a proof by contradiction.
If it is true about the world that all truth depends on minds.
Then we can imagine a world without minds.
In which case it is not true about the world that there is no truth.
For were it is true that there is no truth, then that contradicts the claim that there is no truth.

I am not sure but it seems to me you could prove with contradiction in each case, however I will concede your point, perhaps, if you had some counterexample of a truth about something that does not depend upon that thing?

...since this is the first time (as far as I can tell) that you have clearly articulated this additional premiss. — aletheist

This is not the first time I have articulated my grievance, in fact I set out with this quibble from the start in my very first post to this thread.

In addition, I am not sure that anyone seriously claims that all truth is exclusively mind-dependent in the way that you have sought to establish here. As a couple of us have pointed out, if all minds are world-dependent, and all truth is mind-dependent, then there is no contradiction in acknowledging that all truth is (also) world-dependent. — aletheist

I agree it is absolutely reasonable to say truth is mind dependent and world dependent.

m-theory, again, that diagram was in response to you saying this:

This is not equivalent to my example.

So if you say "This is exclusively a triangle and it is also a shape"

It does not have set membership of exclusively triangles, it also has set membership of shapes. — m-theory

And the explanation for it was this. Also note the word "apparently," by the way:

What you're apparently saying here is that

IF:

* φ is a property of Fs
* φ is ONLY a property of Fs; φ is not found elsewhere
* Fs are Gs
* The class of Gs includes things that are not Fs as well

Then we can't say "φ is exclusively a property of Fs and φ is a property of some Gs" without stating something contradictory? — Terrapin Station

If my extended if-then statement--everything following my "What you're apparently saying here is that" wasn't what you were in fact saying, then you had the opportunity to clarify.

Re your diagram, one thing I disagree with about it is that you have part of mind that's not part of the world. I don't think any part of mind is not part of the world. Maybe someone above would have said that--I haven't read every post in the thread, and I certainly don't recall every post in the thread that I did read, but I certainly wasn't saying that.

I pointed out that it is a contradiction to say that φ is exclusive to F
Because the statement
Some G's are not F's is true about the world, not minds. — m-theory

Again, that's not what my diagram was about. It was about what you were apparently saying in the triangle example. Now, we could say that the triangle example was an analogy for the mind statement--maybe that works; I'd agree that my diagram at least works for that even though that wasn't really the idea there, but your comment above makes no sense in either case. There's some weird confusion there either about the temporal context as I explained earlier, about what aboutness is as I explained before, maybe about both, and there might be other confusions that maybe I haven't specified yet--those might become clear as we continue to talk about this.

Later edit: Another confusion that's apparent below that's similar to the temporal example is that you seem to be confusing possible world contexts. We can say in the possible (a fortiori because actualized) world where there are minds that such and such is true or false, including when we imagine possible worlds without minds. We can say things about that other possible world, including making truth-value judgments about it, from the context of our actual world. You seem to be confusing that with saying that something would be true or false from within the context of the possible world in question where there are no minds.

If it is true about the world that all truth depends on minds. — m-theory

Right--for example, I'd say that's true. What makes it true to me is that I'm making a judgment about a proposition. That's what truth is. All truth is to someone by the way.

Then we can imagine a world without minds.
In which case it is not true about the world that there is no truth.

Correct, because there's no one in that case to make the judgment that is what truth is.

For were it is true that there is no truth

No one is saying that there is no truth (unqualified) by the way. What we'd say is that if in world x there are no minds, then in world x there is no truth, and in world x, it's neither true nor false that there's no truth. However, with us in world y where we do have minds, we could say in world y that there is no truth in world x, and we could say this is true in world y (about world x), because in world y we're judging it to be true.

This might be clearer to you if you change it so that it's about a term that's uncontroversially something mental--for example, desires:

"There are no desires if there are no minds. We could imagine a world with no minds, and in that world, there would be no desires. In our world, we could desire a world without minds, but in the world without minds, we couldn't desire a world without minds, because in that world without minds, there are no minds to desire anything."

We could just as well say the same thing about judgments:

"There are no judgments if there are no minds. We could imagine a world with no minds, and in that world, there would be no judgments. In our world, we could make judgments about a world without minds, but in the world without minds, we couldn't make judgments, because in that world without minds, there are no minds to judge anything."

Well, (particular sorts of) judgments is all that truth is on my view. So all I'm saying is what I said just above about judgments.

I agree it is absolutely reasonable to say truth is mind dependent and world dependent. — m-theory

Adding "exclusively" to "mind-dependent" just says that there's no part of the world that's not mind that is a part where truth obtains.

A statement is only true about the world if the world is a certain way, and thus depends on the world. "The world contains elephants" is true iff there are elephants in the world, and false otherwise. — Pneumenon

On my view we have to add "if someone judges that a proposition has the right relation to (other things in) the world."

, I am not sure that anyone seriously claims that all truth is exclusively mind-dependent in the way that you have sought to establish here. — aletheist

I say it's exclusively mind-dependent, although I'm not sure about the "in the way he has sought to establish here" part. He's confused about at least a couple things, but clearing up what I've tried to clear up for him hasn't helped him understand the claim and why it's not contradictory yet, so I'm not sure I understand how he's thinking about this yet.

That diagram of yours doesn't work. No part of the mind isn't also part of the world. The mind circle must be fully inside the world circle.

Do that and you'll see that there's no contradiction. To say that truth is exclusively mind-dependent and world-dependent is just to say that the truth colouring is inside both the mind and the world circles. (Although, this is also true of your diagram, so I don't know why you keep insisting that it's a contradiction).

. If

truth is mind dependent and world dependent.

Then prior to mind no truth.

It seems to me that some things could be otherwise but others must always be as the are. The facts of the matter don't change, they cannot be anything but what they are. If truth is a judgement by the mind then it must be based on facts.

Been over this already, I have contributed all I care to on this subject, and you can review my previous posts where I have discussed the issues of contradiction in your diagram.

I will accept that my diagram does not depict what you view as accurate about the world and minds, but again I pointed out that my diagram does depict a logical conjunction and yours does not.

No one is saying that there is no truth (unqualified) by the way. What we'd say is that if in world x there are no minds, then in world x there is no truth, and in world x, it's neither true nor false that there's no truth. However, with us in world y where we do have minds, we could say in world y that there is no truth in world x, and we could say this is true in world y (about world x), because in world y we're judging it to be true. — Terrapin Station

Ok.
I would say if you can't know there is no truth in world x, then you can't say for sure that truth depends exclusively on minds, it may well be that it also depends on worlds.
You just can't know.

Adding "exclusively" to "mind-dependent" just says that there's no part of the world that's not mind that is a part where truth obtains. — Terrapin Station

Again if you can't know if there is or is not truth in world x, then you can't claim to know that truth is exclusively dependent upon minds, that claim is not true or false.