On 7/29/2026 at 7:23 AM, sethoflagos said:

Wild stabs in the dark.

I like a lot of your posts and think you understand truth better than most. But this post shows me that you also have very good instincts.

Gee

On 8/3/2026 at 7:21 AM, geordief said:

Just on that point ,I had been ruminating recently a bit on the difference between a "thought" and an "idea".

It seemed to me that anything could be classed a "thought" and that an idea was a refined kind of "thought".

I suspect just the opposite. I see a thought as a piece of an idea. So if I think of a thought, '50 years' -- what does that mean? What is the idea? The mortgage will be paid off? I will start looking forward to retirement? It will be half a century? Or maybe I will be a grandparent. These are all ideas that the original thought could be part of.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:21 AM, geordief said:

So ,if that holds an emotion could also be called a "thought" but not an "idea"

I don't think that emotion can be thought. Emotion is a feeling. For many years, decades, I wondered if emotion carried thought, or if thought activated emotion, as both seemed to be true at different times. Then when I was corresponding with a Physics/Philosophy Professor at Duke University, he said that thought has no power. He explained that if we take our greatest thoughts and write them down or record them on a CD, then store them away, we will find that in five, or fifty, of thousands of years, they will have done nothing. The paper may deteriorate, but the thoughts will have done nothing. Thought has no power on its own. I am leaning toward the idea that emotion is the motivator, not thought. But I am still not sure.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:21 AM, geordief said:

I agree that there can be truth layered into fiction.

Don't they say the best cover stories are based on a truth?

All the best stories are based on truth, and that truth is a reflection of something and was caused by emotion.

Gee

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

First to answer your question.
Why am I talking about Harry Potter.
Because it is my answer and amplification to another member's post.

OK.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

Yes this thread is about the difference between truth and fact.
And I have openly admitted that I do not know the difference nor has any responder provided any comprehensive and satisfactory answer.

Here I disagree. I think there have been some very good answers and wonder why you think there has been no comprehensive answer. What would satisfy you?

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

There have been many responses, and I have tried to address all of them. But many have also introduced other concepts some of which need setting aside from the main topic and perhaps even merit a thread of their own.

What has emerged is that everyone seems to have their own version of this difference, but that everyone's personal difference excludes some or even all of another's version.
Surely this can't be a totally satisfactory state of affairs.

Well, some of the people are dead wrong and some others understand just a portion of what is truth and how it works. I am going to be frank here and say that most of the members are science people. They study fact, not truth, so they are not as informed about truth and just a tad biased toward fact.

If you really want to understand this issue, maybe you could tell me where you see conflict, explain the contradictions that you see, and maybe together we can work this out. It might also be beneficial if you could tell me where there is agreement. Surely some of the responses are in agreement. We can use the agreements as a base to build understanding.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

No I don't see 'lies' as a qualifier. I had tried to indicate that lies are one of several types of falsehood. Perhaps that was not clear enough.

Oh, it was clear. What was not clear was the equivalent with regard to fact. You see the problems with truth, but do not see the problems with fact.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

As regards your theatre comment, I suggest that whilst the technical world has its 'models' the arts world has its equivalents, a 'plot' being the literary equivalent.
But in both cases the oft used expression "The map is not the territory" applies.
A model, or a plot or an graphics outline, or a musical schema etc all have the same characteristic that they only embody part of what they are portraying more or less faithfully.
Some models are more complete than others but;
None of these can ever be an exact replica in all respects.

Models, plots, maps, graphics, and schemas all have nothing to do with emotion. All of those things can exist quite well without emotion and have nothing to do with it. You are confusing the issue.

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

In a way maybe a fact is a model of truth, but only part of it.

This is closer to true than any other thing in your post. So if a fact is a partial model of truth, then couldn't we say that the fact is artificial? second hand? not actually true?

On 8/3/2026 at 7:49 AM, studiot said:

Don't forget reflexes, which are actions without thought.

Reflexes work through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind and so are automatic responses which do not require thought -- very much like emotion.

Gee

On 8/3/2026 at 9:00 AM, geordief said:

Interesting.

I wonder how @Gees emotion in the Harry Potter stories relates to real emotion in people's lives.

Harry is an orphaned infant put in the care of people, who do not care for him. I think everyone can identify with the fear that kind of helplessness engenders.

On 8/3/2026 at 9:00 AM, geordief said:

It is obviously a facsimile based on the author's own experiences and reinterpreted by the audience according to their own.

Is that real? Or just "realer" than if the author was just following a stale template and not applying their lived experiences or if the audience was only paying cursory attention (more interested in getting a snog from the date,perhaps)

Is it possible for a literary or communicator to transmit their lived experiences across the medium of their work or might that be an illusion?

Emotion is not illusion and transfers among people very easily.

On 8/3/2026 at 9:00 AM, geordief said:

I may be convinced in my own mind that I "get" the feeling of,say Piaf's "je ne regrette rien" but is that an illusion that only works with simple emotions that can be easily reassembled in the audience's mind or is there more to it than that ?(can we be so similar in our "wiring" that some emotions can be transported in their entirety without "loss of signal" between receptive individuals?)

Haven't you heard of the riot or mob mentality? Emotions can transfer from person to person while getting stronger with each person. There is no problem with 'loss of signal'. The problems arise when the feeling finally dissipates and the people are horrified to recall their behavior while under the influence of such strong emotion.

This sharing of emotion is common in many specie and I suspect that emotion was the first language in many specie. So startling a bird can cause thousands to take to the air. Startling a cow can cause a stampede.

Gee

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Reflexes work through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind and so are automatic responses which do not require thought -- very much like emotion.

Before you go sawing off the limb you are out on, you may want to define what "thought" is. Doesn't ANY action taken by humans (or probably any other living thing) require "thought", whether it is conscious or not.

9 hours ago, Gees said:

I am going to be frank here and say that most of the members are science people. They study fact, not truth

In just one or two sentences, please share how you define each.

If you’ve already previously done so, then kindly please repeat or copy/paste it here as I may have missed it.

On 8/5/2026 at 6:27 PM, npts2020 said:

I might be opening a can of worms but, Seth using maths to show his point got me to thinking about if a "fact" could be not true or are all"facts" simply contingent on language and context?

Maths helps see the full picture unbefuddled by the ambiguities of verbal languages.

This video popped up in my feed today. A bit popsci, but it presents ideas that have been strongly influential on my belief system pretty well. I say 'belief system' since (as it explains via Gödel) in any consistent logic system, there must always be some objective, necessary truths that are impossible to prove. You just have to accept them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q82eArp0e7s

35 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Before you go sawing off the limb you are out on, you may want to define what "thought" is. Doesn't ANY action taken by humans (or probably any other living thing) require "thought", whether it is conscious or not.

That is how I think I had been using "thought" -as a "disturbance" in the nervous system.An idea being something of a refined or processed "thought"

I do not know if this is correct or if I was using the terminology correctly-but it was something I had been ruminating on a while back. (an emotion being a "thought" that was processed in a different way)

Emotions don't come out of the blue,do they?

They have to have an initial stimulus,although I guess they (like ideas) can "feed off" themselves.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by geordief

23 minutes ago, geordief said:

Emotions don't come out of the blue,do they?

That's a good question and possibly a different discussion but everyone has emotions and at least some hinge on prior experience. A toddler waking from a nap to see his mom making out with the mailman is unlikely to have the same emotions about it than as a teenager doing the same.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by npts2020

4 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Before you go sawing off the limb you are out on, you may want to define what "thought" is.

Why would you think that I am standing out on a limb? This sounds personal. Of course, you can look up the definition of thought in a variety of ways, i.e., Google, dictionaries, etc., but that is not what you want to know. You want my definition of thought, so here goes: I study consciousness and all manner of things that are incorporated into that idea, mind, psychology, life, etc., but mostly I study how the things work. Thought is a product of the rational aspect of mind and can be manipulated in order to produce thinking and ideas. We control most of our thoughts and use them to guide our lives, make our decisions, etc. We are aware of our thoughts.

4 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Doesn't ANY action taken by humans (or probably any other living thing) require "thought", whether it is conscious or not.

No. It requires knowledge, but not necessarily thought or a conscious mind. Knowledge can come from DNA, but that does not cause thinking. Most people in this forum will tell you that thinking requires a brain, so plants and some others could not possibly think or have thoughts. When one person told me that consciousness required a brain, I responded by saying that spiders, fleas, and flies must be conscious because they all have brains. That person quit talking to me.

If you want to make the argument that all living specie have thoughts, go ahead. I don't want to participate, but can I watch? 😀

Gee

5 hours ago, iNow said:

In just one or two sentences, please share how you define each.

If you’ve already previously done so, then kindly please repeat or copy/paste it here as I may have missed it.

Yes. You missed it. Please note that I have not forgotten your snarky response about me, re: "truthiness", in the last thread where we communicated. I also noted that there was no apology. If you are not going to post in good faith, this will be my last response to you.

Fact is an objective, created and/or defined digital truth, and is artificial. Truth is a subjective, analog reflection of reality through emotion and/or experience, and is natural. imo

Gee

So fact is an objective created subjective digital analog reflection of reality, that’s your position?

You said fact is truth and I simply substituted your definition of truth into that work as one would in algebra solving for X and Y.

Doing so makes plain how unclear and muddy your stance is.

36 minutes ago, Gees said:

Please note that I have not forgotten your snarky response about me, re: "truthiness", in the last thread

Well, that makes one of us. 🤷‍♂️

39 minutes ago, Gees said:

If you are not going to post in good faith …(childish empty threat about taking my ball and going home removed)

I do not think that word means what you think it means

Edited 14 minutes ago14 min by iNow