Open Thread - 01-31-25 - Truth
The truth. You hear that bandied about a lot these days, especially in political circles. It seems most individuals and groups have their own form of the "truth", and many are adamant in their conclusion, to the point of extremism. You can witness the many forms of "truth" in every day life but nowhere as controversial as on the internet where folks scream their "truth" at each other incessantly.
But, have you really given the concept of the "truth" any thought? In the end does the "truth" not boil down to subjective personal bias? We can convince ourselves that we know the "truth", but do we really? Or is it confirmation bias, that which supports our views, that leads us to the "truth", while ignoring opposing viewpoints and evidence?
Attribution: Wikimedia Commons
Of course the "truth" can be realized by actually witnessing it, whatever that may entail. Observing something first hand, can lead one to the "truth", lying eyes notwithstanding. But even that can be dubious, can it not?
So what then is the "truth"?
Which leads me to this quote:
We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I think we may be closer to that "truth" than we realize.
Comments
Good morning Free Rangers...
truth is where you find it:
Still pacing myself on the site upgrade, slow and steady.
True dat
.
.
Ascertaining 'the truth' requires engaging the analytical mind.
Weighing-out opposing arguments with logical filters, the truth is
normally somewhere in-between. If one is living in a black and white
world, personal bias will throw the match. Accept the gray.
Good luck with the site construction and thanks for the OT.
question everything
Truth is propaganda...
and propaganda is truth. That's the measure of it in today's political world.
Quite often with music, over the years and thousands of lyrics, the "truth" will jump out at me and stick in my mind. Here's an example:
In my eyes, that is an undeniable truth.
I spent
a great deal of time thinking about Truth, back in my wannabe-philosopher days.
Being of the engineering bent, I rapidly concluded that Truth, to me, was essentially physical in nature: if I could observe it, measure it, quantify it, analyze it, and recreate it in the lab if needed- that was Truth.
As soon as any other human being got involved, everything became Religion. Period, end of statement, full stop.
Consider, for example, color. I can measure, analyze, and recreate pigments through chemistry, and I can measure the wavelengths of light of specific colors. However, what I perceive as "green" is almost certainly not what anyone else perceives as "green". And truth be told, what someone else's brain is actually registering, deep down inside, is likely to be orange or mauve or puce, and they've just learned that that particular shade of whatever is what we've all agreed upon as "green", in our shared experience.
And we immediately arrive upon the sunny shores of "consensus reality".
To make a long story short, this is why we as a species suffer from susceptibility to lies and propaganda: consensus reality is a very seductive thing, and H. sap specializes in it. It is far easier to go with the societal flow than to endlessly measure and analyze everything, especially those things that cannot be measured. People who try are generally ostracized pretty quickly, and learn that That Doesn't Work outside the lab.
This is why the War on Objective Truth waged upon us by our owners is so very successful: we are hardwired from before birth to eventually accept whatever the masses around us appear to believe. And so we have political parties, wars, scores of people trampled in religious observations, con men, and on and on.
I've finally decided that my Truth is what is true to me, verified by my own means; and I've discovered that the chances of anyone actually *agreeing* with that Truth are nearly zero. So I generally keep it to myself, except in very rare cases- such as sometimes in my marriage, and sometimes commenting here...
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Very well said...
my friend. The truth, being subjective, is sometimes best left unsaid.
In my 30s I became fixated with physics. With no formal training I sought out every book I could find at Barnes and Noble on the subject, written in layman's terms, of course. I still have all of them. Carl Sagan's book The Cosmos, started me on that quest.
For me, at the time, it explained much of the unexplainable. Until I came to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Harumph.
Now that I think about it, there's a correlation between the Uncertainty Principle and Bill Casey's quote from above.
Absolutely,
and in the biggest possible way.
Here's an anecdote from earlier in my career that illustrates the color metaphor. I was tasked with designing a sound synthesis IC for a well known musical keyboard company, to help reduce the cost of their products. One thing that is needed for making synthetic sounds (especially realistic sounds, ideally indistinguishable from actual instruments) is a source of *noise*, of all things. Think of the sound of a cymbal, or the hiss of air over the reed of a saxophone or the mouthpiece of a flute, or the kiss of rosin on a violin's strings. White noise, like FM interstation hiss. Musically neutral- which can then be added into other sounds to mimic the real instrument, regardless of which note they are playing.
This turns out to be an inordinate pain in the ass.
We can create pseudorandom noise via digital means, too nerdy to go into here. But with pseudorandom noise, there's always a perceptible tone down in the hiss- pseudorandom noise sings. Think of the unspeakably lousy cymbal sounds from the early Roland drum machines...
So we simulated more and more sophisticated algorithms, in the quest for the perfect unpitched hiss. And no matter what we tried, there was still always a tone down in there. We got to sequences of pseudorandom numbers that would only repeat once every hundred years or so. No joy. After a month or so, I got an idea. In a company full of musicians with well-trained ears, let's take our best pseudorandom source, and have everybody listen to it- and then walk over to the keyboard yonder, and play the pitch they hear.
And sure enough, everybody played a different note.
We all heard something different, but we still heard it. Caused a lot of consternation, that did, but we finally concluded that we simply couldn't do it digitally. Nowadays, random numbers are all the rage due to widespread adoption of crypto-everything- but you still can't do true-random digitally.
I was going to publish a paper on it, but time did not permit, and Management wasn't any too thrilled about disclosing our technology in any case. I ended up using the actual true-random analog noise derived from current flowing through an imperfect diode, and they sold thousands of instruments using that chip.
I pointed out that our brains are hardwired to find correlation in the noise- perhaps so that we could recognize our bearskin-clad mother's voice from the cave over the wind when we were outside foraging for food in a blizzard, or the like. That didn't go over well, but nobody came up with a decent counterargument.
Fun times, being there before the phrase "everybody knows that" applied... (;-)
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
If a truth can be knowable
.
it is not necessarily the truth per say
speaking of music ..
the opening ~
the close ~
question everything
Yeah, mon!
Excellent choice of tunes.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Great...
real world example. Another real world example is witness testimony in court according to my attorney wife. It's as reliable as Heisenberg's observation and Schrödinger's cat combined.
What means Harumph... ;-)
https://www.euronews.com/live
Hi mimi...
great to see you out and about.
Harumph
To dislike, protest, or dismiss.
thank you
https://www.euronews.com/live
This is why the blob is against Tulsi
.
She calls out the people who have voted away our rights to their faces.
And once upon a time both the dem party and their supporters were in favor of protecting our rights, but now they are fully behind the intelligence community and vote for the spooks who work against them.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
A good barometer...
for the truth is how many feathers get ruffled by those that wish to obscure it.
Fingers and toes crossed that she gets appointed.
you can cross your toes? ... well you are a magician... sorry
for being silly... that's the only thing which keeps me relatively sane.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Sanity is relative
What is more crazy for one
compared to the many is
an just another bump in the road
Mass insanity is another thing altogether
different from personal experience
if the illusion is clear
Viel Glück
造化
question everything
Another view of the plane crash
From this view and from views of the flight paths it seems like the helicopter would have seen the bright landing lights on the plane.
Air traffic control only had 1 person working that night because the supervisor let one person go home early.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
Speculation is now
swirling around whether or not the helo's pilot-in-command was wearing night vision goggles for this training sortie, and if so, were the other crew members (instructor pilot and crew chief) also wearing them. NVGs are reputed to cut down the peripheral vision of the wearer to essentially zero, and if that is true, they may well have contributed to the failure to maintain separation.
That suggests a possible band-aid of having at least one crew member (tasked with scanning for traffic) to not be wearing them during such training/hour-logging sorties. But is is really too early to tell. Perhaps that wasn't the case at all, and communication within the helo's cockpit failed for some other reason.
That video is downright painful to watch, because the helo apparently barreled straight into the side of the American Eagle jet at full-tilt-boogie, ripping off the starboard wing essentially at the root. That was a long 3- or 4-second plunge into the river, in any case. Agonizing.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Regardless of the investigation
.
the operator of the helo is at fault
flying into controlled traffic is a mistake
when your blippers are silent
NFG maybe is OK for training but
in a landing zone, it is stupid.
question everything
I'm absolutely inclined to agree.
The American Eagle jet was clearly the stand-on vessel, according to the rules of the road. At that point in its flight, its maneuverability was extremely limited, and the only option realistically available would have been to go to TOGA power and climb. And jet engines take many seconds to spool up to a higher thrust setting: they were probably at or near flight idle right then, not very far above stalling speed, with only 20-30 seconds to go before landing.
The helo was absolutely the give-way vessel, and it clearly did not.
It is like driving a 20' Boston Whaler through New York Harbor, and expecting the Staten Island Ferry to give way to you. Not gonna happen, and should never *need* to happen.
Changes clearly need to be made. The only remaining questions will be a) what will they be, abd b) will they do any good. I don't think it'll be possible to do the right thing, which is to get the helos the hell out of that part of the airspace. Or at least to use commercial VHF radios on the same frequency exclusively when in that airspace, instead of their military-only UHF radios. But, nobody is gonna listen to me- that is only my truth...
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Gimme some lies - I understand them more easily/ nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
I think that you'd find
that you are in good company: the vast majority of the American public apparently find lies to be far more palatable than the truth.
I think that this is largely because we have been fed a diet essentially consisting of pure lies for so long that our palates have adapted to it...
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
The comprehensive Mark Sleboda
Available here.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I don't have...
an hour and a half to invest in watching the video right now, I'll watch it later. But I will give my condensed answer gleaned from the title:
I hope so, because it sure looks like the West is on the march to war with Russia and/or China.
I have no idea if this is actually from DeepSeek but the 6 min.
video contains no shortage of truths.
I can't attest...
to the veracity of the video either especially when it said that the findings in this video were later corrected after they realized that it went off the rails.
If it is true then all I can say is GIGO, garbage in and garbage out, meaning that the program will output only what it scraped from whatever source that was used or whatever data was input into its database. So if the video is correct it was due to input programming and not to a conscious effort by the AI program, as much as I detest the moniker "Artificial Intelligence".
It does sound like it was trolling the conspiracy theory community though. But I do agree with a lot of what was said. So there's that. LOL!
Good afternoon, Johnny et. y'all. Ize back.
Classically, something is true if and only if it is impossible for it to be false. Sadly, that isn't very much help. As an empiricist i consider myself to be a map maker or model maker. Something is true if it's inclusion in my model renders the model more closely corresponding to "reality" than if it were not included. By way of illustration, we all have mental maps of the floorplan of our primary domicile. In the average such map, there are furnishings and objects which protrude into space. If you attempt top walk through the space occupied by any such object and run into it, then its existence at that location is true. If you don't actually run into anything, then its existence there is false.
By extension, concepts, ideas and constructs which enable us to more correctly predict the outcomes or results of acts, actions, and activities are, at least operationally, true to some extent. Things which do not are either false or irrelevant. It is important to be cognizant of the question of relevance. For example there have long been those who ascribe to a variety of theories in which there is some omniscient and omnipotent creator who is nonetheless beyond any possible attempts to verify its existence. If it is truly impossible for me to somehow interact with this thing, then it is likewise impossible for it to interact with me. It is hence irrelevant and has no place in my model of reality. We need not consider the merits of the arguments supporting or opposing its truth or falsity since it doesn't matter either way. A surprising amount of questions, upon close examination, involve irrelevant matters. Some schools of philosophy assign a default value of false to inherently untestable hypotheses, others call them nonsense (Unsinn or sinnlos(en)), I prefer irrelevant, but it all amounts to the same thing.
Since it, put crudely, amounts to whatever helps you get by, truth is inherently subjective.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Glad you're back...
I hope you had a great time!
That bolded text is true until the truth is forced upon the truth seeker. We've all been experiencing a lot of that lately.
I hope you've come home to better weather.