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 huncred years or so. No joy. After a month or so, I got an idea- in a company full of musicians, 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.