The Political Devil: Exploring the Intersection of Truth and Lies
Written on
Chapter 1: The Battlefield of Truth
Recently, a lively debate erupted on Medium regarding the interplay between science and religion. I couldn't resist joining the discussion, as both factions involved in this discourse had misconceptions about truth.
Section 1.1: The Essence of the Big Bang
The Big Bang was not the inception of space and time, but it plays a pivotal role in our cosmic narrative.
Section 1.2: The Nature of Truth in Science
As a computational cognitive neuroscientist, I find it fascinating to dive into this argument. Modern science, dating back to the Renaissance and the advent of mathematical physics, hinges on evidence—not for the reasons typically discussed. The essence of truth is inherently personal, and the most effective means to convey it across generations is through a method that allows individuals to observe the truth for themselves. This method is termed humanly observable measurement and prediction.
The foundation of science lies in meticulous observation based on what anyone can verify as true. While science can be challenging, one must demonstrate that their observable measurements and predictions are verifiable in a universally recognizable manner.
Subsection 1.2.1: The Philosophical Roots of Truth
For those unfamiliar with Descartes and the philosophical underpinnings of truth, it’s essential to explore his thoughts further.
Section 1.3: The Dangers of Fiat Lies
At the Renaissance's outset, Isaac Newton emphasized that truth should not solely focus on explanation but rather on what can be measured and universally agreed upon. Descartes and others like me argue that there are observable facts that can be meticulously described and mathematically predicted, grounded in direct observation and experimentation.
This understanding of truth transcends generations and cultures. Individuals from the past can convince us of truths they established, which we still validate today. Like Newton and Descartes, I cannot claim to know truth unless I can substantiate it through observations that anyone can conduct, which sometimes necessitates extensive training in the observational tools that are universally accepted.
Chapter 2: The Mechanisms of Deception
Section 2.1: The Art of Deception
It is widely recognized that stripping individuals of their agency can lead to acceptance of unproven truths, a tactic known in Russia as "Active Measures." However, such "truth" does not equate to scientific understanding or the truths our brains can deduce without external manipulation of our need for proof.
Subsection 2.1.1: Historical Predictions
Consider the predictions made by Chaplin in 1940 and George Washington in 1796, which are now observable and verifiable. Their words are accessible online, allowing you to determine their authenticity and intent based on your own understanding.
Section 2.2: Lies of Authority
Descartes famously stated, "I think, therefore I am," and modern neuroscience acknowledges that the human brain is capable of imagining far more than can be validated as true. This imaginative capacity helps us anticipate potential dangers, a skill shared by all animals with a neocortex, including dogs.
We can form factions that accept falsehoods without hesitation. Through the science of lying, known as Mendaciology, we have developed methods to assess individuals' suitability for public office, based solely on previously proven behaviors.