Fact and Truth
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
Malignant Self Love - Buy the Book - Click HERE!!!
Relationships with Abusive Narcissists - Buy the e-Books - Click HERE!!!
READ THIS:
Scroll down to review a complete list of the articles - Click on the blue-coloured text!
Bookmark this Page - and SHARE IT with Others!
The extent of confusion that reigns when we discuss the concept of truth is evident in the film “The Invention of Lying”. The movie takes place in a world where people are genetically unable to lie. When one of them, presumably an aberrant mutant (his son inherits his newfound ability), stumbles across the art of confabulation, his life is transformed overnight: he becomes rich, a celebrity, and marries the girl of his dreams (who scorned him before).
But, this clever piece of comedy is philosophically muddled. The denizens of this dystopian cosmos (yes, the truth hurts) not only respond veraciously when prompted – they actually and often sadistically share their innermost thoughts, opinions, and observations. The film fails to realize that volunteering the truth is not the same as being truthful.
What’s worse, the characters in the movie take all statements about the future to be true. Yet, statements about the future can be and often are false even in a world where lying is unknown. As Aristotle has put it: nothing we say about the future has a truth value (can be confidently and rigorously determined to be true or false). We can lie only by making statements that we know with certainty to be false, but such certainty exists only with regard to the past and the present. We can make statements about the future that may be false, or that are probably false, or that we believe to be false – but we can never be sure that they are false. Therefore, we can never lie (or tell the truth!) about the future.
Still, it is not as simple as that. Truth must also be possible (there is no such thing as an impossible truth, though, of course, there are many improbable truths). Yet, the very concept of possibility has to do with the future. Moreover: only facts are possible. If something is not possible it is also not factual and nothing that is a fact is impossible.
Consider the following:
Thought experiments (Gedankenexperimenten) are "facts" in the sense that they have a "real life" correlate in the form of electrochemical activity in the brain. But it is quite obvious that they do not relate to facts "out there". They are not true statements.
But do they lack truth because they do not relate to facts? How are Truth and Fact interrelated?
One answer is that Truth pertains to the possibility that an event will occur. If true – it must occur and if false – it cannot occur. This is a binary world of extreme existential conditions. Must all possible events occur? Of course not. If they do not occur would they still be true? Must a statement have a real life correlate to be true?
Instinctively, the answer is yes. We cannot conceive of a thought divorced from brainwaves. A statement which remains a mere potential seems to exist only in the nether land between truth and falsity. It becomes true only by materializing, by occurring, by matching up with real life. If we could prove that it will never do so, we would have felt justified in classifying it as false. This is the outgrowth of millennia of concrete, Aristotelian logic. Logical statements talk about the world and, therefore, if a statement cannot be shown to relate directly to the world, it is not true.
This approach, however, is the outcome of some underlying assumptions:
First, that the world is finite and also close to its end. To say that something that did not happen cannot be true is to say that it will never happen (i.e., to say that time and space – the world – are finite and are about to end momentarily).
Second, truth and falsity are assumed to be mutually exclusive. Quantum and fuzzy logics have long laid this one to rest. There are real world situations that are both true and not-true. A particle can "be" in two places at the same time. This fuzzy logic is incompatible with our daily experiences but if there is anything that we have learnt from physics in the last seven decades it is that the world is incompatible with our daily experiences.
The third assumption is that the psychic realm is but a subset of the material one. We are membranes with a very particular hole-size. We filter through only well defined types of experiences, are equipped with limited (and evolutionarily biased) senses, programmed in a way which tends to sustain us until we die. We are not neutral, objective observers. Actually, the very concept of observer is disputable – as modern physics, on the one hand and Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, have shown.
Imagine that a mad scientist has succeeded to infuse all the water in the world with a strong hallucinogen. At a given moment, all the people in the world see a huge flying saucer. What can we say about this saucer? Is it true? Is it "real"?
There is little doubt that the saucer does not exist. But who is to say so? If this statement is left unsaid – does it mean that it cannot exist and, therefore, is untrue? In this case (of the illusionary flying saucer), the statement that remains unsaid is a true statement – and the statement that is uttered by millions is patently false.
Still, the argument can be made that the flying saucer did exist – though only in the minds of those who drank the contaminated water. What is this form of existence? In which sense does a hallucination "exist"? The psychophysical problem is that no causal relationship can be established between a thought and its real life correlate, the brainwaves that accompany it. Moreover, this leads to infinite regression. If the brainwaves created the thought – who created them, who made them happen? In other words: who is it (perhaps what is it) that thinks?
The subject is so convoluted that to say that the mental is a mere subset of the material is to speculate
It is, therefore, advisable to separate the ontological from the epistemological. But which is which? Facts are determined epistemologically and statistically by conscious and intelligent observers. Their "existence" rests on a sound epistemological footing. Yet we assume that in the absence of observers facts will continue their existence, will not lose their "factuality", their real life quality which is observer-independent and invariant.
What about truth? Surely, it rests on solid ontological foundations. Something is or is not true in reality and that is it. But then we saw that truth is determined psychically and, therefore, is vulnerable, for instance, to hallucinations. Moreover, the blurring of the lines in Quantum, non-Aristotelian, logics implies one of two: either that true and false are only "in our heads" (epistemological) – or that something is wrong with our interpretation of the world, with our exegetic mechanism (brain). If the latter case is true that the world does contain mutually exclusive true and false values – but the organ which identifies these entities (the brain) has gone awry. The paradox is that the second approach also assumes that at least the perception of true and false values is dependent on the existence of an epistemological detection device.
Can something be true and reality and false in our minds? Of course it can (remember "Rashomon"). Could the reverse be true? Yes, it can. This is what we call optical or sensory illusions. Even solidity is an illusion of our senses – there are no such things as solid objects (remember the physicist's desk which is 99.99999% vacuum with minute granules of matter floating about).
To reconcile these two concepts, we must let go of the old belief (probably vital to our sanity) that we can know the world. We probably cannot and this is the source of our confusion. The world may be inhabited by "true" things and "false" things. It may be true that truth is existence and falsity is non-existence. But we will never know because we are incapable of knowing anything about the world as it is.
We are, however, fully equipped to know about the mental events inside our heads. It is there that the representations of the real world form. We are acquainted with these representations (concepts, images, symbols, language in general) – and mistake them for the world itself. Since we have no way of directly knowing the world (without the intervention of our interpretative mechanisms) we are unable to tell when a certain representation corresponds to an event which is observer-independent and invariant and when it corresponds to nothing of the kind. When we see an image – it could be the result of an interaction with light outside us (objectively "real"), or the result of a dream, a drug induced illusion, fatigue and any other number of brain events not correlated with the real world. These are observer-dependent phenomena and, subject to an agreement between a sufficient number of observers, they are judged to be true or "to have happened" (e.g., religious miracles).
To ask if something is true or not is not a meaningful question unless it relates to our internal world and to our capacity as observers. When we say "true" we mean "exists", or "existed", or "most definitely will exist" (the sun will rise tomorrow). But existence can only be ascertained in our minds. Truth, therefore, is nothing but a state of mind. Existence is determined by observing and comparing the two (the outside and the inside, the real and the mental). This yields a picture of the world which may be closely correlated to reality – and, yet again, may not.
A Classification of Lies and Confabulations
A statement constitutes a lie only if at least one of the interlocutors knows it to be untrue, yet insists or assumes that it is true. If all the parties involved in the exchange know that the statement is false or if none of them know whether it is false or true, then it is fiction or an act of faith.
Lies are about facts or about states of being. Lies that pertain to facts cannot be rendered true by widespread consensus. But with regards to lies about states of being, if the parties agree something to be the truth their agreement can make it true (alter its truth value). This is so because statements about states of being are dependent on social context.
Lies either prompt action or inhibit it. Sometimes, actions taken can convert the lie into a truth (self-fulfilling lie).
There are eight types of lies:
1. Utilitarian: a lie that is intended to accomplish something, a lie that is goal-oriented, a lie whose structure and content are planned to promote or inspire changes conducive to the furtherance of the liar’s aims and aspirations;
2. Smokescreen: a lie whose purpose is to obscure, conceal, or remove true information and thus mislead others (common in espionage or military operations) or to avoid facing a humiliating or shameful truth;
3. Compassionate: a lie that is geared towards sparing other people’s feelings, catering to their sensitivities and vulnerabilities, and allowing them to save face and avoid shame and embarrassment. Most white lies are compassionate and empathic;
4. Ceremonial: lies and dissimulations whose function is to establish a pecking order by demonstrating reverence and glossing over facts and behaviors that inconveniently contravene the accepted hierarchy. Manners and etiquette are highly-elaborate forms of ceremonial lying;
5. Compensatory: lies that are used to disguise the oft-humiliating fact that we do not know the truth or can’t remember it. Lies of this type amount to fiction, but with most of the interlocutors being unaware of it;
6. Confabulatory: intricate lies that weave a fabric of alternate reality which is frequently an exaggerated form of the liar’s traits, conduct, and personal history (though it can, of course, be completely unrelated to anything real in the confabulator’s life).
7. Inferential: fallacious conclusions or extrapolations based on true assumptions or statements. Most logical fallacies are inferential lies.
8. Hybrid: lies that contain markers of an occult truth or pathways to true information, allowing its recipients to “read between the lines”. Hybrid lies are common in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
Russia’s Useful Fools (Brussels Morning)
Lenin did not coin the phrase useful idiots, also known as useful fools, but he may well have: Russia in all its permutations has been their main beneficiary. Among the ardent apologetics of the greatest mass murderer of all time, Joseph Stalin, were Bernard Shaw, the Webbs, Pritt (the famous British lawyer), the historians Tawney, Pares, Hill and Deutscher.
Alas, the present time is no exception.
Increasingly, useful fools proliferate in the West: journalists, businessmen, public intellectuals, academics, politicians, conspiracy theorists, and lobbyists, some of whom I assume are well-paid from the coffers of the Kremlin, some are just naïve, and others are merely self-loathing paranoids.
In an age of truthersim, alternative “facts”, and fake news, Russia thrives. It has literally been the breeding ground of counterfactual propaganda since the 1920s, emulated by the likes of Nazi Germany.
Russia’s attempts to interfere with elections in the West by leveraging social media platforms is a tocsin. On YouTube, Russia surfs the murky waves of defiant anti-elitism, nescient anti-intellectualism, Western self-hatred, and contumacious anti-establishment. Search YouTube for “Russia Ukraine” for evidence of this reactance.
The principle of free speech enshrined in the ethos of the West plays into the hands of criminalized dictatorships like Russia’s. In the age of leveraged anarchic technologies it requires a major re-think.
We need to begin to ban and suppress certain kinds of counterfactual speech. This is not as controversial as it sounds. We already disallow hate speech, holocaust denial, incitement to violence, and anti-vaxxing. We need to add to this list: lies, conspiracy theories, claims which are not independently verified, and scams.
Social media networks already have in place self-policing and censorship tools, but these are blunt and capricious. With the proliferation of bots and artificial intelligence chat agents, Russian disinformation is poised to explode in both scope and quality.
The West’s useful fools are vectors of such intellectual despoiling. Their critical thinking suspended, they disseminate conspiratorial anti-Western and anti-elitist narratives which cater to the basest proclivities of the less educated, the disenfranchised, and the impoverished.
In the information wars, unbridled free speech is a dangerous vulnerability. There is no palatable middle ground: sacrificing liberalism for the sake of survival or triumph is its own defeat. Nor should we hand over the vetting of speech acts to governments or states. Self-regulation by high-tech behemoths has proven to be lacking. Crowdsourced, grassroots vigilance is too cumbersome and contentious by half (witness the flame wars on Wikipedia).
One possible solution is mandatory digital identities, preferably reliant on blockchain distributed computing ledger technologies. NFT (non-fungible tokens) are an illustration of such a mechanism. To post online, one would need to secure a digital identity NFT, replete with a history of prior utterances.
Such piercing of the veil of anonymity will eliminate bots and similar contraptions. It will also hold to account human interlocutors. It is likely to render textual intercourse more civil and more factual as well as embed it in the wider context of a thread.
Any attempt to prevaricate or mislead should result in the time-limited suspension or even permanent revocation of one’s personal identity (similar to today’s banning on traditional social media such as Twitter and Facebook). Such nuclear sanction is bound to focus the minds of would be abusers of the system.
Great care should be taken to distinguish malicious agitprop from legitimate differences of opinion. The former invariably involves deception, the latter none. We would need to create an international fact-checking repository to tell them apart: Wikipedia is a good start, augmented by the likes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Attempts to manipulate the system are guaranteed: anything from hacking to deepfaking. The repository would have to be protected and impermeable to such intrusions and incursions. We would need to strike a delicate balance between transparency of content and opaqueness of infrastructure.
Such an undertaking is possibly the most urgent task of our times. We are overwhelmed by conniving falsehoods. The very boundary between the real and the fantastic are blurred. We need to emerge from the Platonic caves of our silos to the disinfecting sunshine of reality. The alternative is too harrowing to contemplate.
Copyright Notice
This material
is copyrighted. Free, unrestricted use is allowed on a non commercial basis.
The author's name and a link to this Website must be incorporated in any
reproduction of the material for any use and by any means.
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited
Internet: A Medium or a Message?
Write to me: palma@unet.com.mk or narcissisticabuse-owner@yahoogroups.com