AuthorsDen.com  Join (free) | Login 

     Popular! Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry
   Services MarketPlace (Free to post!)
Where Authors and Readers come together!

Signed Bookstore | Authors | eBooks | Books | Stories | Articles | Poetry | Blogs | News | Events | Reviews | Videos | Success | Gold Members | Testimonials

Featured Authors: Darryl Jenkins, iMiller Caldwell, iM. Pritchard, iMary Deal, iAndrew Feder, iInspire Hope, iSuzanne Tabor, i
  Home > Philosophy > Articles
Popular: Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry     

Sam Vaknin

· Become a Fan
  Notify me of new titles
  added by this author.

· 432 titles
· 111 Reviews
· Share with Friends!
· Save to My Library
·
Member Since: Jul, 2000

   Sitemap
   Contact Author
   Message Board
   Read Reviews

Books
· FREE A Critique of Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-first Century [

· FREE DOWNLOAD The Death of Sex and the Demise of Monogamy

· FREE DOWNLOAD Short Fiction About Narcissism And Mental Health

· FREE DOWNLOAD Speculations and Physics

· FREE DOWNLOAD Essays on God and Freud

· FREE DOWNLOAD Macedonia: A Nation at a Crossroads

· FREE DOWNLOAD Healthcare Reform Checklist

· FREE DOWNLOAD The Facts and Fictions of the Securities Industry

· FREE DOWNLOAD Abuse, Trauma, and Torture - Their Consequences and Effects

· FREE DOWNLOAD From Alexander to Obama Narcissistic and Psychopathic Leaders


Short Stories
· Ned’s Short Life

· Sexsomnia

· Fugue

· The Galatea of Cotard

· Live Burial

· Lucid Dreams

· A Dream Come True

· Anton's Trap

· The Elephant's Call

· Night Terror


Articles
· Live and Let Die: The West's Perennial Error of Picking Sides

· The Holocaust Revisited

· The Situational Codependent: Codependence as Reaction to Life Crises

· Israel in 2025

· 10 Predictions for the Coming Decade

· Narcissistic Cops: Police Brutality Explained?

· Spite and Envy: Passive-Aggressive Narcissists

· Nationalism vs. Patriotism: Narcissism vs. Self-love

· Pears Cyclopaedia 2014-5 Edition: Human Knowledge Encapsulated

· The Narcissist Loves His Narcissistic Personality Disorder


Poetry
· Her Birthday

· Hebrew Love

· My Putrid Lover

· Twinkle Star

· Synthetic Joy

· Our Love Alivid

· The Miracle of the Kisses

· Selfdream

· In Moist Propinquity

· A Hundred Children

         More poetry...
News
· FREE E-BOOK Abuse, Trauma, and Torture - Their Consequences and Effects

· FREE E-BOOK Narcissistic and Psychopathic Leaders

· FREE EBOOK The Hitler File (Excerpts)

· NEW eBOOK Excerpts from the Archives and Case Studies

· EIGHTH EDITION - Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited

· NEW BOOK - After the Rain - How the West Lost the East

· NEW EBOOK Personality Disorders Revisited

Sam Vaknin, click here to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.

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.


 

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.

Web Site Philosophical Essays and Musings
f

Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!


Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!



Books by
Sam Vaknin



Free Download - Narcissism Book of Quotes

Buy Options
Amazon, more..




FREE DOWNLOAD Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited EXCERPTS

Buy Options
Barnes & Noble, more..




The Narcissism Series





Excerpts from the Archives of the Narcissism List

Buy Options
Amazon, more..




The World of the Narcissist

Buy Options
Amazon, more..




Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited (e-Book)

Buy Options
Amazon, Barnes & Noble, more..




Diary of a Narcissist

Buy Options
Amazon, more..


Popular
Philosophy Articles
  1. Aiding The Underprivileged and The Needy
  2. Everything is on its way to Somewhere
  3. The Dogs of Sochi
  4. Rainbowing Prisims
  5. The (actual) Happiness Machine – Inspired
  6. Tolerance
  7. Back Again to Who are We?
  8. The Great War at 100-Honor v. Dignity
  9. Universal Reasoning
  10. Conversation with an Avatar - of Friends a
  11. Death - Abstraction or Reality?
  12. Evolving Thoughts
  13. After the Dark Ages, what Comes Next?
  14. Introducing Tao of the Rainbow
  15. Chaos and Order - a different perspective
  16. You Never Know
  17. Who Are You?
  18. Choice: focusing on taking or on giving
  19. Is Faith an Addiction?
  20. You Are A Leader

You can also search authors by alphabetical listing: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Featured Authors | New to AuthorsDen? | Add AuthorsDen to your Site
Share AD with your friends | Need Help? | About us


Problem with this page?   Report it to AuthorsDen

© AuthorsDen, Inc. All rights reserved.