It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Truth About Lies

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

THE


TRUTH


ABOUT


LIES



We often search for truth as if it was hidden beneath someone's fig-leaf; maybe even our own, my curious friends? "The search for truth" is such a perversion, and we, perverted, forever wishing we could lift up the dress and finery of everything, in the hopes that truth herself will be there waiting for our loving embrace.

Realistically—that is, truthfully—finding truth is as easy as looking in the dictionary, for all it is is a word, a word that corresponds to nothing in the entire universe but itself, the word "truth". This can be confirmed by asking someone to show you truth. What they quickly show and tell of truth, often as if they have known it their entire lives, is their version of it, what they believe it to be, a knockoff that only knockoff artists could create, in the hopes that they may sell it under that ever auspicious brand "Truth". But beyond our lexicons Truth is never found, nor discovered, because it is nowhere we could look. Rather, truth is an honorific title, bestowed upon that which we find honorable enough to receive such a bestowal. Like self-appointed kings, we knight that which honors us—principles, platitudes, ideals—often without ever leaving our thrones.

Rarely does one articulate events in real-time, save for perhaps a sportscaster with the breath of an auctioneer. Every commentary of events is in past-tense, being that the event always precedes its commentary. Whenever present-tense is present, it is fiction. Truth never has nor ever will exist in real time, and never beyond the fathom-lines of both deep and shallow minds.

Language, being the inauthentic charlatan she is, that ceaseless metaphor, is never a 1-to-1 ratio with anything but itself. Fact does not equal world. The word "tree" looks and acts nothing like a tree. "This is the truth," they tell me. "What is?" I ask. Only ever an "answer", a proposition, strings of letters making strings of words, and never "Truth". In other words—in more words tied precariously together by imaginary relationships—we are not seekers of truth, we are rather blacksmiths of truth, forgers forging forgeries, counterfeiters. We are at least honest when we create our truths, but upon leaving the anvil and ceasing the sparks of our hammer upon it so that we may find rather than create truths...we lie.

Lies, dishonesty, error—these reveal their muse-like nature every time one claims he is privy to Truth. We can watch the lie every time one speaks of Truth, just as you now witness mine.

As always, thank you for reading.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Great read, one of the things about truth is no one really can tell you the truth only you can know the truth.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
i really don't want this thread to die. It is just so lovely. Your writing skills get better every thread, friend. So, I I am replying only to bump the thread. I don't k if I could fashion a proper response. I am glad that you are a member of ATS.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tgidkp

You're too kind, friend—almost enough to melt this frozen heart. It's good to know I'm not wasting my time here, and that someone other than myself gains pleasure from my writing.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see truth when an idea or assumption generates and action that is manifest in reality.

"I think ill go to the park and ride the see-saw"

"The truth is that I ride a see-saw"

*Goes to the park and rides the see-saw

Absolutely true.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
1_ if you were able to "correct" the thinking and behaviors of the people you interact with/speak to/population at large, would you continue to be a misanthrope? or, in other words, do you have some particular objective in mind... or are you simply a perpetually dissatisfied neurotic? (not intended as an insult: I am a grumpy people-hater whom has given up altogether on trying to lift others into good thinking. 😠💑😠)

2_ being that a person's (or any particular object's) identity relies on the stringing along in temporal sequence of "truths" (by your definition, some phenomena in the present moment), is that identity true (being comprised of sequential truths) or fabrication (because its persistence occurs only in past and future tenses)?

in my opinion, both of these are necessarily the case. in order to carry our "self" into the future, we must have something to carry (true); in order to make decisions, the truth of our identity must always remain provisional (not true).

on a side note, I have been doing some reading on the theoretical foundations for the "super-intelligent supercomputer at the end of time" version of the singularity. you would probably enjoy it. the following is called "Newcomb' dilemma", the paper it comes from is linked below. I would LOVE to read a thread written by you about this topic. 😉


Imagine that a superintelligence from another galaxy, whom we shall call the Predictor, comes to Earth and at once sets about playing a strange and incomprehensible game.

In this game, the superintelligent Predictor selects a human being, then offers this human being two boxes. The first box, box A, is transparent and contains a thousand dollars. The second box, box B, is opaque and contains either a million dollars or nothing. You may take only box B, or you may take boxes A and B.

But there’s a twist: If the superintelligent Predictor thinks that you’ll take both boxes, the Predictor has left box B empty; and you will receive only a thousand dollars. If the Predictor thinks that you’ll take only box B, then It has placed a million dollars in box B. Before you make your choice, the Predictor has already moved on to Its next game; there is no possible way for the contents of box B to change after you make your decision. If you like, imagine that box B has no back, so that your friend can look inside box B, though she can’t signal you in any way. Either your friend sees that box B already contains a million dollars, or she sees that it already contains nothing.

Imagine that you have watched the Predictor play a thousand such games, against people like you, some of whom two-boxed and some of whom one-boxed, and on each and every occasion the Predictor has predicted
accurately. Do you take both boxes, or only box B?


timeless decision theory



Timeless decision theory (TDT) is a decision theory, developed by Eliezer Yudkowskywhich, in slogan form, says that agents should decide as if they are determining the output of the abstract computation that they implement. This theory was developed in response to the view that rationality should be about winning (that is, about agents achieving their desired ends) rather than about behaving in a manner that we would intuitively label as rational.


yudlowsky's "less wrong" website



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I gave up on truth long ago. At least in any universal sense. There is only what we perceive and that is constantly changing.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
If I'm lying and I believe it true, would it still be a lie?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
I gave up on truth long ago. At least in any universal sense. There is only what we perceive and that is constantly changing.

That which is perceived is constantly changing but does the perceiver ever change? Maybe it is the perceiver which never changes (all seeing, all knowing and ever present awareness). 'That' which never changes could be seen as the 'truth' - as it is always the same.
The 'truth' could also be that the perceiver and the perceived are not two - not separate 'things'.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

That which is perceived is constantly changing but does the perceiver ever change? Maybe it is the perceiver which never changes (all seeing, all knowing and ever present awareness). 'That' which never changes could be seen as the 'truth' - as it is always the same.
The 'truth' could also be that the perceiver and the perceived are not two - not separate 'things'.


Like I said, not interested in looking for or determining truth.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   


Rarely does one articulate events in real-time, save for perhaps a sportscaster with the breath of an auctioneer. Every commentary of events is in past-tense, being that the event always precedes its commentary. Whenever present-tense is present, it is fiction. Truth never has nor ever will exist in real time, and never beyond the fathom-lines of both deep and shallow minds.

Words can only describe what is not actually happening, words cannot speak of 'what is'. As stated above 'Truth never has nor ever will exist in time' - time is the lie. Here and now is a fact - is it not? Children have to be taught about time - they have absolutely no 'concept' of time. 'This that is' (present tense) is non conceptual as it cannot be conceptualized - no words can be spoken to describe it truthfully, yet it always is.



edit on 23-10-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

the following is a research paper detailing what I believe to be the first (and only existing) plausible explanation of abiogenesis. while it is a short read, it is fairly dense and incredibly abstract... so the average reader may not get much from it. in short, the auto-genesis of "intelligent" systems is the effect of the "apprehension" of the passage of time in naturally occurring organic chemical-transformation cycles. the identity of a single carbon-based group, from the perspective of the bio-enzymes, passes from "about to" react to "reacted, now part of my own chemical structure". the generation of a persistent frame of present time gives the cycle (the citric acid cycle, in the paper) a unique and proper identity.

I bring this up in response to you because the "truth" of identity which you reference appears to be an artifact of the contextual apprehension of the present moment by the system. so, you claim that the concept of time is unnatural. but time is likely the key component in the "mind" of intelligent systems. whether or not TIME actually exists I cannot say for sure.

this is a topic that would make for great discussion in the science forum, but I do not have time or patience to handle it myself at the moment. I wonder if some other member might be interested in the task??

👍


Any surviving organism is unique in abstracting and holding its self-identity as experiencing and processing different individual events of a concrete nature. The organism that can survive maintains its self-identity as abstracting its own durability as a class property out of those different individual events to be met and processed. Rather, the organism has the internal propensity of making its own actualization durable while processing the material resources available that are individually distinguishable. Biology is distinctive as compared to physics in availing itself of the synthesis of organization with use of the material act of measurement as a form of abstraction.


Self-identities and durability of biosystems via their abstracting capacity



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tgidkp
Time can only be imagined, dreamt. Existence is existing now, it exists as what is happening. It can happen that it appears as a thought speaking about (another) time. In that imagined time (a story made of words appearing) a separate person seems to be there but what can ever really be separated from 'this' - timeless being?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tgidkp


1_ if you were able to "correct" the thinking and behaviors of the people you interact with/speak to/population at large, would you continue to be a misanthrope? or, in other words, do you have some particular objective in mind... or are you simply a perpetually dissatisfied neurotic? (not intended as an insult: I am a grumpy people-hater whom has given up altogether on trying to lift others into good thinking. 😠💑😠)


I wear the title “misanthrope” in an act of irony. I do not hate nor avoid humankind. In my extensive travels, it is human interaction, whether by myself or with others, that has given me both the greatest joys and profoundest sorrows. I thrive in culture and throw myself into it. I am a butterfly of the social variety.

I’m merely the Steppenwolf.

As for a motive for my writing, it’s because I enjoy it.

Humans differ very slightly. I’ve found that once I get someone alone, no matter cultural differences, away from the pressures of the tribe, face to face and eye to eye, true humanity manifests. This has occurred everywhere I’ve been. Honest laughter, conversation, good food, good drink, and so on.


2_ being that a person's (or any particular object's) identity relies on the stringing along in temporal sequence of "truths" (by your definition, some phenomena in the present moment), is that identity true (being comprised of sequential truths) or fabrication (because its persistence occurs only in past and future tenses)?

Historically, it has been both true and false. Both true and false are both fabrications.


on a side note, I have been doing some reading on the theoretical foundations for the "super-intelligent supercomputer at the end of time" version of the singularity. you would probably enjoy it.


Sounds like something Asimov would write. I’ll take a look. Thank you.

edit on 23-10-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


I gave up on truth long ago. At least in any universal sense. There is only what we perceive and that is constantly changing.


Give truth another chance, dear Bluesma. Truth-making may perhaps be the highest form of craftsmanship. It is true that one might stop looking for it, but one should never stop creating and sculpting it, if not for our own benefit, at least for the benefit of those who might come across it.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain


Words can only describe what is not actually happening, words cannot speak of 'what is'. As stated above 'Truth never has nor ever will exist in time' - time is the lie. Here and now is a fact - is it not? Children have to be taught about time - they have absolutely no 'concept' of time. 'This that is' (present tense) is non conceptual as it cannot be conceptualized - no word can be spoken to describe it. A painter may try to capture 'a moment' to freeze frame the ever changing scene.


My good friend itsnowagain, it’s good to see you haven’t quite fully retreated into the background noise of what “arises”, and are still willing to exercise your power to affect with thought and expression.

“Here and now” is indeed a notion of hindsight. But words are spoken to describe it, and have been since animals could communicate. Green monkey’s, for instance, have different calls pertaining to different predators. Our expression is in the world, from the world and about the world in real time.

“Here and now” is not a fact, for “here and now” for you is “there and then” for me. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not occupy the same place at the same time.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma


I gave up on truth long ago. At least in any universal sense. There is only what we perceive and that is constantly changing.


Give truth another chance, dear Bluesma. Truth-making may perhaps be the highest form of craftsmanship. It is true that one might stop looking for it, but one should never stop creating and sculpting it, if not for our own benefit, at least for the benefit of those who might come across it.


Why call it "truth"? I prefer to say, "This is what I perceive..." , "this is what I think right now...." this more accurately communicates that I am leaving room for further sculpting to happen! For change! It also acknowledges my own responsibility in it's formation, and no insistance that anyone else must take in my perception or thought- they too, are free to create their own.

Using the term "truth" seems to communicate the opinion that others should submit to the concept or perception being expressed.
edit on 24-10-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The truth is recorded by the universe and lives forever.
Because the truth is very simply what happened right down
to the lies someone told about the truth (what happened).
The truth belongs to no one, but lies die with those who tell
them.

Take this truth for instance.



No one can challenge this truth with a lie. Because the whole world
saw that even the classiest horses of his day, were far and away
out matched by Secretariet. And the truth is the same today, as it was on
that day in 1973. And it will never change. Secretariet demolished the field
to take the triple crown easily. The truth that has been lied
about is no different. Even if no one knows the truth that doesn't change it.
In life the same as that horse race, or a superbowel game, or a world series?
There will be one truth for all to face in the end. To believe anything else,
is to believe a lie. You can't escape it, so man up.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


“Here and now” is indeed a notion of hindsight.
The reading of these words happen here and now.

Green monkey’s, for instance, have different calls pertaining to different predators. Our expression is in the world, from the world and about the world in real time.
All expression happens presently. Even the thought of 'there and then' happen presently. Thought cannot happen any 'other' time.



“Here and now” is not a fact, for “here and now” for you is “there and then” for me. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not occupy the same place at the same time.


You are never not here. Here is a prime fact (for you). 'There and then' is an idea (for you) - all ideas, all thoughts, 'All that is' arises in 'you' (which is another name for here and now). It cannot be proved that there is anything outside (your)awareness. Awareness is ever presently knowing.

edit on 24-10-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma


Why call it "truth"? I prefer to say, "This is what I perceive..." , "this is what I think right now...." this more accurately communicates that I am leaving room for further sculpting to happen!

That which is perceived is like a Rorschach blot one can never really see or know what it really is even prior to discussing it with anyone else. If one does not believe the words that pop up in response to that which is seen or heard 'that' which is may show you what it is but it is ungraspable, it cannot be put into words.
The 'non conceptual' is the tao that cannot be spoken and all particular things are made of naming.

Without 'That' which is knowing (perceiving), without the ever present awareness in/as which all arises can any thing appear to be happening? Is any thing (name/label/thought/word/idea/concept) being known to be happening?
edit on 24-10-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join