That's probably true. But if we all together "control" our minds in the confusion of intermixed signals from all of us, arbitrarily positioned in front of our eyes whenever we look at any social media, can we then talk about any control at all? And maybe that is a reason for the seemingly erratic behavior of people of today (some politicians more than others)? And for the tiredness and disconnection that most of us small fishes feel, not sensing any visible path forward, not knowing why things are happening.
There's no doubt that many people want to control us through social media, but I would raise the question if they really succeed. Yes, X is a power factor, as a platform, but perhaps this is not so much different than to say that newspaper-paper is a power factor as a platform, or radio waves, or whatever. It might not be a matter of someone having a certain opinion, but more that all opinions are promoted through a specific channel.
The real power would materialize, if that channel would suddenly become unavailable, or restrict the news messages on it. But until then, the chaos isn't demonstrating power – it's just confusing.
I think a danger exists in the ommission of information. If both right and left leaning news agencies report on the same issue, but both leave out information, it distorts reality. A person might feel they got the whole story because they listened to both sides, when actually pertinent information was omitted by both the left and right. Our minds and views are therefore sculpted by the news, social media, etc. You would actually have had to witness the event in question yourself to know the truth.
Yes, we always get an incomplete picture of whatever we see or hear about. It actually also counts for the situations when we were there to see things with our own eyes – because, we can only see things from one angle at a time. There will be many details we are missing. And even the details we do see, might not be understood, or not seen as part of the context.
Our minds sort everything. We see quite a lot when looking in any direction for just a moment, but we cannot handle all the information hidden in what we see, so we pick some of it to become our "truth". When remembering the situation, that's what we remember, not all the other details that we in situa decided, perhaps subconsciously, to ignore.
We even mix the exact memory from the situation with other memories, making it highly unlikely that we will be able to describe correctly and in all details what actually happened.
Human witnesses are not good witnesses, to be honest.
Getting input from other sources about the same situation can help uncover some of the details we ignored or didn't see ourselves. But we will still not have a full picture, because each of the other sources also filtered and selected their views into what they thought was relevant.
Adding a deliberate bias to a medium is then, of course, just skewing the picture even further, and two skewed pictures as you are into, will not necessarily make a right one.
So, yes, we are being shaped, but I don't think that one medium necessarily controls your personal construction of the truth, based on all that you hear.
Having said that, I also experience, often, how people seem to simply parrot some official statement about something. Myself included. I am surprised, at times, to hear myself saying something that I, strictly speaking, cannot know – but which I must have heard or been made believe that I know in some other way.
Of course, I notice that more often with others, but I think we are all victims of that. But is it manipulation? Deliberate? Maybe. It doesn't have to be. We may just be speaking with the dialect of people around us, singing with the birds we are amongst, etc.
As you said, the truth of somethimg can only be known if viewed from all angles which is humanly impossible, and even if we could, would we be willing to accept it? Does this mean the truth can't ever be known? Can an unbiased ai or upcoming agi with all its power and speed view all angles and know the truth?
The analogy would be the idea of now. Physicists discuss what is now. Your now is not the same as my now. Even within our own minds there is no now because it takes time for light to hit our retina and be processed by neurons. So just as there is no now, is there also no truth?
Definitely, the "truth" as an evidence of something known to the detail and verified, no opposing elements countering it, must be dead by definition. As you say, we cannot know it all, and we also cannot know if anything speaks against it, as there may be something we do not know and aren't even aware of not knowing. We can only define truth in the way that we find practical.
This way, truth is not different from belief. We do differ, however, and claim that something is proven, therefore we accept is as truth, while we accept that improvable remains as belief. Depending on the preferences of each of us, we then may define belief as identical to not true, or rather is what has no proof but still is true in its own way.
Words probably can't cover the essence of our worldview, and therefore we can get trapped into eternal discussions about such things.
Now – and time aspects in general – really is an interesting topic! You could define "now" as the split between past and future, for instance, having no extent. Or you could give it some room, letting "now" include the last moment, and the next. Or just the last. Or just the next.
As people tend to use the "now" rather vaguely, you often can't know what they mean.
I agree with you, that the two ideas are similar in that way. They are difficult or impossible to define in a way that really covers their use.
Just like now may have an extent, perhaps also truth is better seen as having an extent? So that truth covers various outcomes and facts, not just one. We have that in our language in many places, actually, such as "it was brightly colored", which can mean a lot of different things – one or more colors, one or the other, and it would all be true.
Perhaps evidence is similar? One witness sees a bank robber leaving in an escape car, the other sees him leave by foot. Maybe both are true? That's the old idea of the universe and time strains splitting whenever there's a choice, giving one strain, one universe, for each choice. Thinking that way will make it difficult for a detective to get to the bottom of a case, and a judge to get to a verdict. So, these people will just pick one truth, not really accepting the idea of truth being an interval.
Will there be any case where an interval is the better way of seeing truth – such as the brightly colored example?
He who controls the minds of men (through social media), rules the world!
That's probably true. But if we all together "control" our minds in the confusion of intermixed signals from all of us, arbitrarily positioned in front of our eyes whenever we look at any social media, can we then talk about any control at all? And maybe that is a reason for the seemingly erratic behavior of people of today (some politicians more than others)? And for the tiredness and disconnection that most of us small fishes feel, not sensing any visible path forward, not knowing why things are happening.
There's no doubt that many people want to control us through social media, but I would raise the question if they really succeed. Yes, X is a power factor, as a platform, but perhaps this is not so much different than to say that newspaper-paper is a power factor as a platform, or radio waves, or whatever. It might not be a matter of someone having a certain opinion, but more that all opinions are promoted through a specific channel.
The real power would materialize, if that channel would suddenly become unavailable, or restrict the news messages on it. But until then, the chaos isn't demonstrating power – it's just confusing.
I think a danger exists in the ommission of information. If both right and left leaning news agencies report on the same issue, but both leave out information, it distorts reality. A person might feel they got the whole story because they listened to both sides, when actually pertinent information was omitted by both the left and right. Our minds and views are therefore sculpted by the news, social media, etc. You would actually have had to witness the event in question yourself to know the truth.
Yes, we always get an incomplete picture of whatever we see or hear about. It actually also counts for the situations when we were there to see things with our own eyes – because, we can only see things from one angle at a time. There will be many details we are missing. And even the details we do see, might not be understood, or not seen as part of the context.
Our minds sort everything. We see quite a lot when looking in any direction for just a moment, but we cannot handle all the information hidden in what we see, so we pick some of it to become our "truth". When remembering the situation, that's what we remember, not all the other details that we in situa decided, perhaps subconsciously, to ignore.
We even mix the exact memory from the situation with other memories, making it highly unlikely that we will be able to describe correctly and in all details what actually happened.
Human witnesses are not good witnesses, to be honest.
Getting input from other sources about the same situation can help uncover some of the details we ignored or didn't see ourselves. But we will still not have a full picture, because each of the other sources also filtered and selected their views into what they thought was relevant.
Adding a deliberate bias to a medium is then, of course, just skewing the picture even further, and two skewed pictures as you are into, will not necessarily make a right one.
So, yes, we are being shaped, but I don't think that one medium necessarily controls your personal construction of the truth, based on all that you hear.
Having said that, I also experience, often, how people seem to simply parrot some official statement about something. Myself included. I am surprised, at times, to hear myself saying something that I, strictly speaking, cannot know – but which I must have heard or been made believe that I know in some other way.
Of course, I notice that more often with others, but I think we are all victims of that. But is it manipulation? Deliberate? Maybe. It doesn't have to be. We may just be speaking with the dialect of people around us, singing with the birds we are amongst, etc.
As you said, the truth of somethimg can only be known if viewed from all angles which is humanly impossible, and even if we could, would we be willing to accept it? Does this mean the truth can't ever be known? Can an unbiased ai or upcoming agi with all its power and speed view all angles and know the truth?
The analogy would be the idea of now. Physicists discuss what is now. Your now is not the same as my now. Even within our own minds there is no now because it takes time for light to hit our retina and be processed by neurons. So just as there is no now, is there also no truth?
You point out some universal truths now :)
Definitely, the "truth" as an evidence of something known to the detail and verified, no opposing elements countering it, must be dead by definition. As you say, we cannot know it all, and we also cannot know if anything speaks against it, as there may be something we do not know and aren't even aware of not knowing. We can only define truth in the way that we find practical.
This way, truth is not different from belief. We do differ, however, and claim that something is proven, therefore we accept is as truth, while we accept that improvable remains as belief. Depending on the preferences of each of us, we then may define belief as identical to not true, or rather is what has no proof but still is true in its own way.
Words probably can't cover the essence of our worldview, and therefore we can get trapped into eternal discussions about such things.
Now – and time aspects in general – really is an interesting topic! You could define "now" as the split between past and future, for instance, having no extent. Or you could give it some room, letting "now" include the last moment, and the next. Or just the last. Or just the next.
As people tend to use the "now" rather vaguely, you often can't know what they mean.
I agree with you, that the two ideas are similar in that way. They are difficult or impossible to define in a way that really covers their use.
Just like now may have an extent, perhaps also truth is better seen as having an extent? So that truth covers various outcomes and facts, not just one. We have that in our language in many places, actually, such as "it was brightly colored", which can mean a lot of different things – one or more colors, one or the other, and it would all be true.
Perhaps evidence is similar? One witness sees a bank robber leaving in an escape car, the other sees him leave by foot. Maybe both are true? That's the old idea of the universe and time strains splitting whenever there's a choice, giving one strain, one universe, for each choice. Thinking that way will make it difficult for a detective to get to the bottom of a case, and a judge to get to a verdict. So, these people will just pick one truth, not really accepting the idea of truth being an interval.
Will there be any case where an interval is the better way of seeing truth – such as the brightly colored example?
"You point out some universal truths now :)"
Clever!