The principle of the healthy functioning of an animal is that all descriptions, which it makes (they are established automatically in its brain), are as accurate as possible. The accuracy of his descriptions of the world has a direct impact on his survival.
To mislead oneself is mortal. But, lying to oneself for an intelligent being is even more deadly. The truth is necessary for the survival of the individual.
The problem is that a "certain truth" is mortal for the species, for Life itself. This truth is that the life of individuals is absurd, hazardous, warlike, always mortal, so it would be better not to impose on an offspring, who one is supposed to love in advance, that existence at high risk.
Truth is not an object or an event. The truth is a description of these objects or events. Truth passes through a language, whatever it may be (word, writing, sign, image, etc.) The truth seeks to establish, as exact as possible, a correspondence between the object or the event and its description by any type of language.
Truth is a relation we make to ourselves or to others. Truth can never be absolute, it is always restricted, for it is incomplete. It is always subjective, and therefore differs according to individuals, since there are as many interpretations as collectors of experiments, that is, people.
The word "truth" is a word in common language, perhaps a word used in justice, but it is not a word of scientific language, for science can not describe things in their totality and their foundation.
Science has no access to this foundation, the substratum of the universe, since we are part of it and cannot analyze ourselves from outside the universe. We can only try to break the bricks (if any) that constitute us by projecting them one on the other by deviation, but it will only give us a vague overview of the interactions that link our bricks between them.
When we make an analysis of the universe, we must take into account three phenomena. First the material physical universe, then the perception that one has of it, and finally the verbal or material analysis that one makes of it.
Between the physical universe and the perceived universe there is correspondence, but the problem is that the analysis that is made is only an analysis of our perceptions. We analyze the perceived object, the object made by our nervous system, but we do not analyze the object in itself.
It is therefore necessary to strive for a maximum "parallelism" between verbal description and perception. The final problem is the consensual transmission between humans, but it is from this consensus that emerge our pseudo-truths on the world.
Truth is human and individual. For a truth to be collective, it would be necessary for the meanings to be identical between individuals, however it is impossible.
We record the world that arrives at our bodies by our sensors, and our brain produces sensations, perceptions (it makes mental objects!) and connects all that (we say it analyzes!) with for result an adapted reaction to what is perceived. We are not conscious of what our nervous system does.
Between individuals of the same era, truth is consensual and approximate. In different epochs, the meanings varying, the truths cannot be transmitted with the same words. We are subject to the translators and exegetes, unless we are one ourselves, and over!
We are mechanisms more or less well adapted to this universe, it is a fact. So we have some accuracy of functionality. Quasi-truths are born from this report and interpretation, otherwise we can not function properly.
But there are only correspondences between our perception of the world and reality, this one is never perceived in totality, we make incomplete mental objects.
Nothing of what we perceive is true. How can we do otherwise than lie as soon as we open our mouths?
A truth of definition can relate only one person. A truth of description must be consensual.
Truths do not exist, for the meanings are all subjective, therefore all different, however a truth must be universal…
Truth is impossible to say since it depends on a dialogue between the speaker and the listener. You have to be two to talk. So a god can tell the truth only if he is in tune with the one who hears it. This is impossible, since we are only “hyposcient” vulgar when he is supposed to be omniscient.
When I describe the world why should I describe it falsely, that can only deceive me. I am part of this world and you too. Why should I falsely describe you? And why should I lie on my own functioning?
Why should I add free will and telepathy to my functioning, and therefore also to your functioning, but also a heaven or a hell to the universe, if that does not exist? To not tell someone a truth as important as the absence of free will, it is to deny him/her a fundamental understanding of life.
Why did you accept the idea that intelligence exists, why did you accept the idea that free will exists, why did you accept these ideas from the outset? These are real questions…
Religion is a manipulation-based trick, basically children. If believers do not want blasphemy, it is out of fear that our truths are stronger than their lies.
Believers know full well that free will does not exist, because the manipulation of the brains implies the absence of free will, and without free will no religion has meaning or value, hence their recriminations, their threats, and their violent actions.
It is to a rationalist justice to say what is blasphemy, it is not to the believer, for the believer with its pretension to its own infallibility, tells nonsense and can therefore claim that everything it does not want you do or say is blasphemy. This is obviously very practical as a system.
If one gives you extraordinary abilities of intelligence, strength, beauty, ask yourself why and how one want to eat you? Free will is one of those fabulous abilities that one lend to our brains to enslave us.
Mom, Dad, and the Society are the only profiteers of this sycophancy. You will do the same when you become one of their own. But that does not redress the world, to falsify the Truth, see where we are in this planetary boondoggle!
What is impossible does not exist. It is therefore sufficient to demonstrate the impossibility of an object, an event, a phenomenon, an entity, or a theory, to demonstrate its non-existence. It is thus easy to demonstrate the inexistence of the gods by passing through the impossibility of the capacities that is attributed to them.
It's been thousands of years the pseudo-intelligents ones have asserted that it is not yet time to tell the truth to the uncultivated and barbarous masses.
Many people think that all truths are not good to say. But the truths that are truths of description how not to say them, why don't tell a description that anyway will be made by necessity, inevitably.
What are the truths to hide, and why to hide them, and to whom to hide them?
Why certain persons should not know certain truths?
Who decides what others should know? A dictator ! Who selects those who can know? A dictator ! How does this dictator know that he knows what to know for himself if there are no researchers who know before him, scientists who will manage the knowledge of the dictator?
It is not because a truth is obvious that it does not need to be read or heard at least once. The nervous system needs it so that the connections are established and the meanings that depend on it have no gap.
A good education goes through the "encounter" of the person with all the simple truths. (But in what order and where in the mental structure?)
There are things that are discussed and others not, with children. The adult who knows the child decides, based on what he knows about the child's understanding. But with an adult, hiding truths for these same reasons is totally fallacious, it is manipulation.
The adult harvests the arguments, he/her will perhaps treat them one day, it is not up to us to judge her/his current intelligence quotient nor his/her instantaneous ability to understand. Personally, I have the spirit of stairway, and the steps are very large and very variable, and I think all the time (like everyone else), but progressing methodically (not like everyone else).
All men are born and remain free and equal in rights, and therefore have the right to know the truth about everything.
If humans are your equals, it is up to no one to decide what they should receive as knowledge. It is not up to you to decide the "dangerousness" of information you know. By what right do you judge them incapable of receiving the knowledge which you have acquired?
Why tell the truth? Why should the rulers tell the truth? Because knowledge is part of the common culture, and future rulers also bathe in this common culture.
If their education is distorted, their understanding of the world will be distorted retroactively, they will govern with a misunderstanding of the terrain and men. There is no reset in the culture.
Truths must be transmitted to all and not only reserved to privileged few, for the simple reason that those who know these truths must transmit them in any case to their descendants, so that they themselves can behave correctly in all knowledge of causes and effects.
When a leader does not want to tell you a truth, it is because you are a pawn on his board game.
Under whose right can an individual and his partner, or a ruler, decide for others what they should know or not know, what truths or lies they should know or swallow?
But above all to force him/her to live without any mastery of the body and the physical and intellectual capacities that go with it and that she/he will have to endure throughout a life of which nobody knows in advance either the quality or the duration?
It is good for every human to eat to his hunger is an impersonal truth and there is no need to wait long to check it.
Truth of definition : 1 + 1 = 2
Truth of description: 1 car + 1 car = 2 cars
Do you want the first car or the second? The beat-up car or the Rolls?
All believers in the world hold the truth, so all believers are infallible. Since they can not all hold contradictory truths, which is the true truth? None. Since they can not be all infallible since they contradict each other, which one is truly infallible? None.
The believer is not asked to doubt his/her God, she/he is asked to doubt her/his own mental abilities. He/She is asked to cease her/his claim to hold truths. Morality without truth about the reality of the world, therefore without the truth about the reality of the human being, is not morality.
There is no extremism of truth, all truths have arguments and can be experienced, they must be told to everybody, for each is part of the path that we all go through. There can be only extremisms of belief, for they are not argued. It is not, however, the truth that one finds or says, but the probable.
If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:
“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”
Dead end
E. Berlherm (December 2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment