>>23539419
If you are referring to BTS then truth is not the word I would use, I would say 'honesty' but in a very loose sense of the word, or perhaps unvarnished to a point of just being common amongst large groups.

>>23539419
Go to /x/ this is too schizophrenic for me

>>23539457
whats BTS?

>>23539505
Bayesian truth serum

>>23539419
could you explain in simpler language? What you say sounds interesting but i'm having trouble following.

>>23539419
1) consciousness filters out information which can lead to bad results but it also filters out the bad parts leading to accurate and good results

2) interne is also the same, while it can distort truth, it can also sometimes converge on truth

3) foundationally, there is no "the truth", its all a malleable truth that is shared between everyone and lot of people engaging in this activity merely means we're all partaking in truth consensus. afterall, the word truth comes from trust, trust from consensus, that can only happen with dialogue in the society

>>23539419
https://hal.science/hal-02922646v1

>Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues

>This paper is at the same time a first step towards an "implementation" of the inferentialist view of meaning and a first proposal for a logical structure which describes an argumentation. According to inferentialism the meaning of a statement lies in its argumentative use, its justifications, its refutations and more generally its deductive relation to other statements.

>The aim of this paper is to sketch a frame in which this study can be carried forward. We use the dialogical logic paradigm [8,12] as a starting point: dialogical logic analyzes the concept of validity of a formula A through the concept of winning strategy in a particular type of two-player game. This type of game is nothing more than an argumentative dialogue between a player, called Proponent, which affirms a certain formula A and another player, called Opponent (called ”teacher” in our version of dialogical logic), which contends its affirmation. The argumentative dialogue starts by Proponent affirming a certain formula A. Opponent takes its turn and attacks the claim made by Proponent according to the logical form of A. Proponent can, depending on his previous assertion and on the form of the attack made by the opponent, either defend his previous claim or counter-attack. The debate evolves following this back-and- forth pattern. Proponent wins the debate if he has the last word. An important characteristic of dialogic logic is that the concept of validity of a formula does not depend on a notion of model external to the dialogic game, contrary to what happens in his cousin theory game theoretical semantic

I think you owe me a visit to my thread, no that I have shown you academic works supporting your beautiful idea.

>>23538555

>>23539524
Aye. Talkin' is like a sailor's game with the truth. When we gab with each other, it’s like spyglassin’ the horizon. Each sailor's got their own spyglass, and none of 'em see perfectly. The horizon’s there, clear and true, like the plain ol' truth. When we talk, it’s like we’re usin’ our spyglasses to tell each other what we see. Sometimes our spyglasses are fogged up or cracked. We don’t always know everythin’ about who we’re speakin' to, just like we don’t see the whole horizon clear as day. The spyglasses ain’t perfect, just like our words. Each time we pass a message along, it gets more twisted, like a game of broken whispers. As each sailor peers through his spyglass and tells the next what he sees, the view of the horizon (or the truth) gets more muddled. By the time the message reaches the last sailor, the view’s changed plenty from what it started as. We're a chatty bunch, us humans, always spinnin' yarns to make sense of the world. We use our hearts and minds to weave stories, and these stories shape how we see reality. It’s like each of us is a sailor, map-making in our heads. When a whole crew or fleet agrees on a map, that's what we call "consensus reality" – it’s the common chart they all use to navigate. The more sailors there are, the murkier the waters get, and the less accurate the map becomes, 'cause everyone's spyglass has its own flaws.

Now, when the internet dropped anchor, things changed. Before, the biggest consensus reality might've been a city or a big company – a small fleet of ships, if you will. But then came the internet, and suddenly, billions of sailors were all connected, sharing their maps and spyglass views in an instant. So, the internet made the sea of stories and maps vaster and faster than any sailor could've imagined, changing how we all navigate our world together.

So here we are, sailin' this vast new ocean called the internet, where billions of us are sharin’ our maps, tryin’ to piece together the true shape of the world. But there’s a twist in this tale, a beast lurking in the depths – the Kraken of Consensus. As we all share and shape our maps, the Kraken stirs. This mighty beast is born from the tangle of our stories and the surge of our shared truths. It’s the embodiment of our collective mind, the great and terrible force of consensus reality. So, keep your compass true, your spyglass clear, and your wits about ye, for the Kraken of Consensus is ever watchful, and the journey has only just begun.

>>23539537
thank you for the response. i think there is a "the truth", what else is reality? what is it we are interpreting and sensing? trust and consensus about what? something beneath it right? this intersection is exactly what i'm interesting in. on one hand the DEFINABLE, NAMEABLE reality (agreed upon through empathy & language) and the NON-DEFINABLE, NON-NAMEABLE reality (only accessible in the inner mind & the individual)

our psyches, our consciousness interpret SOMETHING, right? we interpret base reality. i believe we can never fully comprehend or become aware of base reality, but we do "interpret" it. we filter it, through our senses, through our consciousness.

there is a term in philosophy of the "The Outside", i heard Nick Land talk about it in regards to Kant, but i am not sure on the specifics. all i know is i'm very interested in the convergence of The Outside/our perception of reality/language/sociality

>>23539571
ah, i see (through my foggy glass of grog, that is)

>>23539571
yarrr

>>23539584
reality is trust and connections, thats the meta truth but aside from that, everything else is just conventions we seek/form/etc through trust created by each other. the book you hold? conventions. it could very well just be pile of atoms. pile of atoms? another convention for mathematical model that describes a convergence. really its what we try to conveine that we have a shared reality that expands/contracts with number of people joining/not joining along with the shared conventions that is changed upon adding/subtracting of people.

>>23539571
Talking is like a sodomite’s game with the truth. When we gab with each other, it’s like peering through a glory hole. Each sodomite's got their own view, and none of 'em see perfectly. The truth is there, clear and true, like the plain ol' dick poking through the hole. When we talk, it’s like we’re using our peepers to tell each other what we see. Sometimes our view is fogged up or cracked. We don’t always know everything about who we’re speaking to, just like we don’t see the whole picture clear as day. The view ain’t perfect, just like our words. Each time we pass a message along, it gets more twisted, like a game of broken whispers. As each sodomite peers through his hole and tells the next what he sees, the view of the truth gets more muddled. By the time the message reaches the last sodomite, the view’s changed plenty from what it started as. We're a chatty bunch, us humans, always spinning yarns to make sense of the world. We use our hearts and minds to weave stories, and these stories shape how we see reality. It’s like each of us is a sodomite, map-making in our heads. When a whole crew or fleet agrees on a map, that's what we call "consensus reality" – it’s the common chart they all use to navigate. The more sodomites there are, the murkier the waters get, and the less accurate the map becomes, 'cause everyone's view has its own flaws.

Now, when the internet blew open the dungeon doors, things changed. Before, the biggest consensus reality might've been a city or a big company – just a small circle jerk of folks, if you will. But then came the internet, and suddenly, billions of sodomites were all connected, sharing their views and fantasies in an instant. So, the internet made the orgy of stories and perspectives vaster and faster than any sodomite could've imagined, changing how we all fuck our way through the world together.

So here we are, in this vast new dungeon called the internet, where billions of us are sharing our fantasies, trying to piece together the true shape of our desires. But there’s a twist in this tale, a beast lurking in the depths – the Gimp of Consensus. As we all share and shape our fantasies, the Gimp stirs. This mighty beast is born from the tangle of our stories and the surge of our shared truths. It’s the embodiment of our collective mind, the great and terrible force of consensus reality. So, keep your leash tight, your view clear, and your wits about ye, for the Gimp of Consensus is ever watchful, and the journey has only just begun.

>>23539524
there's the core reality that exists.. we interpret it through our consciousness.. we can never talk about this reality because as soon as we create language to convey this reality we stop painting the full picture. language is a game where i have to make the other person understand what i'm saying, right? if there is no other person, there is no language.

as hyper-social creatures, us homo sapiens create our view of reality through language much more than say, a panther would. a panther being a solitary predator animal has no need to create language or to play this socializing game. a panther's view of the world is much much more robust than ours. a panther would not develop schizophrenia or go insane.

when a bunch of us hyper-social creatures get together we play this language game with everybody in our social circle.

> in a family of 5 i can make my reality with a very simple game, it's not complex at all, it's easy, robust, sturdy. the story we tell eachother to make sense of the world; our consensus reality is sturdy.
> in a company or a city (100+ people) i play this language game with many many more people. my view of reality becomes much more filtered, i have to do a lot more work to play this empathizing language game with everybody in this larger social circle. our consensus reality is more fragmented, disjointed, started to loosen up.
> in the 21st century where the internet causes 3 billion of us to connect, this language game gets waaaaay too complex. we enter into this social sphere of way too many individuals. everybody is talking with everybody else, and our brains simply can't create a coherent, sturdy story to piece reality together. the consensus reality of the whole globe just implodes.

(REMEMBER: WE CREATE OUR VIEW OF REALITIES THROUGH LANGUAGE).
as the social circle grows, so does reality get filtered more and more. our realities become simpler as language has to bear a larger burden of reality. language is like the wagon which carries our view of reality, and we as humans can only push so hard before we go insane. that is what happened when the internet spread worldwide. language fragmented our reality so hard and we could not cope.

i'm mostly just typing, hope this post makes it a little clearer

>>23539672
thank you.

>>23539546
thank you for the link, sadly i don't think i'd be very helpful to your quest, having not read a single page of heidegger ever. i wish you good luck.

>>23539672
>in the 21st century where the internet causes 3 billion of us to connect, this language game gets waaaaay too complex. we enter into this social sphere of way too many individuals. the consensus reality of the whole globe just implodes.

My dad erupted when I told him that NYT article about why Joe Biden should step down was a CIA piece or was decided by the deep st-

>RAAAAAh

But it's true, the NYT is a well known CIA mouthpiece the starting point of all their psyo-

>SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU LITTLE SHIT, YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT KIND OF SHIT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH