Consensus is a different concept than Truth.
Consensus can be wrong. "Appeal to Belief" is a common false argument and bias. Although blockchains can be used to verify consensus, they do not inherently have the tools to determine Truth.
The problem with false news stories, propaganda, false marketing, etc. is there intends to take advantage of a victim in order for someone else's gain.
Free speech is wonderful. It allow people to express themselves, provide opinions, submit facts, etc. But we as a society expect Truth in certain circumstances. Think how books in a library are organized. Fiction and non-Fiction. When we want to be entertained, we look to fiction. But when we want to make important decisions, we want Truth. Do you want your doctor to spin a yarn of lies as he tell your prognosis? No. Do you want falsehoods when you watch the news, no. How about a witness in a court of law?
So the problem of people knowingly providing fabrications in the context of expected Truth is a problem. It is a lie.
As great as blockchains are, I don't see it as a tool for logic to determine truth. It can pull in other resources who may have an opinion, can provide support or evidence against. But it in of itself does not have the capacity to tell fiction from non-fiction in broad contexts. However, once the classification is made, it could be a repository of record for where that data should be filed.
Just my 2 cents.
Truth is another matter altogether. The purpose of consensus is to reach agreement. People need to make decisions based upon what other people actually believe whether or not what they believe is true or false.
Distortions in the process of reaching agreement is like corrupting the blockchain validation algorithm. Society can function even if everyone draws the wrong conclusion... at least there is no abuse. The abuse comes into play when people attempt to distort how people perceive each other's thoughts by censorship.
But agreement on what? For everyone to agree to a lie, undermines the validity of the exercise. Consensus to believe in a falsehood, is a failure in the system. It is an irrelevant goal.
Some things are neither true nor false, yet consensus is required and the result of that consensus has impacts on all of society.
Picking a currency is one example. Picking a side of the road to drive / walk on is another.
The result is less important than the process. Who shall determine the truth? From what frame of reference? Show me any process that is guaranteed to arrive at the truth and I'll show you how it will fail.
Only individuals can make an estimation of truth based upon their own perceptions. Consensus is the result of the majority of individuals coming to the same conclusion.
Assuming all individuals can communicate and have incentive to live in the truth then truth will prevail. If there is incentive to believe a lie, then the lie will prevail. This applies even on an individual basis.
yes, truth is based on personal perception, and experience develops perception, every individual has a unique experience, and their own level of truth based on their perceptions derived from personal experience... the paradox of truth. A soldier who has fought in a war has a different perception of what is true about war than a person who only knows stories about war.
But your title and topic is about solving fake news... That is not a decision of consensus on which side of the road cars should drive on (I still get mixed up when in the U.K.). It is about the reporting of facts to the public. Fake news is the reporting of falsehoods in the context of fact. So I am a bit confused in your reply. Sorry.
The solution to Fake News is to minimize its effect on Consensus. In particular we want to minimize the potential for Fake Consensus (e.g. polling results) because of the impact that Fake Consensus has on people's actions.
If we can provide provable consensus then we will have eliminated a large and dangerous category of Fake News and replaced it with truth. This consensus may still be centered around a falsehood, but at least it accurately reflects what people think.
When we don't even know what other people think, that is when the complete breakdown of communication occurs and society is in trouble.
Your work is making me a better person. It's a work in progress but I'm very grateful to say the least. I listened to this article twice and I planed on scanning it at least once.
The comments you have made on this tread are making the article even clearer.
Agreed, large numbers of people can agree , but a lie is still a lie.
Truth is subjective and it doesn't need to be actionable. You can believe that something is true but you can choose not to act on it, not to do something about it, or even not to share it. Agreement is necessary if you want to do something together. If there is a common goal - like living in prosperity and without violence on this planet - then people sharing that common goal need to agree on the key actions.
The fact that what they agree upon is the truth is disjunct from agreement itself. We can agree to live a lie or to live a truth, they're both possible, as long as there is a common, shared goal. Consensus is about agreement, not about truth.
subjective truth is subjective. objective truth is not subjective.
chocolate is good. this statement is subjective.
2+2=4 this is objective, but true.
if you jump off a cliff, at less than escape velocity, you will fall toward the center of gravity. this statement is objective, but true.
belief does not change objective reality into subjective truth.
here is an experiment to try, put an apple on the table in front of you. now, with only the power of your mind, turn the apple into an orange. if you are successful, tell me how you did it. i haven't figured it out yet.
With all due respect, the example you give, 2+2=4 as being true, is subjective, meaning it's context dependent. What you described as being true is just a decimal math operation. A binary operation with the similar components will give a different result.
1+1=2 in decimal, but 1+1=10 in binary.
Everything is context dependent.The truth changes based on your point of seeing.
What I agree with, though, is that belief - alone - does not change the perceived reality. There is an inherent inertia in the continuum we live in. And you cannot change - at least at our level of understanding - apples into oranges, like instantly. But you can alter your reality, it just takes time.
You cannot plant tomatoes and expect carrots, that's also true. But you can change the perceived reality by planting tomatoes, and, sooner or later, you will get tomatoes, that is certain.
was there some doubt that i intended a base 10 context? deliberate misinterpretation does not change objective truth.
in base 10, 2+2=4 today, tomorrow, or thirty thousand years from now.
if you say, i weigh 300 lbs in a gravity field of 9.8m/s/s. this is time dependent, as tomorrow with gain or loss of mass, the weight will change, but objective truth is still objective, and is not subjective.
I can agree to disagree. Maybe this will clear the confusion related to "objective reality", which is nothing but an assumed perspective, voluntarily promoted to the absolute level of truth:
You should know why you believe 2+2=4. If the reason why you believe it ceases to be valid, you should be ready to change your belief. In other words, I can imagine observations which would convince me that 2+2=3 (for more details refer to http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/)
You can never be 100% sure of something because that would take away from you the possibility of ever updating your beliefs if new evidence comes. And rationality is about creating beliefs based on evidence.
there is a difference between observationally dependent perspective, and belief dependent perspective. beliefs can be altered independent of objective reality. observations are derived from objective reality and are dependent on the ability to perceive enough of the aspects of objective reality in order to comprehend it.
I enjoy this conversation / debate :). But still, I agree to disagree. There is no objective reality. What we call "objective reality" is a highly personal, virtual reality created second by second, based on what we previously experienced (observations and beliefs are both emerged from experiences).
If we talk about "objectively seeing" something, then what about blind people? Do they not experience an objective reality? There is this amazing talk on Ted, given by a very interesting person (I won't spoil it, maybe you didn't see it). It's worth 15 minutes of your life, methinks :)
http://www.ted.com/talks/isaac_lidsky_what_reality_are_you_creating_for_yourself#t-605150
i enjoy this conversation because it allows me to refine my ability to explain this even to myself. for almost two decades i was a staunch advocate for all of the arguments made by Mr Lidsky. i looked for every explanation that would bolster my supply of proof. from brain science, psychology and optics to quantum mechanics, even linguistics, i had all of my angles covered. the subjective is admittedly a huge part of individual perception. i think most people do not appreciate how much of what we experience is made up by our brains, but there are still events that exist outside of our ability to create them. nuclear radiation, cosmic rays, inertial and gravitational effects, force gradients, chemical pressure waves, more things than i can name here, anything that exists outside of even our unconscious perception, these and more can be measured independently, with equipment external to our nervous system, by anyone who can view the readout. this can be adapted to braille, just as there are braille computer monitors. all of scientific knowledge takes advantage of repeatability. if everything is subjective, repeatability from person to person is impossible. instruments that repeatably measure conditions, that can be used by more than one person, one time, which is what repeatability is, this is dependent on our interaction with objective reality.
this is similar to reading a book. if two sighted people read the same book, that is not altered between readings, the words remain the same. the meaning may be vastly different from one person to the next, but the book remains. even if the second person is not literate, the book remains. objective reality exists, our perception and comprehension are what diverge from one person to the next, and/or from one time to the next. objectivity is to be found in the repeatable and external.
I think I understand your point of view. I will, once more, choose to gracefully disagree.
The basis of my disagreement is change. Everything changes. Repeatability doesn't exist, it's an illusion we create by our ability to discern what is different and what is equal. Two seconds are both equal and different. They are different in that one is "older" than the other, but they are equal in terms of the "slice" of time that we agree they represent (time is relative, you know that). So two seconds are not truly "repeating" one another.
Change is all pervasive, the person you were 5 minutes ago, when you wrote your comment is different from the person you are right now, reading my comment. We impute a concept of "me" on top of this continuous change, on top of this observer of phenomena and we cling to it. And we grow a cognitive system on top of this clinging of "me". Eventually, this system is the one that creates the lack of happiness and fulfillment we experience.
It's a very difficult pill to swallow, I know, because it creates even more confusion. Which, to an extent, is true: there's no real meaning in this world or in this life. We create that meaning by fear of non-existence.
Hey, maths is the only dependable thing in the universe; your argument would make many dead Greek people cry!
An object plus a similar object gives double the original object or 2 in decimal = 10 in binary, every single time. You were arguing semantics.
Dead Greeks wailing-stop it!
Well, consider racism, genocide, and oppression also have firm roots in consensus. We can all agree the moon is made of cheese or an innocent person is guilty. It does not make it right. It does not support good decisions or move us towards a better society. Manipulating people's beliefs to form a consensus of your liking is an art form, first used since the dawn of civilization to control people. There are countries in which the people are united in belief that their government rulers are gods, oppression is right, and one person should be the supreme ruler of everything. Consensus is a tool of ease and comfort. But a tool can be used for good or bad.
Copernicus did not care what the masses thought. He only pursued the Truth. The Wright Brothers didn't care that for centuries people believed human flight was impossible. They pursued the Truth that it was possible. Before our country was formed, the world held the consensus that Monarchy rule was just, right, and would forever be in place. The Truth was far from that.
The Truth, freedom of expression, and context of information is what breaks the bonds which turn people into cattle. I believe (just my personal belief, not trying to convince anyone) that Truth is far more important in decisions and change, than the consensus of the masses. Only with Truth, will the best decisions be determined. Consensus when Truth is realized becomes an operational triviality.
...the Truth will set you free (but first it will make you miserable) - Garfield
I agree that consensus is not the solution to everything. But what I think Dan's point is that if you don't know what to think, basing your actions on true consensus is better than basing them on perceived (fake) consensus.
Which is why 'mob mentality' is so dangerous. People doing what the crowd does can be extremely dangerous and situations escalate quickly with those ingredients. All I am saying is consensus is different than truth or critical thinking. The fact a group agrees on something is less important than the decision/position itself.
I absolutely agree with your point here @mrosenquist as I think a group consensus is definitely different than 1 person in that consensus doing all the research on a topic and finding more truth than another within that consensus.
This is an observation to your comment below which began, "You should know why you believe 2+2=4" and ended, " And rationality is about creating beliefs based on evidence."
So basically it would be really easy to gaslight you and the guy from the blog that you linked?!
His mind game was very interesting but I think it was somewhat flawed because when he said, "but memory would be absurd in the face of physical and mental confirmation that XXX - XX = XX." Surely memory and mental confirmation are the same thing? I see that he's trying to put them in separate compartments of his brain but that, I think, is his error: to do the sum and achieve mental confirmation he has to rely on his memory, surely? It just looks to me like he's changed the functionality of his brain to suit the outcome that he required for his mind game.
If I was in the situation that he described, my memory would continue to tell me that my eyes were seeing something odd and my mental arithmetic, based on my memory, would tell me the same. I would conclude that I was going mad or someone had found a way to gaslight me.
Having said that, I agree with what you said below, but I think that man made constructs as pure as maths are simply a bad example to illustrate what you were saying.
I am not sure I understand your issue with memory and mental confirmation. In the link I referenced earlier there is
I imagine the situation as follows: I remember that 3 - 2 = 1, but I keep seeing that XXX - XX = XX. My observation contradicts my memory, so I keep repeating the experiment, but only see XXX - XX = XX. So I go to my girlfriend and show her my experiment. If she is seeing what I am, I'll ask her what is 3 - 2. If she says 2, then I will start doubting my memory. If she is seeing something else than I am, I will start blaming my senses. If she is seeing and remembering the same as I, I will investigate further and try to find what is going on..
What you just described is fine but different to what the guy in the article described and his conclusion wasn't further investigation it was him having his mind changed. He had three things going on in order to prove why his mind would be changed: his memory of doing the sum previously, his observation and what he called mental confirmation, which was doing the sum in the present.
I believe that what he describes is impossible because he tried to separate two things that can't be separated.
It was a fun mental experiment but fundamentally flawed because his assumption of how memory works seems to be wrong.
There aren't many reliable things in the universe but pure maths is one of them-thank God!
That's exactly my point: consensus can be used to live a lie or to live the truth. But realizing the truth is a personal choice. It cannot be forced by consensus.
Truth is never subjective.
Unless only a single subject exists - that which "we" call the universe.
If, as some believe, only a single "witness" or "entity" exists (some call it simply the "Self"), then there is no real "object" that's separate; thus no "objective world". If all is the Self (in Hinduism, this Self is referred to as Brahman), then everything, and non-thing, is subjective in existence and non-existence (manifest and unmanifest, or conscious and unconscious).
So, you could say that there are two "levels" of truth (in the case that all is Brahman), one relative to our individual perspectives as persons within an objective world and another, "higher truth" (or Truth), within which all is the single Subject (I suppose you could say that the universe is its body and the combined perception and intellect of all conscious beings, its mind).
Truth is truth because it is not subjective. I agree with everything else.
If you understand the brain in a jar model of consciousness, you would then maybe see that the end goal of truth can never be reached but always grown. Absolute certainty requires complete knowledge, not merely the sufficient.
Agree!