• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

If you had a truth machine

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
boomerang

boomerang

Paranormal Adept
If you had a magic truth machine, what questions would you ask it? Two that come obviously to mind:

-Who killed the Kennedys and why

-Who really perpetrated the anthrax mailings ?
 
I'm with you on the Kennedy question.

I'd also like to ask it what is really behind the alien abduction phenomenon. Is it all sleep paralysis and mental illness or are we really being taken by an advanced alien intelligence? I find the subject fascinating whatever the cause turns out to be, but I would like to know for sure.
 
dyingsun said:
Magic truth machine as in all knowing, or ..because I think you both are aiming pretty low here ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the Kennedy assassination and the abduction phenomenon are two things that have always fascinated me. I've studied the arguments on both sides of these issues for years and while I do have my opinions, I'm not entirely certain that they are correct. I agree they aren't the deepest questions I could have thought up, but they are interesting, nevertheless.

I was operating on the assumption that the truth machine is all knowing. I'm curious what your question(s) would be?
 
I guess I am aiming low due to doubts that I am capable of understanding the answers to deeper questions. Sort of like confusion caused by the computer Deep Thought in Hitch Hiker's Guide. :confused:
 
Muadib said:
Perhaps, but the Kennedy assassination and the abduction phenomenon are two things that have always fascinated me. I've studied the arguments on both sides of these issues for years and while I do have my opinions, I'm not entirely certain that they are correct. I agree they aren't the deepest questions I could have thought up, but they are interesting, nevertheless.

I was operating on the assumption that the truth machine is all knowing. I'm curious what your question(s) would be?
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to sound critical, even now I can't clearly define two questions I'd love to be answered once and for all. 'God', the nature of evil, the purpose of life .. etc. *mindf*ck question there, boom*
 
So we're assuming the machine can answer with more than a simple "Yes" or "No" ... hmm:
  1. Is the truth you provide objective or subjective?
  2. By what process is the truth being ascertained?
  3. What is your evidence?
 
Snidely Whiplash said:
Is there such a thing as something being objective?
Click to expand...

Yes. For example when the thermometer on your thermostat says 21 degree Celsius, that number is a completely objective indication of temperature. It's your objective "truth machine" for temperature. However when someone says, "It feels chilly in here", that is a subjective evaluation of the temperature ( your subjective "truth machine" ). When a video camera records an image, the data on the chip is completely objective, when we look at that data as it plays back, the perception is a mix of objective/subjective information, and when we create an image from our imagination, it is entirely subjective.
 
ufology said:
Yes. For example when the thermometer on your thermostat says 21 degree Celsius, that number is a completely objective indication of temperature. It's your objective "truth machine" for temperature. However when someone says, "It feels chilly in here", that is a subjective evaluation of the temperature ( your subjective "truth machine" ). When a video camera records an image, the data on the chip is completely objective, when we look at that data as it plays back, the perception is a mix of objective/subjective information, and when we create an image from our imagination, it is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...
"Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in some—or maybe all—situations. It is, at least, a process replete with uncertainties and challenges. One example of an objective idea is in the concept that all perception is relative. In accepting this, one encounters the objective. Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized. Given that the object selection and measurement process are typically subjective, when results of that subjective process are generalized to the larger system from which the object was selected, the stated conclusions are necessarily biased." -wikipedia objectivity in science.
 
Philosophical discourse aside.......
1. Why, when, how and who built the so-called Cheops pyramid?
2. The same for Stonehenge.
2A. The same for Puma Punku, Golbekli Tepe, and Teotihucan.
3. Are we being visited by aliens?
4. Are we being visited by time travelers?
5. Are we being visited by interdimensional beings?
6. Is there an afterlife?
7. If so, and what is it like?
8. Did Roosevelt really know the Imperial Japanese were about to attack Pearl harbor days in advance?
9. What killed the dinosaurs?

At this point I think the Truth machine would burn out.......
 
Snidely Whiplash said:
"Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in some—or maybe all—situations. It is, at least, a process replete with uncertainties and challenges. One example of an objective idea is in the concept that all perception is relative. In accepting this, one encounters the objective. Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized. Given that the object selection and measurement process are typically subjective, when results of that subjective process are generalized to the larger system from which the object was selected, the stated conclusions are necessarily biased." -wikipedia objectivity in science.
Click to expand...

I would agree for the most part, however accuracy is a separate issue from objectivity vs subjectivity. Objectivity is where there is no personal bias or is "mind independent". Therefore objectivity can certainly take place in the "measurement process" e.g. the thermostat example already mentioned. Even if the thermostat is not 100% accurate, the number it displays is still arrived at by completely objective means.
 
ufology said:
I would agree for the most part, however accuracy is a separate issue from objectivity vs subjectivity. Objectivity is where there is no personal bias or is "mind independent". Therefore objectivity can certainly take place in the "measurement process" e.g. the thermostat example already mentioned. Even if the thermostat is not 100% accurate, the number it displays is still arrived at by completely objective means.
Click to expand...
I know, I just want to rebutel what you said. I think this applies more in at the quantum level. Either way, we have gone way off topic. cheers!
 
Snidely Whiplash said:
I know, I just want to rebutel what you said. I think this applies more in at the quantum level. Either way, we have gone way off topic. cheers!
Click to expand...

Only a little off topic. Understanding the process by which a machine could provide the objective truth about any past or future event would reveal things much more amazing about the universe than any topic limited to mere Earth history.
 
There are terms often used in Buddhism in answer to questions that mean neither 'yes' nor 'no'. I think one such term is "mu" ? It may signify that neither 'yes' nor 'no' is a correct answer. Or perhaps that the question is meaningless, or beyond the ability of the questioner to comprehend.
Answers to questions at the quantum level often fall into this category. The best known is probably whether light is a wave or a particle. It seems to be both and neither.

It's easy to imagine a superior intelligence answering deeper questions with something like "mu". Or maybe it would humor us with answers we could use to move a little futher down the path to understanding.
 
Back
Top