There is a misconception here. Truth and reality are not the same, as many imagine.
Human beings invented the term “truth”, it comes as no surprise that the Cambridge Dictionary describes truth as something that the majority of people believe is true.
The Truth is always based on the perceptions of the observer, and what they know about the fact at that precise moment. As a mirror can only capture the side of things that are exposed to it when the exposure takes place, in the same way, everyone’s truth can only represent what is true to them at a given time.
Collective illusions forge and misrepresent truths
In “Collective Illusions: Conformity, Complicity, and the Science of Why We Make Bad Decisions” the author states that Collective Illusions have been turbocharged on a global scale — thanks, in part, to the wonders of platforms like Facebook and Twitter,” Social media increasingly facilitate the shift of perceived consensus and build majorities per means of likes, reshare and followers that do not exist taking others to think that what so many people like, must have some degree of sense or that it is good to be in the same boat with.. or that is not good or not useful to be associated with someone who does not benefit of this sort of consensus. Don’t take me wrong, I am not against social media per se, I simply think that the “social” aspect of social media which means to me “talking with people and reaching out to the wider audience with conversations that matter”, has degenerated into massive broadcasting of unverified [and unverifiable] content, addressed to social media users and the persona that seems to represent them, with the sole purpose to artificially build consensus around products and ideas that can make someone (certainly not social media users) rich.
So the virtual world that was meant to increase the knowledge of everyone by democratically circulating more relevant information becomes the instrument that inspires voluntary or involuntary misrepresentation or interpretation of individuals and how they adhere (or not) to falsely fabricated truths, the risk is those collective illusions become the opinions and inner beliefs of next generations without passing through a critical elaboration.
Circumstances change the perception of truth
Inevitably, the typical observer brings in the decision-making the perception of the truth and some assumptions based upon what s/he knows. To decision-makers, the set of elements composed to validate their belief is the truth. They are not lying and they are not “hoping” they sincerely deem they “know” that something is true.
In the middle between what we believe and what we know, there is trust. The more elements validate our beliefs, the more we trust, up to the point where we don’t need to trust because we know.
The problem isn’t really fakery, whether of documents or videos. The bigger problem is that the worst among us do not care in the least whether something is true.
When what we see is partial, and we assume something we don’t see, or we have not personally experienced, chances are that what we see and can say is true, becomes a partial, subjective or biased truth for us. Facts are indisputable pieces of information, each fact has different perspectives that depend on the observer’s circumstances that may lead different observers to different truths.
Ideally, we want our truths to match with the facts we have, but fact and truth are two very different things, There is nothing wrong with this, what may be wrong is assuming that truths mirror reality. By processing the information that shapes our view of the truth, what I see as a good idea is to distinguish between facts and assumptions and leave the door open for new elements to come in and change and steer the truth. We can set our values in stone, things are different from our truths.
Facts are static, and perception of truth is dynamic
Facts are unchangeable (or should be unchangeable)information while the perception of truth is dynamic meaning that it is changeable upon the time and according to the elements that validate our beliefs.
Reality is liquid. It changes, adapts, and moves so rapidly to make it very hard for anyone to capture it. How can a thought capture something dynamic? Still, there are truths that we are ready to consider absolute like the lows of physics and the laws of mathematics. Many others that seem to be much less absolute but are still worth searching for. One-click-for-everything-in-less than 1” is the dogma today, I don’t see this changing, it’s the “new normality”.
When we formulate a thought, we crystallize in a construct what we perceive is true. When the process is done, the thought becomes part of our on-shelf thoughts or ready-to-use experience. This set of assets can be either an incredibly powerful library or a cage. That library significantly helps us to transversally apply what we learned to new situations, however, the overuse of on-shelf thoughts to future circumstances would prevent change.
The need for a shared and shareable truth is everywhere. For us, for communicating ourselves, for establishing trust and meaningful relationships. We simply need to accept that truth is dynamic.
Another new normality makes me worry: the risk that we assume whatever we click is true and we build ideas, relationships and businesses that can influence millions, based on assumptions.
It would not be fair to assume that everything is false online, however, it is a fact that everything online is falsifiable and that what we see is often only one facet or two of a Prism.
Fakery would not be a problem if a good portion of us, care about what is true and what is not and contribute to letting truth prevail or at least be discussed.
If you read me up here, chances are that you care about the reliability of the information that circulates. You will probably agree that it's all about finding new ways to dynamically and decentralize the validation of knowledge based on which we create and build upon our truths. Then what the TiiQu Network is trying to achieve and Qpidia are for you.