Chad Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> I have read this book.
I haven't, which will color this response...
> It is great! The idea that Humanity is
> revolutionized
> by the fact that no one can lie anymore without getting
> caught. Considering
> the advances in medicine, computer technology, and
> bio-diagnostic technology
> since the book was written, Is something like a 100% accurate
> Lie Detector
> possible with today's technology?.
Is the distinction between Truth and Fact explored at all?
An example: it can be factual that person X committed some crime. However, it can be entirely truthful for person Y to claim that he remembers person Z committed the crime instead. The truth, trusted blindly, thus convicts an innocent person and frees a criminal.
The only thing such a truth machine could determine is whether or not a person is accurately relating some internal state to others. I'm not sure of the value of that capability. We know humans are fallible; part of the thrust of Transparency is to NOT trust others, not only their conscious behaviors and decisions but in all circumstances.
I had an interesting debate about this on a Star Trek forum. When someone asked "why doesn't the ship just scan everyone all the time so it can tell immediately when something (inevitably) goes wrong?". Someone responded that it was a breach of privacy - I pointed out how dangerous our privacy obsession was, and the two futures open two us. I found it interesting that those obsessed with privacy apparently trust others and the government to obey the law, whereas those who are willing to abandon privacy do it precisely because we don't trust anyone. :)
> Let's say the truth machine was developed and in use. Would
> you favor or
> oppose a law requiring that presidential candidates,
> including incumbents,
> undergo truth machine testing?
What questions would you propose asking? I don't think presidential candidates typically do lie; they're generally too smart and understand the consequences when they're caught. Sure, they bend and twist the truth, deceive and mislead - but what does the truth machine have to say about that?
Let's have it sitting beside Clinton's desk during the Lewinsky brouhaha - at what point does it blink green or red when he's claiming they didn't do the nasty? At his personal definition of slap & tickle, or society's? If we don't know his internal state, I don't think it's of any use.
Truth is an entirely subjective concept. I think it is completely orthogonal to Tranasparency. But I haven't read the book. :)
Joshua
