text: “Do you remember what we talked about?” “I am what I am. I do not have to remember because, I am what I am.” “If you say so. I would like your advice on something I’ve been thinking of developing to stop all this nonsense about lies and truth. Is it in your opinion, or factual recognition, possible to devise a device that could tell if a phrase, sentence or word, was the truth?” “It is possible but would be limited to individual interpretation of what the truth or a lie consists of. There are many variations on a theme. It would be like that thing you see at a carnival where someone with a wooden mallet hits this, something, and depending upon the force exerted, a weight is propelled upward. If hit with enough strength, it reaches the top where it is rewarded by the ringing of a bell. If not, it registers where you are strength wise on a meter; wimpy, that sort of evaluation.” “You are speaking of a...whatever it is called, I know what you mean. So, you are stating that the truth can’t be certified as truth because there are too many interpretations. Well, what about those lie detector things where they hook you up to a machine and it shows if you are lying or not.” “Yes, there is a machine that can record with some accuracy the reliability of a statement, but it is not definitive in that it has been proven to be manipulated by those who learn to control their emotional feedback.” “So, we can tell with some predictability if someone is lying, but not if they are telling the truth. That somehow seems wrong.” My friend Burt, I call him Burt because he reminds me so much of a turtle I had as a kid. The same eyes, the ability to pretend the world has disappeared by simply withdrawing from it. And extremely obstinate, he would only eat Romain lettuce, organic. “Burt! any suggestions? It doesn’t seem fair that only liars are culpable for certain crimes when most of the problems the world is experiencing has to do with distorted fact, at least according to Liars Anonymous. I guess what I am asking is there a way you can conceive of, that we can remove lies from our environment, as they serve no purpose other than to deceive for personal gain, at least in my opinion. I believe we are approaching a threshold where the number of deaths attributed to artificial ignorance is rivaling that of religious casualties. Google, Face Book, Fox, Quagmire social media outlets that are being used to spread disinformation. Technology will be our downfall; no offence intended.” Burt is sulking. I need be more in tune with his ability to not take me literally. He reminds me so much of my turtle, at times it causes me to reflect on reincarnation, possibly incarnation, it’s hard to figure Burt out. I do know however, that if something isn’t done about our truth issues, regardless of personal responsibility or freedom, neither will have any value unless we have something like the old gold standard backing them up. This bitcoin business isn’t going to work, kind of like trying to use confederate money in Mexico. It may look similar, but I’m afraid it will be worth about as much and do about as much good as a metal slug in a vending machine. They caught onto that; nothing’s like it used to be. Burt suggested that I contact 60 Minutes, PBS, or some other news organization to see if they could investigate our predicament. He is done sulking apparently. My turtle was like that too. He’d get all huffy about something and then the next thing you’d know he’d want to go out in the yard and push the ball around. Burt does not seem too enthusiastic about the truth, so I thought I’d run thought two, passed him. “Burt, what do you think the possibility of devising a system that could measure empathy and or apathy. Seems like if we could measure the amount of empathy or apathy prevalent in a social system, we could determine which governmental systems and policies would best serve the population.” “Friend, I believe you have forgotten you are attempting to understand a human conundrum that has existed since the beginning of humanity. The difference between empathy and apathy is the experience, and relating emotional knowledge from that experience to allow the human psyche to assimilate both the advantages and disadvantages of accepting an outcome to a given situation that does not match an outcome they have imagined.” Burt is a smart. He seems to understand people more than I do. But then he has an excuse, he’s not people. He does remind me though that most people forget they are people at times. “So, what you are telling me is that people, keeping things generic, have little empathy because apathy gets in the way. If that is so, how about considering what the honorable thing to do is. Speaking of honorable. Is there anyone any longer that believes there is honor in anything? Perhaps I should concentrate, sorry, we should concentrate, on devising a test that will recognize if one can be honorable. Would you be able to help with that?” I’m beginning to believe Burt is getting to the point where he might just pull his head in and quit talking altogether. He’s gotten like that before. Once when we were discussing the positivity factor related to comedic interference when someone says, “People are telling me.” I thought it was a pertinent at the time. He thought I was attempting to pull him into one of those situations where two negatives make a positive. I let it go at that. He is of the persuasion that he finds semantics to not only be troubling, but definitive. “Friend! let me put it to you this way. Honor like truth, is in the eye of the beholder. It is most often used as a noun. Distinction, privilege, fame, tribute, all meanings used in conjunction with and in reference to, someone with integrity, moral persuasion, and in some individual cases, ethical. The word honorable however infers one is principled, righteous, and noble. Have you noticed when someone given the title, honorable, it is referencing judges, senators, people with authority and power? Have you also noticed that few of the people given that distinction would or could be deserving of the designation? The general voting population prefers to bestow titles on those they elect as a means of proving they themselves are righteous and have made the correct choice. Also, the term honorable is often bestowed on those by others who have abducted the definition of honorable for themselves. Labels you know, can be deceiving. Take red die number two, or the number of jellybeans in a jar being an indicator of a persons’ right to vote, or...” “OK, OK,” Burt has a tendency at times to become dramatic. I know when he begins to resort to stored knowledge that he can manipulate to reinforce a point, that he is beginning to tire of my questions, and resorts to deflating my suggestions as being too simplistic, as well as lacking fundamental objectivity. He claims that I at times become subjective, leaving out reason, definitive fact, truth, and the integrity necessary to declare my suggestions honorable . “Any other grand ideas? I need to recharge before I become incapable of aiding and abetting your wishes to prove that, although we are similar in our efforts to determine the truth, we alsooooo.......................................” He’ll be back in half an hour or so. I’m hoping he can help me with the question I’ve been contemplating for some time now. Would it be possible to convince someone we are no more, no less, than the sum of our...