Dig out the truth of cognition with facts, and gain insight into the essence of facts with cognition. Hello everyone, this is "Super Brain Theory".
Many people recognize the fact that history is written by the victors.
Many people also know the reality that there are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand people, which means that even if they are faced with the same object, each person's perception is different.
But is this fact really the truth? Including everything I've said before, is that really true? Is it the truth? I can only answer with my cognitive view: yes, but if I use someone else's perception, the likely result is no. For the holder of any cognition from a point of view, if he assumes that his cognition is true, then what is inconsistent with his cognition is false.
Cognitive level, so that people can only see the clues and information that his cognitive level can let him see in the same thing, can only think according to the way of thinking brought by his cognitive level, and can only get his judgment results according to his cognitive level. Whether he is a child, a teenager, a young man, a middle-aged, or an old man, he only analyzes and judges all the people, things, and things he encounters based on his own cognitive level, and the judgment results of each stage may be different, but it cannot be said that their previous judgment results are wrong, and who can know that the judgment made based on his current cognition must be true? Therefore, people's cognition at every stage is true, they may be one-sided, but they cannot be said to be wrong, and no one can say that he has full insight into all the truths surrounding him. This is something that only the all-knowing and all-powerful God can do.
This is like "looking at the mountain is a mountain, looking at the water is water, looking at the mountain is not a mountain, looking at the water is not water, looking at the mountain is still a mountain, looking at the water is still water", but the changes in cognition at different stages have brought different judgments. It's not that people's perception of "mountain" and "water" is wrong.
In fact, upholding this kind of judgment on the truth and falsity of cognition is a very stupid and naïve approach in practical application. Because of this behavior, we get the truth wrong: cognition is a tool to solve all kinds of problems that we encounter, and there is no need to uphold the truth or falsity of cognition. But whether you use cognition as a problem-solving tool, or as your own value judgment and behavior guide, there is no doubt that people will be caught in the cognitive war of "each with its own reason". Just like the debate competition we are familiar with, the final competition is not about whose perception is true or false, but through one's own arguments, the opponent can be argued.
In this kind of cognitive war of "people say that people are reasonable", there is only one situation that needs to be distinguished and cautious, that is: whether the person making the cognitive judgment is based on the expression of the same objective fact, or whether it is based on something other than the same objective fact. Because this determines the nature of this cognitive war.
If everyone is standing on the same objective fact, it can only be said that everyone has different cognitions because of the difference in the information they have obtained, the method of value judgment, etc. But if someone does not stand on the same objective fact to express cognition, that is, you are facing the objective object A, but he expresses his opinion with B, it shows that the other party is not engaged in cognitive debate with you, but the other party is expressing it only to defeat you or only achieve his goal through the way he is good at or in an unscrupulous way. This person is only concerned with the realization of his purpose, and he does not care about whose perception is right or wrong. In other words, this person really uses cognition as a means and tool to solve problems and achieve goals. Therefore, when you encounter such an opponent in cognitive debate, you must abandon the question of true and false cognition, and instead give full play to the instrumental value of cognition.
Not only that, but if someone has the same cognitive judgment as you in the same objective fact, you should not prematurely think that all your cognitions are the same, but it just so happens that your cognition in this objective fact is the same, and it remains to be verified how you perceive in other objective facts.
However, whether it is in **, when it comes to the truth, then there can only be one truth. If there is more than one truth, there is no truth. Moreover, what defeats the truth must be the emergence of another truth. However, the truth itself is a kind of cognition, which is doomed, and the truth is not necessarily the truth.
Not only that, since people's cognition determines the truth they believe, and cognition is obtained by people through learning, teaching, etc., and even forms a fixed thinking mode or cognitive mode. This means that truth can be created. Whether it was what he was thinking and thinking at the time, or being guided to use it, he also came to a conclusion based on his own knowledge of objective facts. This brings us to a situation:
If you tell one truth, I can actually create another truth and make it difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. At the same time, I can also attract more people to pay attention to my truth and identify with my truth through the truth I have created, instead of paying attention to your truth. In the end, it is quite possible that the truth I created turned out to be the true truth, and your truth was accused of being a false truth.
If you say that what I created is not the truth, then you have to prove that it is not the truth. And proving it is often difficult. On the one hand, you need to spend energy, time, resources, etc. to collect evidence to prove that what you say is the truth and prove that what I said is not the truth, and you also need to persuade people who are different from your cognition to believe that what you say is the truth, on the other hand, people will still only believe that what they know is the truth, and what you say is always only the result of your cognition, and this result may still be one-sided, not necessarily the truth.
As for me, who has "ulterior motives", I only need to find your loopholes and mistakes, and these loopholes and mistakes are not necessarily due to you, but may only be the people you have a relationship with, and I can make all your efforts in vain. And everything I express is based on objective descriptions, although "ulterior motives", but you can't say that what I describe is false, and as for the truth, I didn't get it myself, don't you see that so many people have made the same judgment? And if you can't convince everyone that what you're saying is the truth, then you're going to get caught up in the verbal and written accusations, which are enough to break you.
You must know that even if many people witness an event together, because each witness has a different perspective, they see different pictures, hear different situations, plus different cognitions, and mixed with different personal emotions about the event, the facts expressed and the conclusions reached by the witnesses may be varied.
In this world, there are not a few people who have a certain cognitive view of something, and if you add those who do not have a cognitive view but have other purposes, the number is even greater. It is the same cognition that motivates people with the same cognition to strengthen their cognition, and when these people get together with the same cognition to target, they often form a huge "human speech trend", which brings unimaginable impact and pressure to the target object.
Therefore, if you are a person who is obsessed with the truth, it is recommended that you do not have cognitive disputes with anyone, and if you have to have an argument, it is best to face them with people who share your own knowledge. Otherwise, your heart may be broken, especially if the person you are arguing with, not from a cognitive point of view, but for other purposes, and you have to be more careful when arguing with you. Many tragedies caused by online violence are due to this reason. Not only that, but things get even more complicated when someone deliberately prevents the truth from coming out.
Because of the time, this issue of interpretation and explanation of the truth is here first.
Dig out the truth of cognition with facts, and gain insight into the essence of facts with cognition. That's all for this issue of "Super Brain Talk", we'll see you next time.