The first distinction to be made is between natural and artificial. We can assume that Nature has no intent to deceive us, but the mechanics of our perceptions can create misunderstanding of the facts. All of our senses are subject to some of this. To begin with, for our bodies to process any sensation takes time (said to be about 1/30th of a second). Thus we are always behind reality by a small but significant amount. Also each of our senses has certain deficiencies. Seeing and hearing are limited to fairly narrow ranges of frequencies. The sense of smell is drastically affected by air currents. Touch and taste, perhaps the most direct and immediate senses, are the most limited in access to the world.
One further distinction to be made in natural infotoxin is between the inevitable and the predilective. This is to say there are certain illusions we simply cannot help having, and others which affect only some of us thanks to our predilections. One does not have to be thirsty to see a mirage, nor is one more likely to see it when one is thirsty. However, real thirst can override the sense that a liquid may be not good to drink. I have been fooled on a hot day by a cold chocolate milk that had gone sour. My nose should have warned me but it didn't. We may hear faraway voices as if they are near, thanks to acoustic lensing; or we may hear voices that only exist in our memories as if they are real, especially during that indistinct time between sleep and waking.
As with every type of infotoxin, knowledge is the best armor and antidote.
Many such examples can be given, and they would make a good study, but I am mostly concerned with the artificial here. The study of infotoxin must acknowledge these natural varieties, but it is most useful to concentrate on those which are deliberate and maleficent. This is where so many of us lack the necessary knowledge and discernment, but could gain it to our great benefit.
The next post will define the many types of artificial or manmade infotoxin.
