Turn that off, Narada. I dont' need to hear about any more bleedin dead politicians. Anyone would think they're the only ones being writ off these days. Better off dead anyway.

Yea, one dead president, and it's all over the news. A hospital full of dead patients, and no-one's interested.

... a a and at this point, we're entirely confused as to ...

I don't know, this time last year, we were sitting back, enjoying the autumn sun. A few months later, a rotation round the f..ing thing, and we're in the middle of an epi-f..ing-demic.

... though there have been disturbing reports ...

It's the blind f...ing panic that gets me. One minute you're having a cuppa cha with your friend like what you aven't seen for ages, and next minute strike me there's a dead body lying on the next table, and everyone's rushing out of the coffee shop, screaming their bleedin heads off.

... as if a psychological disease ...

bloody internet if you asked me - should never been allowed p- pornographic sites, phone sex, junkmail, viruses, worms, whatever - baound to have an affect stroll on if it doesn't already my life should never been allowed int the first i shouldn't have thought if you ask me.

Right ... just what i said to him, i said, just look here, i said and then you'll never guess what and there in front of our eyes, our very own and you wouldn't believe, it wouldn't catch me on a night over me shoulder...and swear me gordon bennet blind if he didn't, and I said marge, ai said, and if you think and then stroke me for a gonner, if well i don't know what it's all coming to, so i told him to take it and but mabel, he syas, mabel, on the table, get it? mabel on the table been struck down like the rest and I says bout time too, the way she wa carryingon with the vicar we all knew thoufh she didn't tell too many people not half naked as the day he was born he was, and i can tell you for one thing I woldn't let y dog out on a night likle that now ay.s and what's it all about anyway i mean so i told him straight you clear out of hear or i'll jhave them down on you just like belly ohs and i would i can tell you now and all this bloody dropping dead everywhere not like when we were young and all these sodding elections that waht it is and who needs all that democrats anyway never done no godd for noone ever

What is it Bahla?

Well, sir, I've been taking a long look at the circumstances of the most well-documented deaths, like you asked - the ones that occurred when the person was speaking on multi-communication devices, and

And?

And as you know, we have no explanation as yet - no evidence of known diseases, no unusual bacteria in the corpses, no immunity deficiencies - just corpses of human beings. No bullet wounds, knife wounds, poison, ...

Yes, we know all this

Right, so I decided to compare the final moments of prominent people. If you don't mind, let's take a look on the screen. I'd like you to see what has hit me over the last couple of days. Here's the first one:

(Multi-commuinications device) ... I will be focusing all my energies on rooting out corruption in government and in all ...

As you know, that was the shortest inaugural speech ever, by the president in power for the shortest ever time. She seemed to have a stroke at that point, and was undergoing intense medical examination, never heard from or about again. Usual stuff; no autopsy, generals around the bedside, army ambulance, lost their way to the hospital , conflicting reports, misplaced body, etc. That doesn't concern us here. Now the next one:

(MCD) ... I've come here today to ensure everyone in the UK that the situation is in hand. There is no cover up, and nothing to ...

The secretary for defense in the British government. He also seems to have suffered a stroke. His body has also disappeared. Etc. etc. Just the one more clip:

(MCD) ... of course these scientists, doctors have no answers, because this is a disease of the spirit, afflicting those not walking the way of the Lord - sinners, the day of scriptures is upon us, and those with sin in their heart will be ...

OK, we've all seen that one - very effective - dramatic, but what does it tell us?

Actually, this is the one that set me thinking.

I forgot - you went to school with him.

That's right, and I know that he didn't believe a word of that speech. He was simply delivering the official church line. In reality he was just as foxed as the next man, but the church wanted to put the fear of god into people. Nothing like a catastrophe to get them into the pews - good for business. It was only when so many leadning pontiffs etc. collapsed that they sat down and shut up. Too late for myfriend of course.

OK, but so what?

Think about it a bit more - three people die in similar circumstances, speaking, making policy-speeches, one of which was definitely bullshit ...

Just a minute. You mean they were all saying something they didn't believe?

Right. It might sound stupid, but I've checked out other witness accounts, and in every instance, the person who died, famous, infamous or un-famous, was speaking when struck down, and was saying something that could have been peceived as a non-truth.

I've had enough of this now - you mean that the world epidemic that has us all in fear of our lives is in fact a glorified lie-detector? Give us more credit than that. We came here to listen to rational explanations. I have to go to my constituents and say though shalt not lie says the lord thy bloody empirical researcher?

I don't blame you for being skeptical, but bear with me for a moment. Imagine that somewhere, someone had analysed the structure of the brain to such an extent that the electrical impulses of thought could all be explained in terms of computer circuitry. As you know, AI scientists are getting closer all the time - parallel processes, smart technology, thousands of small steps adding up. Then think of these parallel fields heading off in different directions, not realising that the utterance is the contradiction of the perception. The brain learns how to monitor for inconsistency, and bang - short circuit.

Aren't you going too far? You're supposed to be researching a global epidemic, and you're theorizing on Artificial Intelligence.

OK, I've almost finished. This person then starts working on the fact that brains seem able to accept inconsistencies of thought, false decuction, unsupported inferences, illogical actions, etc. whereas a computer crahes when it meets contradictions. Heck, in the old days, computers crashed for the slightest comma out of place in the operating programmes.

Just think for a minute. What happens when you think one thing, but say the opposite for some reason? Let's take the example of a speeding ticket. You were going 500 kph on a skyway, when you knew the limit was 450. However, you'll lose our job if you get another ticket, so you deny everything. the car was on autopilot, you were in the back sleeping, the speedometer isn't working - anything to get out of the situation.You might even drop a few hints about free seats in the ballgame. In other words, your brain knows that you know you were going at 500 kph, but it allows ou to deny this, because there is an ulterior motive. it allows 'truth' and negation to coexist, and even gives you the means of expressing this by allowing your vocal chords to voice something that your brain knows to be untrue. Imagine that our researcher found a way to link perceived truth and perceived negation at the neuron level. We now have contradictory messages being sent and received, and the hard-drive crahes. The speaker has a stroke.

Ee, I've heard some rubbish in my time, but if that's the best you can come up with, I'm leaving now. Me too. Me too me too me too me too met oo me toom etoo metom etoe mtoet meotmeo mtomet omeomtoem teotoometometooomeeetoo

you really blew it today. even if this had any possibility of truth, how could it be done?

How's it going, Harold? OK, sir, but i'm a bit worried about ... Don't be. You're doing a great job. We're all proud of you. Don't know how you did it, but that drug of yours. Incredible! If the guy is lying, he dies. If he doesn't die, he's not lying. You've revolutionized the art of military and corporate interrogation. but ... Come on now. I realise it's not easy being confined down here. But we need you. Can't let you go out for a while. Damn reporters, whatever. Taking no chances. You're incredibly incredibly hot at present. Every big business in the world wants you.

June 7

Noone will listen to me, and I'm not allowed to communicate with the outside world. terrible fears. The drug doesn't seem to breakdown in the body, as i thought it would. In fact it multiplies, changing the molecular stucture of brain cells. The moment it makes contact, everything is changed.

I know they're injecting the drug into the blood stream of suspects right now, but I'm worried. When those who are economical with the truth die, they have to be decomposed, which usually means burning the evidence, which means ash going into the atmosphere, molecules, atoms, non-breakdown of structure, air-born drug. Somone inhales the particles, and they get into the bloodstream.

I suppose there's only one way to find out if this has happened. If the drug has become airborne, then I'm responsible for the biggest plague ever to hit the earth.

Found in ruins of ancient building, believed to have been used by CIA. Generally thought the author said something that he knew to be contradictory at this point, and thus caused a short-circuit in the brain. If so, the first example of suicide by false statement. If the drug had become airborne, then he knew that thousands were going to die. If it had not become airborne, then he had nothing to fear, and he could continue to live.

Excuse me, professor, but that's an interesting point you raise. Psychologists, logicians, brain physiologists, have all been working on the definition of an untruth as perceived by the brain itself. If indeed the cerebrum has become configured to monitor inconsistencies, then we need to know how it defines these.

I suppose the problem is that we can't ask people to be guinea pigs in trying out any of the definitions. Even if we asked convicted insurance CEOs to try out a theory of falsehood before they are put to eternal life in the sewers their brains, we have no starting point from which to evaluate the result.

We don't even know if every brain has the same way of perceiving inconsistencies. Maybe one person's fallacy is another person's hypothesis.

Right. There are even ethical questions about asking people to fill in tax forms correctly, or to give evidence in court. If they make a response which their brain defines as non-factual, then they die on the spot, and everyone assumes they were lying.

What do you mean?

Well, one could say that the witness or defendant chose to die, having made a contrdictory statement, or one could also say that he/she was put in this position by the prosecutor, who had induced death. One could even talk about manslaughter.

You're not serious, professor. You're playing devil's advocate again.

Think of it this way. What if a person made a statement which was logically untenable, given the evidence available to that person, but which he/she believed to be true? The brain, being aware of the evidence, would react to an illogical statement (and to the neurons sending message to make the statement).

Yes, but the person really believed, somewhere in the brain, that the statement was correct.

This is the problem. Where is the intersection of perception and brain mechanics? think of someone who performs an antisocial act, like stealing a skymobile.

Don't be stupid. You know they can't be stolen. they're matched to fingerprints, eyescans, voice profiles. The lot.

So someone clones you and uses your identity to steal the skymobile and vaporize the Lakers Stadium.

You're pushing things now, professor. Who would want to eradicate the government?

I think you know the answer to that one. So this clone heads off in your skymobile. We won't get into problems about who this person is, and who you are, for now, but when stopped by security, it gives your name, and all theprofiles match up to you. It might even think it was you. Anyway, this clone really imagines that the world would be bette off if the stadium were destroyed, and the whole team with it. therefore it makes various false statement on the way to the stadium, but believes that they are all justified.

So belief is everything in this. Belief that the truth is bigger than local falsehoods. Belief that the end justifies the means. But you can't investigate this, as we've already pointed out.

All we can do at present is to question witnesses when people short out. If we can rebuild the whole conversation, then we can judge the intentions of the speaker when the 'false' statement was uttered.

So what you're saying is that the situation isn't as black and white as at first envisaged.

In fact it's proving very grey indeed. politicians are learning to convince them selves that they belive what they say. We're getting into self-deception as a survival strategy.

But doesn't the brain recognise self-deception ? .................................................

But doesn't the brain recognise self-deception ? .................................................

But doesn't the brain recognise self-deception ? .................................................

But doesn't the brain recognise self-deception ? .................................................