They're not judging the arguments, simply giving their beliefs before and after. Intuition and feelings are kind of the point anyway
So now it's "feelings"?
Well, I don't see how objective truth is reliably produced by someone's feelings.
As far as I know, when feelings start, that's usually where thinking ceases.
That's the point of the argument map...to give them the logical tools
Argument map is for people who already know logical laws. For people who don't know logical laws, judging arguments is impossible and is entirely feelings based.
How about this, ask an average person to list you basic laws of logic. If they can't do that, then any thinking they do is essentially feelings based. And this is before you even ask them how logical reasoning works.
They simply can't reach objective truth if they are not even using logical tools to reach it.
Logical reasoning has rules, and how much average person even knows about them?
"On Finding Objective Truth"
If it's merely about getting closer to it, sure there are ways. But getting closer to the river while never getting to the river isn't really much to hope for.
So they will learn facts relevant to the specific issue being debated. Still good enough
Maybe it's "good enough". It's not going to guide them to any objective all-truth. There is a reason why some people are called "experts" in some fields. Because other people are not. And even experts miscalculate, so what hope is there for average person who is not expert on anything?
Really? Never? So people don't speak any languages, or build things? Or do anything they didn't already know how to do as a two year old?
For each new thing, some previous one is forgotten when brain is at full capacity. This is simply logically true.
So for each new thing you teach the masses, they merely forget something else. For example, people in Japan forgot how to reproduce. It happens.
What is also logically true is that even if person was reading 24 hours a day each day for the rest of his life, he wouldn't be able to read even 10% of knowledge out there in the world.
So it is logically impossible for average person to even reach 10% of truth.
For AI it may be possible. For human, nah.
It's why Tao teaches that the only realistic truth is core truth, and countless data is not a good way to truth.
People are more likely to shift toward the truth than away from it in the presence of new information.
No. the presence of mass amount of information merely drowns the truth. Its like overloading a hard drive with bunch of data. It just stops working. taoism is fully correct when saying that talking too much merely muddles the water. If truth exists as bunch of data which cannot ever all be had or even remembered, full truth can never be reached at all.
Otherwise how do you ever learn anything?
the masses dont really learn. If they did, you wouldnt need to make this topic in the first place. they would already have objective truth, and topic would be meaningless. they dont.
the whole problem of your idea is amazing ability of masses to forget. If you give masses bunch of information, they will remember almost none of it. Its why 12 years of education produces idiots. Because human brain, being limited in capacity, cannot learn anything without forgetting something else when capacity is full. Its simply not logically possible to add more data to full hard drive without deleting something. And if you add too much, the limited hard drive merely rejects what cant fit.
Second problem is that you start from assumption of honesty, in a world which is dishonest to the core. the people dont even want the truth. they want their interests, and those change a lot. If people cared about truth, liars wouldnt exist, and people would question more instead of mindlessly swallowing same propaganda type each time.
So reaching some objective ultimate truth is not possible for most people, not even for most experts. It is only few of the few who have the truth, and the rest are NPC (non-player characters) who just accept whatever "feels good" at a time.
Most people dont even think in terms of formal logic, so claiming they can reach logical truth while not knowing logical laws is like saying you can win at chess without knowing where pieces can be moved and where not.
So you are talking about something you never saw, and trying to convince me that what you never saw is real because "feelings told you" which apparently are exclusive to you between the two of us? Yeah.
Smoking altered my brain. I guess debate art helped too, even tho I never changed my mind on almost any issue. I just altered my communication.
Now that is popular religion too.
Nope, you've become a much more sensible and rounded individual lately
thats because I started smoking. I didnt know the truth until then.
Why is something true?
Because the government says so.
Why does government say so?
Because its true.
Imperium Deus means "Government is God".
this religion is followed by greatest number of people in the world, who believe government is the ultimate God judge on all moral issues and ultimate authority of truth.
this religion is followed by government cult followers, called Cultor administrationis, which means "Government's worshippers", also called imperium cultores.
this religion has prayer such as:
imperium est omnipotens (the Government is almighty)
imperium est omnis scientia (the Government is all knowing)
Imperium est omnibenevolens (the Government is omnibenevolent)
Gubernatio ubique adest (the Government is present everywhere)
vivere est servire rei publicae (To live is to serve the Government)
Imperium semper prosperatur (Government always prospers)
Its current most popular religion, where government decides what is true and what is right, who is good and who is bad. Government is judge, jury, prosecutor and executor of everything, all in one, the ultimate moral judge, the true God of all existing realm. But it only works thanks to devoted followers like Cultor administrationis. When government tells them to act, they act. When government tells them to think, they thinks in way government approves. And government is then happy and giggles in true harmony with the universe as cult of government worshippers conquers the world!!!
Its current most popular religion, where government decides what is true and what is right, who is good and who is bad. Government is judge, jury, prosecutor and executor of everything, all in one, the ultimate moral judge, the true God of all existing realm. But it only works thanks to devoted followers like him. When government tells him to jump, he jumps. When government tells him to think, he thinks in way government approves. And government is then happy and giggles in harmony with the universe.
Governments are not magically composed of selfless entities operating outside human nature. They are collections of individuals pursuing incentives, power, influence, and institutional preservation just like everyone else. Leave it to a political hack to ascribe saint-like qualities to an institution with the most mindless fervor of faith seen in any religion.
Hey, if he thinks government is composed of selfless omnibenevolent individuals, let him. the government strongly encourages his type of thinking.
Also, here you are starting from the premise that people actually care about whole truth. Now that premise is difficult to prove.
Finding objective truth simply means starting from logical law as a premise, and as long as someone accepts that logic even exists and isnt too stupid, they must accept premise 1 because premise 1 is merely a basic logical law.
Good example of premise 1 is:
P1. A is true or Not A is true
there is no way to disagree with this premise, without denying that logic even exists.
So as long as someone accepts that logical laws exist, any first premise made in form of logical law itself must be accepted as true.
Another example of objective truth is definitional conditional premise:
P1. If definition of A is B, then A is B
this premise remains true by law of identity.
third, weaker form of objective truth is observational premise.
P1. We see that A happens with B
But this one can be denied by questioning validity of observations
But objective truth isnt gained by debating, or polls, or "experts". these entirely depend on who decides what truth is. A perfectly reasonable argument can be rejected, while unreasonable one may be accepted, depending on who the "judge of truth is".
the main problem in determining truth is that such right cannot be exclusive to anyone. In same way reciprocity works with morality, it likewise works with truth determining. If you say "We decide what truth is", I can simply say "No, I do.".
And you are wrong again.
In future, everyone will be a pedo defender.
When they start calling everyone "pedos", it loses meaning.
That's just more of "oh lets pretend we know".
If someone is anti-social and behaves like a twat
I dont behave like a twat. I am a nice person. Not because I think being nice is always good by default, but because it benefits my self-interest and improves my position in society through reciprocity principle which holds valid in majority or at least a great amount of human relationships, much greater than being not nice.
Only a therapist or a psychiatrist can diagnose you with anti-social personality disorder and give you insight what's going on in your head.
thats only true if I tell therapist all my thoughts, which is a bad idea for me.
Nah
If your product causes harm, you have liability meaning you can be sued, doesn't mean you'll lose the case.
Everyone can be sued for anything. that is not definition of liability.
Liability is usually defined as legal obligation to pay or provide.
But justification for AI company being liable or having liability to provide anything due to harm AI causes doesnt exist.
Because justification for AI advancement outweighs justification for punishing AI companies for this.
So your "absolute claim", which then degraded to "not true in many cases", likewise ceases in case of AI, because advancing AI is more important than placing endless restrictions to sterilize its growth.
So I am afraid the agreement which you think exists between us exists only in your head.
No one knows what happens after death. tho a lot of people pretend they know with pure certainty something which they have no way of observing or logically deducing.
Realistically, the only way world ever improves is if I somehow become supreme unconditional leader. Until then, it remains poop.
I dont care for politics. People who care for politics are in for a disappointment. Elections are controlled and binary. Its sort of like someone offering you two different types of poop. And sure, one can say "this poop is better than the other poop". Still a poop.
