what would it sound like, sure it’s possibly a stretch to consider it, and perhaps the proposition shouldn’t be taken too literally, but consider it literally if you like

so you’re walking through the jungle and you stumble across something, you need consider the possibility it’s a truth machine, what would you listen for

or you need build a truth machine, you go through various testings, evolving the machine, what sound are you looking for?

while developing your truth machine you need consider the possibility the end product may make no sound at all, that it will be completely silent

transition said:

what would it sound like, sure it’s possibly a stretch to consider it, and perhaps the proposition shouldn’t be taken too literally, but consider it literally if you like

so you’re walking through the jungle and you stumble across something, you need consider the possibility it’s a truth machine, what would you listen for

or you need build a truth machine, you go through various testings, evolving the machine, what sound are you looking for?

while developing your truth machine you need consider the possibility the end product may make no sound at all, that it will be completely silent

The truth is noiseless?

Reckon it would make a high pitched annoying whine.

Just a little aside; a pet annoyance of mine are the number of instances (like TV programs, Survivor. Would I lie to you, etc), where the object of the game is to lie and deceive the other players in order to win. I would think that society would be better served by encouraging people to be honest rather than training especially youngsters to be sly and dishonest.

If people were as sensible as all that, we wouldn’t be having a new temperature record every day.

roughbarked said:

If people were as sensible as all that, we wouldn’t be having a new temperature record every day.

I was thinking more around morality and doing the right thing as being a better way to go.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

If people were as sensible as all that, we wouldn’t be having a new temperature record every day.

I was thinking more around morality and doing the right thing as being a better way to go.

So was I. We really don’t face truth very well, us humans. Particularly when it comes to doing the right thing.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

what would it sound like, sure it’s possibly a stretch to consider it, and perhaps the proposition shouldn’t be taken too literally, but consider it literally if you like

so you’re walking through the jungle and you stumble across something, you need consider the possibility it’s a truth machine, what would you listen for

or you need build a truth machine, you go through various testings, evolving the machine, what sound are you looking for?

while developing your truth machine you need consider the possibility the end product may make no sound at all, that it will be completely silent

The truth is noiseless?

If it was, I suppose we’d have to ask what sight are you listening for?

Or perhaps what smell are you feeling for?

If this truth machine was not exhibiting any changes that we could sense at all, how could we know it was a truth machine?

If it did have some observable changes to things I said to it I would say:

The next thing I say is true.

What I just said was false.

Am I telling the truth?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

what would it sound like, sure it’s possibly a stretch to consider it, and perhaps the proposition shouldn’t be taken too literally, but consider it literally if you like

so you’re walking through the jungle and you stumble across something, you need consider the possibility it’s a truth machine, what would you listen for

or you need build a truth machine, you go through various testings, evolving the machine, what sound are you looking for?

while developing your truth machine you need consider the possibility the end product may make no sound at all, that it will be completely silent

The truth is noiseless?

If it was, I suppose we’d have to ask what sight are you listening for?

Or perhaps what smell are you feeling for?

If this truth machine was not exhibiting any changes that we could sense at all, how could we know it was a truth machine?

If it did have some observable changes to things I said to it I would say:

The next thing I say is true.

What I just said was false.

Am I telling the truth?

or are you making any noise at all?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The truth is noiseless?

If it was, I suppose we’d have to ask what sight are you listening for?

Or perhaps what smell are you feeling for?

If this truth machine was not exhibiting any changes that we could sense at all, how could we know it was a truth machine?

If it did have some observable changes to things I said to it I would say:

The next thing I say is true.

What I just said was false.

Am I telling the truth?

or are you making any noise at all?

When a philosopher speaks in the forest, and there is no-one to hear it, does he make any sound?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If it was, I suppose we’d have to ask what sight are you listening for?

Or perhaps what smell are you feeling for?

If this truth machine was not exhibiting any changes that we could sense at all, how could we know it was a truth machine?

If it did have some observable changes to things I said to it I would say:

The next thing I say is true.

What I just said was false.

Am I telling the truth?

or are you making any noise at all?

When a philosopher speaks in the forest, and there is no-one to hear it, does he make any sound?

For a start, the philsopher unless deaf, will hear own voice.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

or are you making any noise at all?

When a philosopher speaks in the forest, and there is no-one to hear it, does he make any sound?

For a start, the philsopher unless deaf, will hear own voice.

If there is no-one to hear it, he must be deaf.

Unless she was speaking in her head.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

When a philosopher speaks in the forest, and there is no-one to hear it, does he make any sound?

For a start, the philsopher unless deaf, will hear own voice.

If there is no-one to hear it, he must be deaf.

Unless she was speaking in her head.

:) Different choices for the genders. Interesting…

I’ll come back to this topic, because it’s a famous one in philosophy.

However, just to start you off, here’s a quote:

“Respect the truth. Which is a profound statement when you realise just how slippery the truth is”

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

what would it sound like, sure it’s possibly a stretch to consider it, and perhaps the proposition shouldn’t be taken too literally, but consider it literally if you like

so you’re walking through the jungle and you stumble across something, you need consider the possibility it’s a truth machine, what would you listen for

or you need build a truth machine, you go through various testings, evolving the machine, what sound are you looking for?

while developing your truth machine you need consider the possibility the end product may make no sound at all, that it will be completely silent

The truth is noiseless?

If it was, I suppose we’d have to ask what sight are you listening for?

Or perhaps what smell are you feeling for?

If this truth machine was not exhibiting any changes that we could sense at all, how could we know it was a truth machine?

If it did have some observable changes to things I said to it I would say:

The next thing I say is true.
What I just said was false.
Am I telling the truth?

Yes. That’s a good one. Negative self-reference.

My version of negative self-reference is as follows:

Me: Say “I am a truth machine”.
Machine: “I am a truth machine”.
Me: Now say the exact opposite of what you just said.

Another approach to verification is the credible threat.

Me: I am going to reprogram your memory with a very large axe within 30 seconds unless you say to me the words “I am a liar” within five seconds from now.

Neither method is infallible, but you get the idea, negative self reference or credible threat.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ll come back to this topic, because it’s a famous one in philosophy.

However, just to start you off, here’s a quote:

“Respect the truth. Which is a profound statement when you realise just how slippery the truth is”

Which is all the more reason to respect it when you arrive at it.

https://twitter.com/CyKoore/status/1679819363438809089

WTF

SCIENCE said:

https://twitter.com/CyKoore/status/1679819363438809089

WTF

It’s getting a lot of 5 stars on RT with comments that are a bit … generic. From people with names that are numbers or single letters.