People

[Fuji]

@Machinaforce

There is no situation where there is a nonzero chance of lying.

So?

You do things every day upon whose success you depend with nonzero chances of failure. Why do you demand certainty in regards to human interaction?

[Machinaforce]

@Fuji

So?

You do things every day upon whose success you depend with nonzero chances of failure. Why do you demand certainty in regards to human interaction?

Because humans need to be certain and known. Too many unknowns causes disaster.

[Mangetout]

@Machinaforce

Because humans need to be certain and known.

Need? Who needs this to be the case? You? Tough shit. You don’t get to ride the pony either.

Too many unknowns causes disaster.

That’s precisely what ‘too many’ means. Yes. That’s why it’s called ‘too many’.

[Mijin]

@Machinaforce

I have already stated why such things are irrational. Every human conversation is based on the belief that they are telling you the truth. You cannot know for certain if they aren’t lying, to say otherwise is illogical.

There is no situation where there is a nonzero chance of lying.

Lastly yes, it is hubris to take anything people say at face value.

So all bullets bitten.
All human interaction is irrational, we can’t know that a burns victim is in pain and “hubris” is an appropriate choice of word to describe choosing to trust people some of the time.

Obviously I can’t have a useful debate with someone prepared to say all human interaction is irrational just to defend a earlier assertion.
I think you should have just stuck with the sociopathic vitriol of the OP; at least we could have had some kind of discussion along the lines of “Ask the person who feels no empathy…”

This attempt at logic is just proving how little you understand the concept, and how unwilling you are to recognize flaws in your own arguments.

[Machinaforce]

@Mijin

So all bullets bitten.
All human interaction is irrational, we can’t know that a burns victim is in pain and “hubris” is an appropriate choice of word to describe choosing to trust people some of the time.

Obviously I can’t have a useful debate with someone prepared to say all human interaction is irrational just to defend a earlier assertion.
I think you should have just stuck with the sociopathic vitriol of the OP; at least we could have had some kind of discussion along the lines of “Ask the person who feels no empathy…”

This attempt at logic is just proving how little you understand the concept, and how unwilling you are to recognize flaws in your own arguments.

There isn’t a flaw. Ultimately every human interaction is based on the belief that the other person is telling the truth. You cannot verify they are all the time so you take it on faith, and faith is illogical.

[Fuji]

@Machinaforce

Because humans need to be certain and known.

Why?

Too many unknowns causes disaster.

And yet every day you manage to eat, drink, breathe, and sleep, all activities with nonzero chances of failure with sudden death as a possible outcome. Do you demand utter certainty of, for example, the purity of your air?

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Machinaforce

…to say otherwise is illogical.

@Machinaforce

…and faith is illogical.

@Machinaforce

Because humans need to be certain and known.

OK Spock, quit sniffing the neutron glue and get back to work.

[Velocity]

For someone who doesn’t care about people, the OP sure seems to care about our responses, or about getting our replies, to a thread.

[Find_Friends]

@Spice_Weasel

… Well, I love people. I don’t particularly relate to many of them, but I love them, in all their infinite idiosyncracies. I love that their life experiences are different – in some cases, radically different – than mine, but that we are all united in love, in grief, in anger, in loss, in joy. I especially love people who are wide open and honest about who they are and where they’ve been, right from the get-go. Learning from and about people and their experiences is one of my favorite things.

While I do love people, I am rather cynical about human nature. Confirmation bias, mob mentality, prejudice, hatred, irrationality, extremism, laziness, self-centeredness, poor risk assessment, and a number of other unsavory behaviors all come way too frickin’ easy to us. I can’t hate ‘‘people’’ though because I feel like I am in the same boat. I may not be a bigoted extremist myself but I think the potential lies in all of us. There but for the grace of Og go I.

One of the most unforgettable Peanuts cartoons has Lucy telling Linus that she couldn’t see him as as doctor because he doesn’t “love humanity”.

“I love humanity!” he protested. “It’s people I can’t stand!”

[Machinaforce]

@Velocity

For someone who doesn’t care about people, the OP sure seems to care about our responses, or about getting our replies, to a thread.

Not really, but people choose to reply to this.

[Machinaforce]

@Fuji

Why?

And yet every day you manage to eat, drink, breathe, and sleep, all activities with nonzero chances of failure with sudden death as a possible outcome. Do you demand utter certainty of, for example, the purity of your air?

Those are to be expected, but it is humans that are to be known fully.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@Machinaforce

There isn’t a flaw. Ultimately every human interaction is based on the belief that the other person is telling the truth. You cannot verify they are all the time so you take it on faith, and faith is illogical.

So you’re lying to us and actually feel empathy? Thanks for coming clean.

[Mangetout]

@Machinaforce

There isn’t a flaw. Ultimately every human interaction is based on the belief that the other person is telling the truth. You cannot verify they are all the time so you take it on faith, and faith is illogical.

Your argument is self-defeating. Your words are about flaws, logic, human interactions, truth, verification, faith and logic, but I have absolutely no way to be sure that you aren’t actually trying to talk about boiled eggs. There’s just no way to verify it.

[Machinaforce]

@Duke_of_Rat

So you’re lying to us and actually feel empathy? Thanks for coming clean.

No, that is incorrect

[Machinaforce]

@Mangetout

Your argument is self-defeating. Your words are about flaws, logic, human interactions, truth, verification, faith and logic, but I have absolutely no way to be sure that you aren’t actually trying to talk about boiled eggs. There’s just no way to verify it.

Actually it’s not self defeating, in fact you just proved my point

[Mangetout]

@Machinaforce

Actually it’s not self defeating, in fact you just proved my point

Sorry, it would be the height of hubris for me to agree with these words.

[Machinaforce]

@Mangetout

Sorry, it would be the height of hubris for me to agree with these words.

Whether you do or don’t you still reinforce my point.

[Fuji]

@Machinaforce

Those are to be expected, but it is humans that are to be known fully.

Why must they be “known fully”? The rest of us get by with a probabilistic understanding of human behavior, much as you get by with a probabilstic understanding of food, water, etc.

[Machinaforce]

@Fuji

Why must they be “known fully”? The rest of us get by with a probabilistic understanding of human behavior, much as you get by with a probabilstic understanding of food, water, etc.

Because humans can be controlled, getting by isn’t enough.

[Johnny_Ace]

Seriously, why do you people feed into this? This thread should be long dead.