tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post108286711326740696..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Truth MachinesRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1093749284107699712004-08-28T23:14:00.000-04:002004-08-28T23:14:00.000-04:00[Copied from old comments thread]
3)It would be i...[Copied from old comments thread]<br /><br />3)It would be interesting... but could people get around it? I'm kinda into fantasy novels, and one series that I'm reading about at the moment is Robert Jordan's the wheel of time. In it there is a class known as Aes Sedai (they are the magicians of the society) and they vow an oath never to lie - using magic to make it so that the oath holds fast - they cannot break it. Now, the interesting thing is that even though everyone knows that Aes Sedai can't lie, they can still decieve, by leading people into believing that they are saying things they are technically not saying. In this fantasy world, Aes Sedai have a terrible reputation as manipulators!<br /><br />So the people with the power could get around it. I'm not so sure that those without power would have the same experience, though. Those with power can choose to say nothing, but what about the downtrodden masses? <br />Patrick Kerr | Email | 11th May 04 - 6:52 pm | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />The Wheel of Time is a great series isn't it!<br /><br />As for the 'misleading but true' problem, I've got two main lines of response:<br /><br />1) As we discussed at uni today, I think the machine would be more likely to catch a general deceit-signal than a specific "literal lie" one. But I'm not sure about that, it would be interesting research to reveal which (if either) response produces detectable neural patterns.<br /><br />2) Even if you can only catch literal lies, this poses no problems so long as you phrase your questions carefully (this is discussed briefly in Halperin's book). It's kind of hard to be misleading when only given a choice between answering "yes" or "no" <br />Richard Chappell | Email | Homepage | 12th May 04 - 8:36 pm | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />heh. you're right. I'm wracking my brains for a morally problematic instance where people really should be able to lie...<br />Patrick Kerr | Email | 13th May 04 - 8:04 pm | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />4 & 5) Obviously you could illegalise it. But practically? Not sure. Actually I'm not sure if it would be too much of a problem in most situations anyways. People would consider it the gravest insult to be tested with a lie machine. Especially when being asked questions that the questioner shouldn't be asking - ones that breach privacy. They would probably refuse to answer, I think. However, the problem would be when people are somehow being FORCED to answer... that would be a lot of power, possibly ok in the hands of a democratic government especially if it was actually used ON the politicians as well... but in the hands of criminals? Could be dangerous.<br /><br />Psychopath asks: "Did you sleep with my wife?"<br />Patrick Kerr | Email | 13th May 04 - 8:11 pm | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />Yeah, if that's a serious danger. But it would be overcome if the truth machines became widespread.<br /><br />Why? Well, imagine if certain assertions became ritualized (if everyone has to say it, then noone should be offended by it).<br /><br />e.g. "I am aware of no illegal acts which have gone unpunished".<br />and "I have no priveledged information about crimes yet to be committed".<br /><br />That should catch anyone committing (or even contemplating) crimes pretty quickly!<br /><br />Halperin's vision includes a mental health test which would identify all psychopaths (etc) before such events could take place anyway. (I did say he was optimistic!)<br />Richard | 13th May 04 - 9:58 pm | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />Also, I should mention that Halperin thought the technology would eventually progress to such a level that the lie-detectors would be incorporated into watches (or something like that)... and they'd just be working non-stop. <br /><br />If kids were raised in a society like that, I guess they'd never learn to be outraged about it.<br /><br />One result would be that people would become a LOT more careful what they ask others! You might not like the answer - or you might not like what the other person asks YOU in return!<br /><br />So i wonder if maybe it would be best to restrict their use to law courts & the ritualized oaths?<br />Richard | 13th May 04 - 10:05 pm | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />Yes. possibly restrict to law courts/parliament and those oaths.<br />Patrick Kerr | Email | 16th May 04 - 7:28 am | #<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br />Right, glad that's all sorted then... now all we gotta do is invent the damned thing! <br />Richard Chappell | Email | Homepage | 16th May 04 - 10:27 am |Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.com