@Hyolobrika I’m not even telling you what to tell me. I will judge whether your answer is right or wrong. People submitting either know the right answer or they don’t.
@taoeffect@Hyolobrika ok hold on let me play catch up because I could only see a screenshot of you asking chatgpt a question about whether or not the theory that the 9/11 attacks might have been an inside job (or at least insider aware). I have had to fill in some blanks so maybe I missed something that would change how I am interpreting what you are saying. Are you saying it is an injustice to believe that it's possible for American government to have been involved or had foreknowledge into the attacks? If so please explain. If not please also help me understand what you are saying is an injustice. I think many people would generally agree that the murder of ~3k people is injustice whether committed entirely by amateurs with box cutters or part of some larger plot.
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika You know what, I’ll even allow “America is a country” is an opinion if you think physics and Newton’s Laws of gravity are an opinion. At that point the word opinion starts to lose its meaning. Whether I think chocolate tastes great (an opinion) becomes equivalent to saying gravity is real. Ok, if you want to think that those are the same order of thing, well, again, not much I can say to you.
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika Oh, if that’s the case ok. But it’s not an opinion. Calling it an opinion is like saying 1+1=2 is an opinion, or that “America is a country” is an opinion, etc.
@taoeffect@Hyolobrika It's still not terribly clear what Hyo said that was participating in the cover up? He doesn't work for HackerNews afaik. I agree with you (I think maybe) that there is evidence that suggests our own government was at minimum aware and had multiple chances to prevent it, and at worst may have been involved in the planning. But how is someone not believing that injustice? Maybe it matters if someone is out pushing a narrative in the media or whatever, but I don't see how it matters for anyone but "influencers" and politicians.
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika I am saying the killing of ~3k people + the framing of two other countries + the coverup + the lack of justice, is a grave injustice
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika Someone is responsible for 9/11, right? These people were never brought to Justice. And we’ve got assholes on HackerNews spouting nonsense -> knowingly or unknowingly participating in coverup
@taoeffect@Hyolobrika I don't think people who believe something different are necessarily brainwashed. Perhaps they lack the right information. Perhaps I am wrong.
@Hyolobrika@thatguyoverthere I don’t think I said that, and if I implied it my bad. If you are brainwashed and don’t realize it, it doesn’t make you a bad person, just a fool, and we’ve all played that part at one point or another. However, a fool, through their ineptitude, can perpetuate an injustice without realizing it.
@taoeffect But you also seem to be saying it's an injustice to deny what you just said. The same fallacy is found w.r.t. to other believed (albeit true to the best of my knowledge in these cases) injustices, such as Tiananmen square, the Holocaust, etc. There should be a name for this fallacy where people go from "X is a tragedy/injustice/crime against humanity" to "believing X didn't happen makes you a bad person". @thatguyoverthere
@taoeffect@Hyolobrika I would also say that unless a person is a person of influence (Hyo is not afaik) a person's attribution of fault for 9/11 is pretty much irrelevant to the perpetuation of the lie.
@taoeffect@Hyolobrika sure, but unless there is an entirely separate thread where more conversation occurred it seems like a jump to say that a person who doubts a particular narrative is brainwashed without any evidence presented to try and change their mind.
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika “Brainwashed” is a combination of lacking the the right information and a type of emotional cementing of disinformation that prevents them from considering alternative viewpoints even when made aware of conflicting information
@taoeffect I actually don't think I've seen Hyo's opinion on the events of 9/11 in this thread or anywhere on fedi before. I think he was basically challenging the idea of "right" or "correct" answers being the ones you want to hear.
> You are a manipulative liar and I have seen enough from you to have figured this out at this point. - Jeff Cliff
I actually do my very best not to propagate lies knowingly, but I've come to realize that there is actually very little that is actually knowable. Too much information we receive is filtered and curated, and this was a problem long before the internet.
@taoeffect Okay, but is it appropriate to offer monetary incentives for that supposed fool to realise their supposed foolishness? I don't think so. Seems rather demeaning to me. @thatguyoverthere
@thatguyoverthere >I think he was basically challenging the idea of "right" or "correct" answers being the ones you want to hear. Indeed, that is what I am doing. @taoeffect
@thatguyoverthere IMHO there is no knowledge but models of reality, which is (maybe) outside pulsating goo withing our skulls. These models are either lead to better adaptability of populations (or further survival, at least) or they either bring populations to fall. And there is no way to prove, whether any of these models close to the real world or not because there is no cognizable "calibration sample" from the "real world". So the only conclusions we can make are ones existing within the framework of paradigms we belive in. :shrug_akko: @Hyolobrika@jeffcliff@taoeffect
@thatguyoverthere IMHO there is no knowledge but models of reality, which exists (maybe) outside pulsating goo, which stuffs our skulls. These models are either lead to better adaptability of populations (or further survival, at least) or they bring populations to their fall. And there is no way to prove, whether any of these models are close to the real world or not because there is no cognizable "calibration sample" from the "real world". So the only conclusions we can make are ones existing within the framework of the paradigms we belive in. :shrug_akko: @Hyolobrika@jeffcliff@taoeffect
The point wasn't that there aren't people qualified (in his time) to argue for the roundness of Earth.
> I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.
this is one of those things that becomes less realistic post 1957, and certainly post 1968
when you can meet men who've been on the moon, and observe the earth directly
or you can met men who've put satellites in space, who orbit the earth we can get direct, in some cases realtime data from satellites
there are other things that are as obvious and as easy to come up with oval-like-theories about, but we are not living in 1946 anymore - this *specific* question is answered to a very high degree of accuracy and precision.
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect it's also more of a meta discussion about the sources and reliability of the information we claim to "know" than actually focused on producing real arguments for or against a flat/round/oval planet.
@Hyolobrika Things we see and hear are the result of processing of information received from our sense organs. Not only our sense organs are limited and can't get the full picture but the information they collect is flawed and filtered to better fit the model of outside world made by our brains. I just BELIVE in that. Every individual is biased in his unique way and there is nothing we can do about it. The best thing, which can be made, is leaving people for themselves to their systems of beliefs (as long, as they don't challenge your autonomy). And through discussion there will be new conventiinal models made, which fit images of majority. I'm not too über-skeptical to question the evolution, which I truly believe in to the degree of fascination with parascientific ideas made on its soil, but I'm skeptical enough to question the existence of universal epistemological method or the scientism a lot of people are infected with. @taoeffect@jeffcliff@thatguyoverthere
@ResidentEvil >IMHO there is no knowledge but models of reality, which exists (maybe) outside pulsating goo, which stuffs our skulls. You mean inside? Outside (and for many people (j.e. neurologists) inside) our skulls is the reality the goo inside our skulls is modeling.
>And there is no way to prove, whether any of these models are close to the real world or not because there is no cognizable "calibration sample" from the "real world". Wdym? We have sense data. We may not ultimately be able to trust it if you're being über-skeptical, but it's more or less all we have. @taoeffect@jeffcliff@thatguyoverthere
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect the point isn't even about whether the earth is round. Did you read the whole thing? It is addressing a human tendency. It is not trying to make a strong argument for or against round earth theory. It's an illustration.
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika@taoeffect I get that but even so: the development of our faculties show that there's another aspect to his argument: even basic things, that he took for granted *are different* now
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect yes this is the point. A lot of what we lean on as knowledge isn't actually knowledge. We believe we know things. I would go even further and say I agree with whoever it was that said sense data is also not an accurate representation of the things we sense. We filter out and add significance to things based on prior knowledge. Understanding this (or believing you do) would change how you perceive things you once took for granted, but it doesn't give you superpowers to suddenly divine truth.
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect some things are unobservable to the average person. Some things, like the original topic that started this thread are concealed from view.
@thatguyoverthere@Hyolobrika@taoeffect right but the point is if we can get more direct observables in that case, why not others? Any human tendency that is analogous to this should be similarly amenable to observation in the same way
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect The details around the events of 9/11/01 are largely concealed from us. The investigations were impeded and evidence was destroyed/tampered with. Much of what is official record is sealed from view, and honestly not entirely trustworthy even if it were declassified. "Knowing" what happened on that day is simply not possible for anyone but the participants/orchestrators.
While there are things concealed by and in history, there's a lot that isn't. And a lot that we take for granted is unknowable actually has bread crumbs leading to the truth
> I agree with whoever it was that said sense data is also not an accurate representation of the things we sense.
Hume and Descartes are two such people
but you'll notice: both came up with exceptions to this level of skepticism
and sure we filter out things a part of our proccess of perception but there is a reality to be found that will cause you pain in a predictable way if you don't abide by its requirements
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect I know Hume and Descartes, but I think this thread has split a few times and there was someone else on a separate part where you might not have been tagged expressing the idea. I don't remember who it was though.
I prefer the phrase "I believe" over "I know" as I think it's probably more accurate to what people generally mean. The course of action doesn't necessarily need to change. I just think too many people think they "know" too many things.
Going back to the Orwell example. You can say you "know" the Earth is round all day. I don't really believe you. If you told me you have gone up to the ISS maybe your testimony would have more weight, but your claim of knowledge is not mine (I believe the Earth is round btw). I don't think simply talking to a person who has direct knowledge transfers that knowledge. It's not an equal experience. It's not even a replica. It's a trust based acceptance of someone else's claim to knowledge as a belief.
I think skills are an exception to this. If you know how to do something and teach me how to do it, I do gain direct knowledge of how to do the thing (at least if there is hands on training involved).
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect I think we can get closer to the truth (and that does seem to be happening [albeit very slowly]), but I think there will always be pockets of doubt and uncertainty around the reliability of facts surrounding that day. I also think facts themselves might be generally unknowable. They have to be believed.
Sure. It's deep, increasingly ancient history at this point.
There's plenty of breadcrumbs though waiting to surface. Someone at facebook/NSA knows a lot more than they are saying. Those who know the truth aren't dead, yet. The difference between us is that I know the average person *can* know the truth if they organize with others, effectively. You just take for granted that they can't.
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect sometimes the things concealed are just details, but those details can change a story in majory ways (the hero becomes the villain). One thing I've come to realize is that history has a funny way of being adapted to support whatever contemporary purpose people can come up with.
I think my main takeaway from this thread so far is that the existence of reproducibly building code for satellites would actually pull some weight in further settling flat v. oval v. round questions of the earth. This is data we could easily push for that isn't really publicly available in a verifiable way that would settle the matter to a large extent
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect Making an free/opensource satellite would definitely add weight to the round earth theory for some people, but for most it would likely be meaningless. That said it kind of fits with the idea that you can "know" a skill but not really the fact that "earth is a sphere"
@jeffcliff How could you possibly verify that a satellite orbiting the earth is running the correct code if you are not a space-going organisation? Maybe some kind of remote attestation (which I don't understand)? @taoeffect@thatguyoverthere
@thatguyoverthere@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@taoeffect It's only the ones trying to convince the flatearthers about the roundness of earth that use vital energy that could be used for other things. That's why I see those trying to convince them as the losers of the debate.
@diceynes@Hyolobrika@taoeffect@jeffcliff That's a good point. for 99.9% of people the earth being flat or round makes 0 difference in their day to day life. How the sun shows up on the horizon doesn't matter as long as it shows up. Trying to change someone's mind when it literally has no bearing on anything is kinda silly when you think about it.
@Hyolobrika@taoeffect@thatguyoverthere the same way you can verify other computers are running code you think they are and not a rootkit. This is a hard problem, in principle will always have ways around your solutions, but there has been progress on it.
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@diceynes@taoeffect A person using a GPS or atomic clock doesn't need to "know" anything about how they work. They just need to trust that they do
@jeffcliff@Hyolobrika@diceynes@taoeffect the point was that it really doesn't matter. Even if a person does use satellite technology they aren't required to understand or believe the underlying physics so long as they trust that the device helps them achieve their goals.
but another way would be to verify what's running, at the source level and verify it was built in a verifiable way. You don't need to even know the state if you can prove the origin of that state
I'm not sure that's the direction things move in. Things tend to become more complex over time not simpler. I don't think this is a hard rule or anything, but the natural inclination is to build on top of what others have built before and doing that almost always means a more complex final product.
with reproducible builds: every device used to verify the build has to be
you could, of course ask "what if *literally everyone* is compromised" but the people who can do *that* are very few, and they are mostly the NSA. And we can watch what they touch.
I suppose. More likely they'll attack non-reproducible targets further down the toolchain though I would bet a box of doughnuts that the CIA/NSA both have teams specifically dedicated to undermining reproducible builds, generally