Instigator / Pro
12
1484
rating
93
debates
32.26%
won
Topic

If All human brains can share knowledge in one second, then they should do it

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
3

With 3 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
21
1718
rating
36
debates
87.5%
won
Description
~ 388 / 5,000

let there be some magic that allows all humans to share knowledge in a telepathic manner, occurring within one second. The other person can memorize this instantly and understand the concept as well as the sharer. Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. I support this magic.

Round 1
Pro
With all human knowledge able to be shared within one second, you would know how to solve all the problems in the world that can be solved. All the criminals would be known and likely caught. Any secrets kept by corrupt politicians would be open to the public. You would be wise beyond your age. Knowledge is power, and this power can be used to help others. Humans are a cooperative species and develop organizations and friendships together. This is obvious, and criminals are the minority. Therefore sharing all human knowledge would be more beneficial than detrimental.
Con
Thanks, Seldiora.

Resolved: If All human brains can share knowledge in one second, then they should do it

OBSERVATIONS:
  • In the resolution, “All human brains” is the subject. “They” means “all of them.” By omitting a qualifying word before the word “knowledge,” PRO implies that we are speaking of all knowledge. His constructive confirms this sentiment. Thus, the resolution roughly means “If all human brains can share all their knowledge in one second, all of them should do it.”
  • If even one person should not share all of their knowledge, then the resolution fails. 
CONSTRUCTIVE:

CONTENTION 1: CAPACITY

Consider that PRO cannot access their impacts because the human brain is limited in capacity. 

The average human brain can hold a 2.5 petabytes of storage. This is a massive number, but there is also a massive amount of people and memories. 

Assume that the average human only uses 10% of their brain storage (0.25 Petabytes).

0.25 x roughly 7 billion equals more than 1,750,000,000 Petabytes of memory to stuff inside a 2.5 Petabyte capacity brain. 

Even if you reduce the number to 0.01%, things still look hopeless for PRO. 

0.01% of 2.5 Petabytes is 0.00025 Petabytes. 0.00025 x 7 billion equals 1,750,000 Petabytes of storage.

SUMMARY: VOTERS will agree that PRO can not access their impacts, and instead of helping humanity PRO will overload the brains of billions thereby negating the resolution. 

CONTENTION 2: HARMFUL EXCEPTIONS

  1. WORLD SECURITY
Everyone sharing all of their knowledge with each other would destroy the national security of every nation worldwide. There are people in every government who have sworn secrecy due to foreign and domestic threats, and affirming would open the floodgate of valuable intel to the world, including these threats. CON can’t possibly cover all the bases of how this harms the world, but CON will go over a few main examples.

To start, consider that the Gold Codes (the nuclear codes) known by the US president and his associates would be instantly leaked. The nuclear codes of all other nuclear powers would also be shared. There is no doubt terrorists and foreign nations will take full advantage of this intel. Even if most nations could change their codes in time, the possibility of nuclear Armageddon would be exponentially increased.

Next, consider rival factions. North Korea could find holes in South Korean defenses and leverage it for geopolitical supremacy. China could do the same to the US. Russia would no doubt exploit its weaker neighbors. Israel would be potentially overtaken by the Islamic powers. It is true that both nations in a rivalry would have intel, but this at best means that there will be escalation on both ends (The US does not have the greatest track history for deescalation). 

Even worse, if all of cyber intel were leaked, it would open up opportunities for cyberattacks. Cyberattacks are most effective when the ins and outs of the program are known by the perpetrator. With all vulnerabilities known, the effects rival factions could create would be devastating.

For example, attackers could disable power grids, leading to subsequent deaths or opportunities for more dangerous attacks.

“The first documented case occurred in 2015 and affected several electricity providers in Ukraine. More than 230,000 people were left without power for several hours during the winter.”

Also, cyberweapons would become available to the public. For example, the Wannacry ransomware attack used the NSA’s EternalBlue to 

“Affect more than 200,000 computers across 150 countries, with total damages ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Security experts believed from preliminary evaluation of the worm that the attack originated from North Korea or agencies working for the country.”

  1. MENTAL HEALTH
Traumatic experiences would be shared with the world, duplicating the trauma and causing an increase of mental health issues and subsequent suicides.

  1. PERSONAL CONFLICT
Not everyone gets along with everyone. Sharing all knowledge invites strife in all relationships. 

  1. GENIUS COMPLEX
When you think you know everything, arrogance abounds. People will become nastier. 

  1. POINTLESSNESS
Knowing everything makes life pointless. The point of life is to grow and improve as an individual. If you already know everything there is to know, you have nothing left to live for. 

SUMMARY: Even if PRO could access impacts, they would not be good ones. VOTERS will agree that there are a few people whose knowledge should not be shared, thereby refuting the resolution.

REFUTATIONS:

“With all human knowledge able to be shared within one second, you would know how to solve all the problems in the world that can be solved.”

This rides on the assumption someone somewhere knows how to solve the problem. Plus, it rides on the assumption that this new superhuman society won’t just devolve into endless debate. 

Also consider that PRO cannot access this impact due to CONTENTION 1.

“All the criminals would be known and likely caught. Any secrets kept by corrupt politicians would be open to the public.”

Some secrets should be kept, and criminals would be empowered, not defeated.

Back to you, Seldiora. 
Round 2
Pro
Con's article points out a huge weakness in his argument: "The brain’s exact storage capacity for memories is difficult to calculate. First, we do not know how to measure the size of a memory. Second, certain memories involve more details and thus take up more space; other memories are forgotten and thus free up space. Additionally, some information is just not worth remembering in the first place."

So firstly, because this is magic, there is no guarantee that it won't be compact enough to fit your brain size. Next, even with 2.5 PB limitation of knowledge, that is still incredible and you can choose to remember the stuff that is most important and significant to yourself. This is not a problem.

Secondly, con assumes the worst in any situation, would your personality and motivation be completely changed by having all human knowledge? The people who would still somehow be petty enough to do crime would be also wide exposed (as knowledge of them being a criminal is shared), and so it would balance out in the end. He has not contended the fact that good people far outnumber the bad people on the planet. He thinks that we are sharing traumatic experiences, but we are only sharing *knowledge* that something occurred, not the feelings and the tragedy that occurred with it. We are not sharing feelings, we are sharing KNOWLEDGE. He assumes that knowledge is the only thing we strive for, but there are countless things that even all humans combined do not know, such as how the universe begun, the solution to the millennial math problems, so on and so forth. We are not sharing the knowledge of an omniscient god. We are only sharing knowledge of the human race. He also assumes that being a genius makes you arrogant, but everyone is on an equal footing, and hence no one would have this advantage. He states that the vulnerabilities would be known, but the ways to improve it would also be known. Again, terrorists and criminals would have a tough time continuing their motivation, con's argument about pointlessness defeats itself as bad guys would likely give up knowing the truth and knowing that the police and the good guys far out number them, and hence it would be pointless. 

I shall also bring up that educated people commit less crimes and thus will make the world a better place if everyone is "educated". VOX proves that with added knowledge people will less likely resort to extreme means since now they have capacity to improve society; another study tells us of the same thing, and even criminal justice admits to be the case-- " there is an overwhelming consensus among public officials, academics, teachers, and parents that postsecondary education is one of the most successful and cost-effective methods of preventing crime." Unless con can refute this, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Just because you know something doesn't mean you're going to do it. Remember that human motivation is a key factor, and having all the knowledge shared by everyone would lead to greater understanding among people and less likelihood that people would commit crimes and exposing people who are unwilling to change. As we would be able to have a mass influence in society to truly root out all the bad men, the transformation would result in a better world in the end. Remember that we already have many safeguards in place and that responsible people would still take charge as they feel the necessity to do so. There is arguably no such thing as "too much knowledge", as we still have ethics and values in place to truly keep ourselves to our motivations and safeguard dangers against people who are too absurd to change.
Con
Thanks, Seldiora. 

RECALL: If even one person should not share all of their knowledge, or if even one person should not receive all knowledge, then the resolution fails. 

“Con's article points out a huge weakness in his argument: "The brain’s exact storage capacity for memories is difficult to calculate. First, we do not know how to measure the size of a memory. Second, certain memories involve more details and thus take up more space; other memories are forgotten and thus free up space. Additionally, some information is just not worth remembering in the first place."

CON’s figure was an estimate. The key word in PRO’s refutation is “Exact.”

Yes, the “exact” figure is hard to calculate. But the best estimate is 2.5 petabytes based on neural research done by trained professionals. 

In order for PRO to access his impacts, the real amount of storage in the brain must be 700,000 times higher than the currently estimated amount.

In other words, researchers must have been off by at least 1,749,997.5 petabytes.

“because this is magic, there is no guarantee that it won't be compact enough to fit your brain size. Next, even with 2.5 PB limitation of knowledge, that is still incredible and you can choose to remember the stuff that is most important and significant to yourself. This is not a problem.”

PRO commits special pleading fallacy by making up rules about what the purported magic is capable of. 

“Secondly, con assumes the worst in any situation, would your personality and motivation be completely changed by having all human knowledge? The people who would still somehow be petty enough to do crime would be also wide exposed (as knowledge of them being a criminal is shared),”

Yes, CON believes that granting average people massive amounts of knowledge would breed arrogance and destruction in personal relationships. 

PRO talks about criminals, which is irrelevant given that CON’s 2nd Contention centers on terrorists and foreign relations. 

“He thinks that we are sharing traumatic experiences, but we are only sharing *knowledge* that something occurred, not the feelings and the tragedy that occurred with it.”

PRO’s definition of “knowledge” includes “facts, information, and skills.” Are past experiences not facts or information?

“He assumes that knowledge is the only thing we strive for, but there are countless things that even all humans combined do not know, such as how the universe begun, the solution to the millennial math problems, so on and so forth.”

PRO seems to miss the point. Growing and improving and accumulating wisdom are integral parts of living. Giving people all knowledge known to man at once bypasses the process entirely. 

“He also assumes that being a genius makes you arrogant, but everyone is on an equal footing, and hence no one would have this advantage”

Arrogance is a false sense of superiority by definition, so this objection makes no difference regarding who is arrogant or who isn’t.

“He states that the vulnerabilities would be known, but the ways to improve it would also be known.”

It only takes one especially skilled attacker to have big impacts (i.e. one terrorist with nuclear codes or one cyberattacker). Plus, improvements take time, and cybercriminals and foreign attackers are largely untraceable and can strike quickly and effectively. 

“I shall also bring up that educated people commit less crimes and thus will make the world a better place if everyone is "educated”

PRO goes on a spiel about educated people committing less crimes.

Even if this is the case, the potential effects of cyberattacks, nuclear Armageddon, and the inevitable breakdowns in diplomacy, and many other impacts outweigh. 
Also consider that PRO will not be able to access his impacts as stated in the 1st Contention of CON’s case.

“ Remember that human motivation is a key factor, and having all the knowledge shared by everyone would lead to greater understanding among people and less likelihood that people would commit crimes and exposing people who are unwilling to change. “

Humans often have irrational motivations. Consider the amount of mentally unstable or insane individuals that would be given nuclear codes. It is rather clear that some knowledge should not be shared with everyone. This fact in of itself refutes the PRO case.

Back to you, Seldiora.

Round 3
Pro
Firstly, in my opinion, because the title claims "share", it would seem logical for the storage space to now be expanded to 7 billion people's worth of storage space. Since each person can easily retrieve information like 7 billion computers in a cloud system (which exists in real life), this new system seems highly plausible within this scenario. Secondly, experiences are indeed, not facts, nor information. You may know that "this person got abused", but you won't have to experience the pain and the suffering that they went through. You know how much they suffered, but you don't have to go through it yourself. I hope that makes sense. Thirdly, con continuously asserts that terrorists will still somehow hold motivation enough to take down the government and cause a massive slippery slope, but this is pure speculation. Fourthly, just because you have all human knowledge does not mean you cannot explore more. Consider how experts and geniuses in their field think they might know everything there is to know, only to explore new ideals every single day. Finally, the bad parts. Once again, the good guys far outnumber the bad guys and it would most likely result in a good ending for humanity. Consider the idea that all diseases could be cured. World hunger could be ended. And reasoning for war would drop severely as now everyone knows how to create a good reasonable government system. The hackers themselves would unfortunately have to reveal their location and information, as well as the fact that they want to hack the system. They would easily be tracked down because all human knowledge was shared in that one second. That's why all humanity should share their knowledge.

Vote for pro.
Con
Thanks, Seldiora.

“Firstly, in my opinion, because the title claims "share", it would seem logical for the storage space to now be expanded to 7 billion people's worth of storage space. Since each person can easily retrieve information like 7 billion computers in a cloud system (which exists in real life), this new system seems highly plausible within this scenario.”

The word “share” in this instance is best understood to mean “give to all,” not “store in a giant hive mind database like the Borg from Star Trek.” This is true not just semantically, but also contextually because both PRO & CON have implicitly interpreted the resolution this way up until now.

Once again, this falls under the special pleading fallacy by making up new rules about what the purported magic is capable of. 

“Secondly, experiences are indeed, not facts, nor information. You may know that "this person got abused", but you won't have to experience the pain and the suffering that they went through.”

It is true that information is not experience. However, knowing every tiny detail of everything that happened (every beating, every word spoken, every method of torture, etc.) is functionally similar enough to where the impact in R1 can still be accessed. 

“Thirdly, con continuously asserts that terrorists will still somehow hold motivation enough to take down the government and cause a massive slippery slope, but this is pure speculation.”

The entire topic is speculation, however, CON has been very consistent that the risks of terrorism increases. Not that it is guaranteed. 

“Fourthly, just because you have all human knowledge does not mean you cannot explore more. Consider how experts and geniuses in their field think they might know everything there is to know, only to explore new ideals every single day.”

PRO simply restates their argument.

Again, PRO misses the point here. This isn’t about “research.” “Growing and improving and accumulating wisdom are integral parts of living. Giving people all knowledge known to man at once bypasses the process entirely.”

“Consider the idea that all diseases could be cured. World hunger could be ended. And reasoning for war would drop severely as now everyone knows how to create a good reasonable government system.”

These are impacts that are thrown in without any real reasoning. Why would all diseases be cured when no one knows how to cure certain diseases? Why would world hunger end? Everyone has conflicting opinions. Why would everyone agree on what was the best government system?
Finally, even if these impacts WOULD happen, consider that PRO cannot access them because of Contention 1. 

“The hackers themselves would unfortunately have to reveal their location and information, as well as the fact that they want to hack the system. “

RECALL: “It only takes one especially skilled attacker to have big impacts (i.e. one terrorist with nuclear codes or one cyberattacker). Plus, improvements take time, and cybercriminals and foreign attackers… can strike quickly and effectively.”

Even if that isn’t bought by the voter, consider that because of Contention 1 there would be no impacts to speak of here anyway. 

Vote CON.