If scientists could create artificial but convincing memories for consumers for free, they should
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRJ_DuXP6IM&ab_channel=Krinku1
If any word is unclear, ask in comments first before accepting.
- Nevertheless, CON accepts PRO's Lexico definitions for SCIENTIST and ARTIFICIAL
- CON objects to the other two definitions offered.
- PRO failed to note that the prepositional phrase "FOR FREE" has a single meaning as defined by Lexico.
- FOR FREE means "without cost or payment."
- PRO has added a secondary definition that contradicts his dictionary's usage.
- PRO first offers an adjective form of FREE- not under the control of another and uses a non-dictionary clarification "meaning the consumer decides." That is, PRO wants voters to read the word FREE as an adjective modifying the adverbial prepositional phrase "for consumers."
- But PRO also offers an adverb, non-dictionary form of free, "having no cost," modifying the verb CREATE
- Many words have more than one meaning but when writing for clarity (and particularly when defining terms in a debate) the usage of any term should be as unambiguous as possible
- PRO asks us to read FREE as both an adjective modifying consumers and an adverb modifying CREATE. PRO's deliberately ambiguous definition and usage in the thesis suggests argument in bad faith
- Therefore, CON objects to PRO's secondary usage and asks voters to disregard this usage. PRO's source and CON agree that FOR FREE has one meaning and that meaning is "without cost or payment."
- PRO offers an expansive non-dictionary definition for SHOULD.
- Since PRO has demonstrated satisfaction with Lexico as a dictionary source, CON asks voters to dismiss PRO's overly expansive definition and rely on Lexico instead.
- SHOULD is "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions"
- "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."
- PRO is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims and so bears the entire BoP in this debate.
- CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that given the requisite technology, scientists should manufacture human memories without charge. If CON can show that scientist have no duty or obligation to make free fake memories, PRO's thesis must fail.
- PRO argues that false memory implants as depicted in the 2011 Sci-Fi video game To the Moon are "extraordinarily difficult" to argue against because the brain-washing scientists are well-meaning volunteers.
- A fictional story in any medium offers little credible evidence towards the value of future tech.
- Popular fiction depicts faster-than-light spaceship travel as simple and safe but that is not an argument for the simplicity, safety, or advisability of some future FTL drive.
- Sci-Fi is not fact.
- The scientists in To the Moon overwrite the early death of one man's brother as well as his early love life. They remove the truth and rewrite the whole of this man's life so that man feels less discomfort in his final days. To me such a complete rewrite of personal history is a corrupt denial of truth, whether or not the rewrite is voluntary.
- PRO argues that a comfortable falsification of one's personal history is a desirable response to life's hardships.
- CON argues that pain is part of how we learn to survive. Numbing an athlete's pain receptors prevents that athlete from sensing potential injuries and adapting, increasing the likelihood of future injury. Likewise, re-writing our painful memories prevents us from learning from errors and adapting.
- PRO argues that reconstructing real but lost memories might be therapeutic
- OBJECTION: The ethics of creating credible fake memories is our subject here. Restoring authentic lost memories is clearly outside of the boundaries of this debate topic
- CON asks voters to disregard this argument as irrelevant
- PRO argues that downloading skill sets can effectively replace real education with major time saving advantages.
- CON requires evidence supporting this argument.
- PRO argues that because humans create false memories naturally, artificial memory-making can't be immoral
- As if the content of these memories is besides the point.
- Wouldn't it be immoral to rewrite a US President's memory of 9/11 to make China the culprit, even if the POTUS was a willing requester and that is how she wants to remember the event?
- That's like arguing that because humans unintentionally kill one another, intentional killing can't be murder.
- Many natural human functions are immoral in some contexts
Very well, I accept the new definitions. I was running out of space to be honest, hah, but Oromagi has still not negated the fact that the product standard is that consumer does have the choice. Unless Oromagi shows that people cannot have the right to change their own memories, then he fails on a moral basis.
- FOR FREE means "without cost or payment."
- SHOULD is "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions"
- Unless Oromagi shows that people cannot have the right to change their own memories, then he fails on a moral basis.
- This statement is wrong. The subject of PRO's thesis is SCIENTISTS not CONSUMERS. The right of any CONSUMER to commit willful self-deception is entirely irrelevant to our debate. Whether SCIENTISTS have a responsibility to preserve the objective truth is our topic.
- PRO dropped
- "A fictional story in any medium offers little credible evidence towards the value of future tech. "
- PRO dropped
- "Re-writing our painful memories prevents us from learning from errors and adapting."
- PRO dropped
- "Restoring authentic lost memories is clearly outside of the boundaries of this debate topic."
- CON asks voters to disregard this argument as irrelevant
- CON required evidence "that downloading skill sets can effectively replace real education with major time saving advantages."
- "this is tricky to truly prove, but consider that RAM in hard drives transfer over very quickly. In May 2015, the Wikipedia is 51 GB in uncompressed format. Using a calculator, even a poor rate of 15 MBPS results in 8 hours. Eight. Hours. To learn entirety of Wikipedia."
- Tricky indeed. If this is PRO's best evidence than the argument obviously fails because reading an encyclopedia is no substitute for learning.
- PRO seems to be saying that people can learn skills through language, as if simply placing rote information in the brain is what it takes to learn something but we know that is only the most superficial aspect of learning.
- Human memory is not stored in text format and only a small part of memory is language. It is an incredibly sophisticated amalgam of experience, sensation, emotion, impression, prior skill sets and habits, bias, observation, persuasion, and prioritization at least.
- PRO seems to claim that he can teach humans to ride a bike by transferring the Wikipedia article on CYCLING but consider all the unique information sets required to perform even this simple skill.
- balance
- proper breathing
- proper form
- pedaling
- braking
- orienteering
- negotiating traffic
- reading signs and signals
- etc, etc, etc,
- NONE of these essential, non-language skills are covered by Wikipedia.
- Consider the terabytes of data required to accurately explain proper balance or breathing to a naive brain.
- How does PRO propose to make this data navigable or retrievable by the human brain? You can tell a human brain that a red traffic light means stop but that brain won't have that information readily available except by frequent repetition and association.
- PRO says he can make instant rocket scientists with a simple download but CON argues that PRO has not even considered the complexities of human learning, much less human memory.
- Nor can PRO show that even if one could transmit all the requisite information that a different brain would be able to process that memory effectively. Different brains learn differently. Different brains might have wholly different hierarchies of association and prioritization that might be incompatible with other people's memory.
- PRO's claim stands totally unproven and (as CON concedes) unprovable.
- PRO doubles down on corruption of truth
- people already falsely remember events
- An intentional self delusion is a far greater harm than a natural self delusion, which can at least be corrected by education.
- this would be like punishing people for believing in Flat Earth or the 9/11 Hoax.\
- The question is not whether to punish people for believing falsehood but whether it is ethical to knowingly provide false belief.
- The first ethical obligation of any scientist is to promote the truth. Science is always only fact-based.
- No ethical scientist in any field would promote Flat Earth or 9/11 conpiracies.
- it is fine for the POTUS to believe that China is at fault for whatever.
- False.
- US Presidents are constitutionally required to execute their office faithfully
- FAITHFULLY means "consistent with reality"
- No president may constitutionally believe or promote a lie knowingly, particularly a president in command of world ending technology
- Furthermore, Federal law requires that
- whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the [US Govt] knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up... a material fact shall get 5 years in prison, 8 years if it involves international terrorism
- No person could morally invite a self-deception but scientists and governments are especially constrained in the name of preserving an objective reality, which is itself a manifest good
- No scientist could ethically participate in PRO's horrible plan
- The subject of PRO's thesis is SCIENTISTS not CONSUMERS. Whether SCIENTISTS have a responsibility to preserve objective reality is our topic.
- With regards to the topic, the consumer is highly important in this procedure. With sick patients, scientists try to research for cure to diseases for them. This is similar in a way. That's why I'm arguing that consumers' wants should be able to influence scientists. Otherwise, there is little reasoning for space research and colonization.
- Our thesis is formulated as "If SCIENTISTS could do X, SCIENTISTS should do X".
- Obviously, any good scientist is going to engage in ethical considerations at the "could do."
- A doctor who put his customer's wants ahead of ethics is likely to do more harm than good.
- For example, consider a doctor getting rich off overprescribing painkillers.
- Space exploration that prioritizes consumer demand over ethics conjures up the failures of 17th century colonization.
- PRO would have us building gold mines and lo-grav bouncy castles on exoplanetary moons before we learned that we were xenociding sentient microbes living off volcanic fissures.
- So any good scientist will say, I can't create ARTIFICIAL but CONVINCING memories to overwrite existing real memories because that act would be a distortion of reality and rewriting of the truth.
- The truth is never similar to some disease in need of curing with falsehoods, as PRO suggests.
- PRO dropped all "to the Moon" arguments in R2 & R3.
- Irrelevant argument. PRO did not contest in R2 or R3.
- CON required evidence "that downloading skill sets can effectively replace real education with major time saving advantages."
- In R2, PRO argued that 51 Gb of text could be downloaded in less than 8 hrs.
- CON showed that text downloads hardly represent the technology or scale of data needed to replicate even simple memories much less describes what technology is required to overwrite human memory.
- videos solve the solution of visual information and hearing.
- Again, PRO fails to explain how video will overwrite human memory. If subjects know they live in a world with alterable memory and suddenly they remember something that look like video without smells, or tastes or touches or emotional associations then subjects will quickly suspect their memory has been replaced, which doesn't meet PRO's requisite that memories must be convincing. Video will not convince.
- Our machines can record electrical stimulation from the brain, this is common sense. If we can play this back to people, bingo
- Again, PRO fails to explain how these stimuli will overwrite existing memory. For evidence, PRO offers an article about scientists working on a replicate the sensation of human touch which offers no answer to our questions.
- PRO dropped the argument about data size increases even though video requires far more data to communicate a single idea.
- Anybody who's tried to share a simple video compared to a simple text knows that audio/video requires exponentially more bandwidth than just text. Adding additional senses like touch or taste or smell will likely require further increases in bandwidth. Who knows how much bandwidth will be required to transmit an emotion, much less a truly convincing memory.
- CON argued that as part of their job, scientists have a responsibility to know and discover and disseminate the objective facts of reality
- PRO 2nd, 4th, and 5th arguments in R3 continue the reject the truth as valuable
- Oro says the memories must absolutely be authentic, but still gives no support for it
- is there really such a thing as "truth"?
- Every person, and even president has lied at some point
- PRO makes a number of emotional, anecdotal appeals for falsifying our reality- that truth is subjective, that some degrees of pain take priority over reality, that scientists will overwrite beliefs with objective facts but PRO seems totally blind to the way truth works. That facts are stubborn and the truth will out. PRO breezily argues for erasing painful memories without ever gamin out scenarios. PRO would erase the trauma of battle without considering how to explain the battle scars. PRO would erase an unpleasant relationship without considering the impact on future paternity suits. PRO would even let leaders alter reality to suit their politics before making choices on behalf of their constituencies.
- George Santayana wisely advised that "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it," but PRO doesn't mind. PRO's plan would damn the future for a little individual, false, unsustainable comfort in the now. Scientists, however, have to think bigger than that.
- PRO dropped 3 of 4 arguments and lost the moral case.
- Thanks to voters
- Pls. VOTE CON
I'll keep this one short.
While I do think both sides put up a decent effort, each side has their problems in this debate. Pro starts off with three advantages, the last of which is basically just pre-rebuttal without any offensive substance. While that does hinder his case a bit, the bigger problem is that there is no specificity regarding how this artificial memories would work, and that allows Con to drag Pro down a rabbit hole. Pro, really all you had to do here was say that they make memories with all the various sensations associated, and that we should assume this is a science fiction version of our world with the tools to generate memories with all the associated facets (like all 5 senses). I got from the outset that that was where you should have been going, but since you didn't define it that way in your opening round and your responses were focused on single senses, you got lost on this one, and it made your second contention virtually disappear. So your only offense going into the final round was your first contention.
Con, I get how your strategy works, but I don't see you doing the requisite weighing analyses that could have made this an easy win for you. You include substantial discussion of how important it is to learn from our past pains, but it's pretty vague. It's unclear how I should weigh this against the possibility that people can manage past pains and move past them, and while you do mitigate that argument, it's hard to tell how well this weighs against that. Pro also had the opportunity to argue that this capability to craft artificial memories could further your cause, since not all memories have to paper over past events. He could even argue that introducing past trauma through memories can similarly help us to improve without the added risks of actually experiencing those traumas, a point that would have turned what I consider to be the main argument against his case.
Nonetheless, I do think the debate swings towards Con. Pro largely allows his argument to be directed by Con, and efforts to paper over past events with poor facsimiles are going to make it difficult for Pro to achieve any of his advantages. The ability to gain skills is effectively mitigated into oblivion by uncertainty, and the morality side is challenged pretty harshly with the reality that, unlike just forgetting a memory, someone is imposing this loss on you. I'm not clear that doctors/scientists have an absolute adherence to truth as part of their doctrine, but Pro doesn't provide adequate responses to show that this isn't the case, so Con is winning on this point as well. Much as it is unclear just how much Con is garnering from his side of the debate, Pro's benefits are obfuscated enough that I have more trouble nailing down what he actually gets. That nets Con the win.
To The Moon sounds like a beautiful game... Side note: I had to go and read a story summary, and it sounded tragic. The problem of regret stemmed from his parents modifying his memories, and then in the end he and his wife buried side by side, aren't the same people who were married...
The key problem for pro in this debate was immediately hamstringing himself with replaced memories instead of additive memories. A president who wants to escape into a fantasy world where China launched 9/11, sounds somewhat dangerous, yet were his own memories of 9/11 overwritten it would risk a need to retaliate (I know the debaters did not get quite this deep, but with the point about being doomed to repeat things, in the world of replaced memories how would individuals be certain if we did or did not retaliate already for that attack?). Adding to it, is intuitively it would not even be a problem like cognitive dissonance of denied reality, their new reality would be wholly valid to everyone who drinks to Kool-Aid (or however the memories are transmitted). This is way worse than them lying, since to them it would not be a lie, it would be the factual truth.
While one case should not be decisive, it implied many more like it.
Skills was an interesting area, but it was pretty non-decisive if we could successfully do more than memorization through whatever the tech is. It was further hurt again by To The Moon, as the idea of rapid advancement that we could explore strange new worlds... was called into question of fake memories that would let people have their ambition fulfilled without the risk or actual reword for humanity.
Thanks, Ragnar!
Removed by request (no points scored):
Whiteflame's RFD...
I'll keep this one short.
While I do think both sides put up a decent effort, each side has their problems in this debate. Pro starts off with three advantages, the last of which is basically just pre-rebuttal without any offensive substance. While that does hinder his case a bit, the bigger problem is that there is no specificity regarding how this artificial memories would work, and that allows Con to drag Pro down a rabbit hole. Pro, really all you had to do here was say that they make memories with all the various sensations associated, and that we should assume this is a science fiction version of our world with the tools to generate memories with all the associated facets (like all 5 senses). I got from the outset that that was where you should have been going, but since you didn't define it that way in your opening round and your responses were focused on single senses, you got lost on this one, and it made your second contention virtually disappear. So your only offense going into the final round was your first contention.
Con, I get how your strategy works, but I don't see you doing the requisite weighing analyses that could have made this an easy win for you. You include substantial discussion of how important it is to learn from our past pains, but it's pretty vague. It's unclear how I should weigh this against the possibility that people can manage past pains and move past them, and while you do mitigate that argument, it's hard to tell how well this weighs against that. Pro also had the opportunity to argue that this capability to craft artificial memories could further your cause, since not all memories have to paper over past events. He could even argue that introducing past trauma through memories can similarly help us to improve without the added risks of actually experiencing those traumas, a point that would have turned what I consider to be the main argument against his case.
Nonetheless, I do think the debate swings towards Con. Pro largely allows his argument to be directed by Con, and efforts to paper over past events with poor facsimiles are going to make it difficult for Pro to achieve any of his advantages. The ability to gain skills is effectively mitigated into oblivion by uncertainty, and the morality side is challenged pretty harshly with the reality that, unlike just forgetting a memory, someone is imposing this loss on you. I'm not clear that doctors/scientists have an absolute adherence to truth as part of their doctrine, but Pro doesn't provide adequate responses to show that this isn't the case, so Con is winning on this point as well. Much as it is unclear just how much Con is garnering from his side of the debate, Pro's benefits are obfuscated enough that I have more trouble nailing down what he actually gets. That nets Con the win.
Huh, just realized I forgot to add points to the RFD when I cast it. Will try to get it removed and replaced, same text, though.
I think the best place to start for any sci-fi debate is to clearly establish what the differences are from the outset. Grounding your world gives you and your opponent concrete details to work with, and much as you don't need to prove that these things are possible as Oromagi said, you do at least have to establish what they are and state that they are, essentially, givens in this world. That gives you the ability to craft solid advantages, and it could be built around a game plot, but as the game probably leaves out many of these details, you'll have to fill in some gaps.
As for stressing the power of fulfilling dreams, I don't know if I would have gone that direction, largely because it's hard to impact those out. However, I think there are lots of ways you could insert memories to make peoples' lives better. Things like exposure therapy could be dramatically shortened and, for conditions like PTSD, made a lot more effective if you're careful about how you manage it. You also have to be aware that the tool can be used in extremely negative ways, so it's mainly a matter of assessing what that means. You could argue that people should be able to choose their memories, taking the libertarian ideal that what we would consider to be bad choices are theirs to make regardless. You could even argue that, in the same way that a doctor has a duty to those who are dying to provide them with a less painful option for death (which appears to run contrary to the "never do harm" principle), doctors have a duty to see to the psychological wellbeing of their patients. We do that with drugs all the time, often doing more harm in the process. Why is modifying their truth any worse?
Do you think it would’ve helped to stress the power of the dreams fulfilled? I guess my side is really hard to craft solid advantages for because it’s just a game plot
Morty: I-I'm just trying to figure out why you would do this. Why anyone would do this.
Pickle Rick: The reason anyone would do this is, if they could, which they can't, would be because they could, which they can't.
hey man you wanna try voting?
1 week left to vote. bumpin
Read through it. Going to need to chew over this a bit, probably will read through it again to come to a decision, might not happen til the weekend.
R3 SOURCES
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm#:~:text=There%20are%20several%20reasons%20why,the%20truth%20and%20minimize%20error.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/02/overprescribed-americas-other-drug-problem/#:~:text=More%20than%20one%2Dquarter%20of,and%20nearly%20150%2C000%20premature%20deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Impact_of_colonialism_and_colonisation
https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/those-who-cannot-remember-past-are-condemned-repeat-it-george-santayana-life-reason-1905
R2 SOURCES:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631672/
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faithful
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Sure, I’ll give it a read and a vote.
since we debated a variation of this, I think you're most qualified to vote. Take a look when you have time please?
"to be fair, GTA doesn't paint murder in an incredible powerful idea that evokes back to feelings of love, of regret."
I guess you haven't played Grand Theft Auto, then
to be fair, GTA doesn't paint murder in an incredible powerful idea that evokes back to feelings of love, of regret.
"have you played To the Moon? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to disagree with the idea"
Have you played Grand Theft Auto? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to object to murder
R1 SOURCES:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/scientist
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/artificial
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/for_free
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Moon
have you played To the Moon? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to disagree with the idea. That beings said, there are two ways I can see you winning this:
1) You agree with To the Moon's precise philosophy, that no one other than near death individuals deserve this technology
2) You disagree with To the Moon's fantastically made story as Johnny could be one outlier out of all the people they serve