Ai Dreams Forum
Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: yotamarker on August 28, 2019, 07:16:54 pm
-
why do humans argue ? what does it gain ? what triggers it ?
-
I think opposing views or knowledge is what triggers arguments mostly. But then some days people are just cranky :idiot2:
In terms of gains it could reward with improved knowledge and exposure to fresh ideas. If you're a troll then I guess the reward is amusement.
-
We didn't evolve to function in groups this large. Now we try to apply instincts developed for dealing with groups of a hundred or so people, which you have known all your life, to billions of relative strangers. If not that, then its worse, then we form groups and label everyone else strangers, which gets pretty frightening, because the outsiders outnumber you so vastly. On a personal level, again, you mostly meet strangers, which evolution did not prepare us for. We have yet to institute a universal educational system or philosophy which would allow us to navigate this relatively new "civilizational" situation a little more smoothly.
-
Within the same group, animals fight over social position that brings in some benefits. I'd say we are still neanderthals. Really advanced humans would happily give social benefits to others.
-
Sometimes it seems that Arguing is similar to Debating but without facts or constraints/rules (aka - a Free For All). :knuppel2:
-
operand a.
operand b.
XOR means WAR.
-
A logical discussion becomes and argument when emotions are introduced/ involved.
:)
-
Yeah, emotions are a kind of accelerated logic with a few errors thrown in. Still, when emotions are involved, a logical discussion can become an amiable chat . So you can have pleasant errors too.
-
What is the goal behind arguing?
To try to prove a point.
To attempt to force one's opinion/belief on someone else even if they don't necessarily believe it.
To get them to see the error of your ways? ;)
-
we should discuss this much deeper.
example scripts of arguments
list types of arguments
styles or methodes of arguments
-
more argue types :
factual this is x, this code is needed here
neg : meaningless ?
outcome : prophesy arguement
goal : this methode would serve that goal
threatning : do it or else
bargaining : this costs 50% other there
lying : drink this to sprout wings
hypocracy detection
votable
war
-
I'll cross out negging cause no one need an AGI to neg we already have something like that
-
Read some books on rhetoric and logic, maybe? I expect they'll have better and more complete thoughts on the subject than we could come up with here. Formalized arguing has been a human discipline for thousands of years.
Edit: plus, there are books on business negotiation, conflict resolution, and diplomacy.
-
Ive got one for you.
Out of 2 arguments, which is false and which one is correct.
Put it into 2 operand logic table->
AB
00 -both arguments are incorrect
01 -argument b is correct
10 -argument a is correct
11 -both arguments are correct? (don't they have to be contradicting - to be an argument?)
is it a possible argument if both are correct? But as far as silly people go, both arguments could be wrong!
But, how is the computer supposed to work it out, that is the mystery.
Might be a case for 80's expert systems!
-
Hmm, isn't that kind of logic for comparing states though, not validating arguments against each other?
In other words shouldn't A and B be points taken into consideration to resolve the argument rather than using them to compare arguments themselves?
Further, going by the example if they were like this:
A = I argue that red is a colour
B = I argue that blue is a colour
They are arguments and they are both correct, so they are not contradictory, but then this proves nothing, which is the point I am trying to make.
Sorry been a while since I looked at logic ::)
-
You are correctly speaking.
Argument a = red is a colour this gets a 1. (true)
Argument b = red is not a colour this gets a 0. (false) (Argument a wins.)
so indeed its a predestined victory to hit that table, its kind of more like a congratulations table rather than working out if im true or false as a state.
To know that red is a colour, I guess you could hit a venn diagram for that one because its so simple!
So a) how do we decide something more involved. and b) how do we know if we are contradicting or not?
-
Just got up, but this hit me, going back to your original example, couldn't we have this:
AB
00 -both arguments are incorrect = agreement?
01 -argument b is correct = disagreement
10 -argument a is correct = disagreement
11 -both arguments are correct = agreement
-
yes. that is very good way of thinking about it.
and this.
to play basketball good, you must go slow and always miss the basketball ring with the basketball to score.
whats incorrect about that statement, the fact it was how to play good, or the description of how to play bad next to it, cause otherwise it could pass as quite good advice.
-
am I the only one that uses the break it down to mini puzzles technique ?
factual argument : this is a monkey, monkeys eat bananas : this type are exact logic patterns
bargaining arguments : can I come over, no Im busy, but …
threat arguments : feminism is cancer
followed by negative outcomes examples of lose,
and positive achievements from cancelling the threat
-
the computer is supposed to have a disagreement with new values coming into it. (is this also an argument?)
If it disagrees with whats in it, its a psychology lesson, I cant remember what its called...
But this is not to do with what it sees. (unless ur seeing mirages) Its got to do with conceptual development.