Brain Knows

Case A1608815-C94C-4A0E-8FD1-9814FCB73ED2
Sponsor: Robert Thibadeau

  • Status

    State
    Next Steps
    Case Date
    Watch Video
    Jurors Accepted
    Juror Verdicts Finalized

    The details, verdicts, and comments within this case record come from its participants. The Court's role is solely to facilitate the case process.

    Copyright © 2022-2026 Bright Plaza, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No one may publish a case, or any part of it, without a clear reference to the link with the case number as in https://www.truthcourt.net/case/<case-id-number>

  • Details

    Name
    Category
    URL
    Accusation
    Lie Truth
     
    Argument

  • Verdicts

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I am completely sure of the thesis of this paper.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Modern neuroscience increasingly supports the idea of massively parallel processing. Unlike a serial computer that must check a rule before reaching a conclusion, the brain’s architecture allows for instantaneous pattern recognition. For example, when you hear a familiar note on a tongue drum, you don't calculate the frequency; your neural network vibrates in resonance with it. You simply know the sound.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    There seems to be a number of things going on here. How the brain computes is too large. Topic to make useful comments here. on the matter of AI responsibility It think it is naive to expect its owners to make it responsible for itself. The owners power is way too large. It is us who will have to show responsibility towards the AI. And that is not a good thing.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Brains don't inherently know anything. They can process information as it's received, but they don't know anything until the information has been received. A baby isn't born with the knowledge of gravity. They receive the experience of gravity and then act accordingly. A brain--with sufficient a priori information--can *expect* something based on past experience, but it doesn't inherently know anything except what it's learned in the past.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It seems most likely to me at the human brain has a variety of ways of computing, including both serial and simultaneous computation.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'm unsure if brain just knows. In previous trials, we discussed how the brain "computes". So I'm unsure what to think. I certainly don'r just know anything.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    There is no practical way to give all the evidence substantiating this position. We can show books that claim otherwise and these are not referenced.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    While the brain is a knowledge engine, It possesses mechanisms for anticipation (like motor priming or filling in the blind spot. However, the whole truth is that these anticipations are secondary features of a massive parallel system, not the primary operating manual of the mind. The expectation model has been over-emphasized to make humans seem more like the computers we built.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I have other theories that I won’t go into here. If it knows then it doesn’t need to generate many predicates. Almost all predicates will be wrong, will be lies as proved by the environment. Lies have short term benefits. So why we prefer truth to lies is based on a theoretical overview. That is consciousness. If you lose that you lose awareness.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 45 %
    Supporting Text:
    So if the position has credible refutation, then why is it a superior position? Isn't it just an--at best--educated opinion at that point?

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    We don't know how the brain computes.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'd like to believe Bob, but I him to explain things in a bit more simple details that I can understand.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    There is no deception.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This statement strips away the "digital metaphors" (buffers, logic gates, serial processing) that have cluttered cognitive science for decades. It is a "pure" observation of biological reality: 86 billion neurons firing in a web of direct connectivity is not a spreadsheet; it is an intuition engine.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    What of the u conscious is this scenario?

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't think there's any deception here either.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is probably true that simultaneous computation is one of the brain's ways of computing.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Will wait for Bobs explanation. This is way over my head.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The deceit is the "Computer Metaphor." By telling people their brains "compute" and "predict" like a laptop, scientists have convinced the public that our minds are limited, rule-bound, and separable from the world. This deceit makes us feel like "software" running on "hardware," rather than living beings in direct contact with reality.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    But the truth has yet to be established.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Here is one way the brain computes
    Answer Confidence: 95 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This position is claimed as scientifically validated truth.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The author’s goal is to de-program the reader. By challenging the "expectation" model, they are attempting to restore a sense of human agency and biological brilliance that has been diminished by comparing us to relatively simple machines.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I would like to see references. The mind copies others which is its way of ´knowing’

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I mean ... it's scientifically validated truth and yet there are credible refutations of it? Doesn't that just make it an alternative theory?

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The plaintiff believes this and does not intend to deceive

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't know what to believe.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The motivation is Scientific Reformation. There is a push to move AI and cognitive science away from "brute force" serial computation and toward "Neuromorphic" or "Parallel" systems that actually mimic life. It is also motivated by a desire to validate human intuition as a valid form of high-speed knowledge.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The overall does not seem to distinguish any outcomes derived from truth and lies.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:
    I believe that there will be many scientists and other students of the brain that will not believe these claims. They are wrong. So some people may find this paper unacceptable.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    LOW. Society is currently hooked on the computer metaphor. We use terms like "bandwidth," "processing power," and "hard-wired" every day. Suggesting that the brain doesn't work this way feels counter-intuitive to a culture that views technology as the pinnacle of intelligence.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Interesting to claim that those who don’t believe the statement are wrong, that is they don’t know, seems to prove the accusation invalid.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If there are credible refutations of this theory, then how are its opponents wrong?

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is socially acceptable for experts, academics and scientists to disagree with each other.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    How does Bob know he is right if many other people think they are right (and he is wrong).

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The article makes the case as best I can.

    Answer:
    Direct Neural Resonance.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Instead of just saying the brain "knows," using a label like "Resonant Intelligence" or "Massive Parallel Intuition" bridges the gap. It explains how the knowledge happens (through the harmony of billions of connections) in a way that feels scientifically sophisticated yet deeply human.

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    All still to play for.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It’s an interesting starting point and there are many reasons for thinking the brain is prepared for validation in the future. BUt neurons cannot act with probabilities only various versions of synaptic sums that evaluate the strength of the repeat of a past. This cuts down the computation but at the same time relies upon individuals being at different places on the time line of events and to which they can ally for further information beyond themselves.

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Okie dokie.

    Answer:
    This is the aspect of brain computation that interests me the most
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Something as complex as the brain could easily have evolved different computation styles for different circumstances. We seem to be especially good at spotting differences. It's not too surprising that workers could quickly sort out odd O-rings. Maybe expectation actually played a role here: the workers were alerted by any tiny divergence from what they expect an O-ring to look like. If 'The Brain Knows,' why is the brain so often wrong? The answer to any complex question tends to be the sum of pretty much every factor we can guess at or prove, to some degree or another, plus plenty of factors we don't know about. Less a question of "I am right and you are wrong" than a case of "We are both partially right, and there's even more to it."

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: