>>16382620You misunderstand what I'm saying. It doesn't rely on quantum mechanics at all.
This is of course an ultimately fallacious example, but if everyone believes something happened in universe A where it did happen, and everyone believes something happened in universe B where it didn't happen, both universes would play out exactly the same way. In this way reality is downstream from belief.
In your example, if you believe there is road ahead of you, you will act the same way whether it's there or not. It proves the point.
Take an example more related to the AI discussion and hiveminds. If you have a group of Christians who believe God will smite them for sinning, they will live virtuous lives and manifest favorable circumstances. That could equally be perceived as their receiving God's blessing. In this way God is effectively real, and there is no difference between something being effectively real and literally real, as we've established. Thus belief in God literally makes God real as a sort of egregore.
>I imply no such thingSo you concede that we can't truly know anything, and yet we still enjoy the fruits of language utilization because it serves utility. You haven't answered the most damning question, which is that if AI's output is meaningless, when it is more intellectually capable than any human to an extent beyond our comprehension (and don't try to say it's not, because neural networks function the same way our brains do fundamentally), then how can the conclusions of any human be anything other than uber-meaningless? Why do you think your beliefs have any meaning at all when you "can't know reality," the same way AI can't?
>They aren't, but they aren't reliable as truth either.KEK. So which is it? Are you now realizing that you're discounting its conclusions as meaningless because they conflict with some aspect of your identity?
>Conclusions drawn from human debate are neither meaningless nor reliable as truth.So why even communicate, then?
