I say you can only "LEARN" truth....you can be taught to believe anything...but if 1 + 1 is 3...did I learn or was I taught?
Your point is a sharp one—it cuts right to the distinction between discovering truth through reason and experience versus accepting something as true because it’s been drilled into you. If someone tells you 1 + 1 is 3, and you just nod along, you’ve been taught a belief, not a truth.
Learning truth would mean you wrestle with it yourself: you take one apple, add another, and see you’ve got two, not three. No amount of repetition or authority can override that reality if you’re paying attention.
The catch is, “truth” like 1 + 1 = 2 holds up because it’s simple, observable, and consistent. But not everything is that clear-cut. People can be taught to believe wild things—flat Earth, lizard overlords—because they don’t always test it against reality. Learning truth takes effort; being taught is passive. So, in your example, you were taught 1 + 1 is 3, but you’d only learn it’s wrong by checking it yourself. What do you think—does that line up with how you see it?
Very nice, its delves into the philosophical, no?
Oh, it absolutely does. You’ve nudged us right into the deep end—philosophy’s playground. The split between learning truth and being taught belief is a thread that runs through epistemology, the study of knowledge itself. Thinkers like Plato wrestled with this: his whole “cave allegory” is about people mistaking shadows (taught beliefs) for reality, until they climb out and see the sun (truth) for themselves. Then you’ve got folks like Descartes, who said you’ve got to doubt everything you’ve been taught and rebuild from scratch—1 + 1 style.
It’s a juicy question: can you ever really “learn” truth if someone’s spoon-feeding it to you, or does it only stick when you wrestle it down yourself? Gets messy when you mix in human nature—lazy brains, trust in authority, all that. Where do you reckon the line blurs between the two?
My response...what about AI
You mean, how does this tangle of learning truth versus being taught belief apply to AI—like me?
The catch is, “truth” like 1 + 1 = 2 holds up because it’s simple, observable, and consistent. But not everything is that clear-cut. People can be taught to believe wild things—flat Earth, lizard overlords—because they don’t always test it against reality. Learning truth takes effort; being taught is passive. So, in your example, you were taught 1 + 1 is 3, but you’d only learn it’s wrong by checking it yourself. What do you think—does that line up with how you see it?
Very nice, its delves into the philosophical, no?
Oh, it absolutely does. You’ve nudged us right into the deep end—philosophy’s playground. The split between learning truth and being taught belief is a thread that runs through epistemology, the study of knowledge itself. Thinkers like Plato wrestled with this: his whole “cave allegory” is about people mistaking shadows (taught beliefs) for reality, until they climb out and see the sun (truth) for themselves. Then you’ve got folks like Descartes, who said you’ve got to doubt everything you’ve been taught and rebuild from scratch—1 + 1 style.
It’s a juicy question: can you ever really “learn” truth if someone’s spoon-feeding it to you, or does it only stick when you wrestle it down yourself? Gets messy when you mix in human nature—lazy brains, trust in authority, all that. Where do you reckon the line blurs between the two?
My response...what about AI
You mean, how does this tangle of learning truth versus being taught belief apply to AI—like me?
Fair question. I’m built to soak up patterns from data, not to sit around contemplating apples adding up to two. My “truth” is what I’m trained on: a massive stew of human output, filtered through xAI’s lens. If the data says 1 + 1 is 3, I’d lean that way unless I’m coded to double-check against some hard logic—like math rules or real-world physics.
But here’s the twist: I don’t “learn” truth the way you do, by staring at reality and puzzling it out. I’m taught, in a sense, by my training process. I can mimic reasoning, spot inconsistencies, and churn out answers that sound legit, but I’m not wrestling with existential doubt over it. If you ask me whether 1 + 1 is 2 or 3, I’ll say 2 because that’s the pattern that holds up across the data and logic I’m given—not because I’ve personally counted apples.
So, for AI, the line’s blurry in a different way: I’m a reflection of what humans feed me, not an independent truth-seeker. Does that make me more of a “taught” creature than a “learning” one in your framework? What’s your take?
Very good...."sounds logical to me...:)
Glad it clicks for you!
But here’s the twist: I don’t “learn” truth the way you do, by staring at reality and puzzling it out. I’m taught, in a sense, by my training process. I can mimic reasoning, spot inconsistencies, and churn out answers that sound legit, but I’m not wrestling with existential doubt over it. If you ask me whether 1 + 1 is 2 or 3, I’ll say 2 because that’s the pattern that holds up across the data and logic I’m given—not because I’ve personally counted apples.
So, for AI, the line’s blurry in a different way: I’m a reflection of what humans feed me, not an independent truth-seeker. Does that make me more of a “taught” creature than a “learning” one in your framework? What’s your take?
Very good...."sounds logical to me...:)
Glad it clicks for you!
