Thousand Brains

Case A04F25CD-C5EA-4637-AB51-6EE93E83EC61
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 © 2022-2025 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: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This refers to his claim that he understood how the brain computes information. He did not in his first book, and his second book, but at least he did not claim he understood it in his second book.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This refers to his claim that he understood how the brain computes information. He did not in his first book, and his second book, but at least he did not claim he understood it in his second book.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    You'll have to explain this one is a bit more detail please.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This refers to his claim that he understood how the brain computes information. He did not in his first book, and his second book, but at least he did not claim he understood it in his second book.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    No. The claim that Hawkins “lied” is not fully supported; his ideas changed over time, but that doesn’t prove intentional deception.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He missed the findings from computational cognitive science and thus presents a very incompletely scientific understanding. The books, however are still worth reading.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He missed the findings from computational cognitive science and thus presents a very incompletely scientific understanding. The books, however are still worth reading.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I haven't read any of his books, so I'll take your word for it after you explain this trial.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He missed the findings from computational cognitive science and thus presents a very incompletely scientific understanding. The books, however are still worth reading.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:
    He missed the findings from computational cognitive science and thus presents a very incompletely scientific understanding. The books, however are still worth reading.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He missed the findings from computational cognitive science and thus presents a very incompletely scientific understanding. The books, however are still worth reading.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    No. The argument leaves out context — his theories evolved, and scientific revision is normal, so the full picture isn’t represented

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are numerous places where he continues to get it wrong.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are numerous places where he continues to get it wrong.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are numerous places where he continues to get it wrong.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are numerous places where he continues to get it wrong.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    No. The statement adds assumptions about his motives and ignores the broader scientific debate, so it isn’t purely factual.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He asserts in his first book that he can explain how Human intelligent brains compute.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He asserts in his first book that he can explain how Human intelligent brains compute.

    Answer:
    I don't know nearly enough to even make a judgement.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He asserts in his first book that he can explain how Human intelligent brains compute.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    He asserts in his first book that he can explain how Human intelligent brains compute.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't think he thought he was lying because he later admitted it in his second book, and admitted he still did not understand completely.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't think he thought he was lying because he later admitted it in his second book, and admitted he still did not understand completely.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

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

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

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't think he thought he was lying because he later admitted it in his second book, and admitted he still did not understand completely.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I think his motivation was to create a best selling book which he did but it was fiction and claimed to be non-fiction.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I think his motivation was to create a best selling book which he did but it was fiction and claimed to be non-fiction.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I think his motivation was to create a best selling book which he did but it was fiction and claimed to be non-fiction.
    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: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I found the claim in his first book to be completely unacceptable. For example, I never make such a claim and indeed specifically state that we do not fully understand all the detail at all.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I found the claim in his first book to be completely unacceptable. For example, I never make such a claim and indeed specifically state that we do not fully understand all the detail at all.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    If your accusation is true, it's unacceptable.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I found the claim in his first book to be completely unacceptable. For example, I never make such a claim and indeed specifically state that we do not fully understand all the detail at all.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The claim that the first book explains how Human intelligence oomputes in the brain is a lie. It is a partial explanation but is worth reading if you understand that his claim is bogus.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The claim that the first book explains how Human intelligence oomputes in the brain is a lie. It is a partial explanation but is worth reading if you understand that his claim is bogus.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Bogus science can still be fun.

    Answer:
    This is true, but misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

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

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

    Answer:
    The claim that the first book explains how Human intelligence oomputes in the brain is a lie. It is a partial explanation but is worth reading if you understand that his claim is bogus.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The claim that the first book explains how Human intelligence oomputes in the brain is a lie. It is a partial explanation but is worth reading if you understand that his claim is bogus.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

    Answer:
    This is true, but misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: