Lie Limit

Case A1F53537-8D58-460B-94BF-FE00F37DDDD7
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 believe this an absolute. The expressive power of lies is exactly the same as the expressive power of how your brain can communicate in Natural Language to any other Human brain.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I believe this an absolute. The expressive power of lies is exactly the same as the expressive power of how your brain can communicate in Natural Language to any other Human brain.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I believe this an absolute. The expressive power of lies is exactly the same as the expressive power of how your brain can communicate in Natural Language to any other Human brain.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don’t think this is true. Thé composition of neuronal firings have to be based upon environmental facts. Additionally at Thé level of language a lie has to be understood to be a lie which means there are permutations of syntax and grammar which cannot express a lie which can be understood. So there are limitations to what the brain can code which is expected since brains are about survival. Also it is difficult to expect that the brain would compose lies to itself (as distinct to being fooled by perception or circumstances) as a matter of internal operating procedures rather than as a result of environmental influences.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    The brain can create an enormous number of thoughts, ideas, stories, and false beliefs. Because the number of possible combinations is extremely large, the claim that lies have no practical limit is reasonable.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Us as humans, we can use words and imagination. We can invent a million different lies because we can imagine things that does not exist.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Lying is almost infinite because you can make way more false statements than true ones on any given day.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a deduction from empirical observations that can be made from human natural language.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a deduction from empirical observations that can be made from human natural language.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Perhaps the accusation needs to be extended to AI "brains" as well.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don’t see how deductions from natural language produce uncountable instances of lies. Thé perceptual mechanism of the brain filters out lots of data and is incapable of perceiving much of the universe’s data but this does not have the same purpose as lying. It’s purpose is to maintain survival function.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    While the number of possible lies may be extremely large, brains still have limits in memory, time, and processing power.

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

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If we take our birthdays into consideration, we can only tell the truth once but we can tell a lie about it 364 different times.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    While there is a lot more to be learned about how your brain computes, this is a fundamental discovery from Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    While there is a lot more to be learned about how your brain computes, this is a fundamental discovery from Mendaciology.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    While there is a lot more to be learned about how your brain computes, this is a fundamental discovery from Mendaciology.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is easy to confuse the specific meaning of lying as a higher cognitive function with an intention to deceive with permutations of statements and trial and error computations with which the brain navigates its environment.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    The idea is largely true as a theory, but the phrase "no limit" is stronger than what can be directly proven.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    How long a lie can last is solely based on the fact that you have to avoid the truth being discovered if you wanna keep up the facade. But eventually it will be forgotten and become irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The deceit is that the statement is a pronouncement missing clear evidential information. The author of the article used as evidence and the plaintiff are one and the same which creates a circular argument.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    The phrase "no limit" may lead readers to think brains are literally infinite, when they are not.

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

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

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:
    The article appears to be presenting a theory about how brains and lies work rather than trying to deceive readers.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Truth intended.

    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: 100 %
    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 plaintiff is supporting their theory

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The article attempts to explain a theory about lies, thinking, and neural computation.

    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: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This deduction by the science is extremely important in understanding how any animal brain and human society necessarily operates.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This deduction by the science is extremely important in understanding how any animal brain and human society necessarily operates.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This deduction by the science is extremely important in understanding how any animal brain and human society necessarily operates.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This somewhat circular reasoning is unacceptable in a typical debate. This trial is asking the jurors to accept that what the plaintiff says in the trial document is what he says rather than whether what he says may be true and what those implications are. This trial is bout sincerity not truth.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Discussing theories about how the brain works is generally acceptable and useful for debate and learning.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is really a starting point for a trial about whether the brain is riddled with false predications. But we wait to see what the plaintiff may say during the trial since these verdicts are completed before the presentation of the case.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

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

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

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