/lit/ - Literature

I always find myself in arguments where the person is so stupid that I am too stupid to reply with what makes their argument so stupid. How do I get better at arguing with these people? It seems like it'd take a super genius to explain because they're so deep in their circular logic that I can't really say anything more.
For example
>People who fart don't have to take a shit every single time
>>"But this study says people who fart are more likely to take a shit"
>Okay but that doesn't mean they are GOING to
>>"I already debunked your claim because the study agrees with me"
>You can fart without taking a shit, the study says they're more likely, not that they always will
>>"They say people are MORE LIKELY to shit when they fart so I'm right. You're the one who has to disprove that someone who farts won't take a shit"
Terrible example but it's hard to give a direct and accurate one without derailing the thread. I could use a book that could help me tame these retards. And even if I can't, letting other people know that they are retards is good enough.

Help a brainlet out?

>/lit/

>>12340317
>20th century french theory
>"the good stuff"

Thom Pynchon

>>11582423
at last... I truly see

>>11529664
>every single person converges on a single interpretation
false

>reading the introduction to a work of fiction

>>11048936
>it needs describing why exactly
because we have awareness and judge AI using ourselves as the standard. all of our human language was developed with creatures just like us in mind. we call machines non-intelligent because they do not possess awareness [of self or other as entites]. they only recall what they are given, without understanding, and typically to generate a product for human consumption. in order for a machine intelligence to be what we think we want it to be, it has to be somewhat like us and not a box in a room. i mean possessing a body which generates inputs that feed back into itself. possessing sensors which generate inputs that feed back into itself. these systems need to exist before identity can exist. once you have identity, you will have machine "awareness" and can begin solving for intelligence. i used the human reptile brain as an example, but look at a sea squirt to start. or actual reptiles and amphibians.

i'm not a fancy man i'm just a neet who reads greeks and jung.

>>11048949
precisely

Time to experiment on frogs!

>>10350070
What is the phenomenological model where you have a frog, let's call him Pepe, and you want to find out where Pepe's soul lies?

So you take Pepe and you crush his brain a little and suddenly he can't remember recent events immediately before the procedure, or whole periods of his past experience. Then you squeeze him again and now he forgets how to write, and while he can still speak his vocabulary is limited and he has trouble focusing. Cut out a little more of his brain and he ceases to be responsive. Keep going and his body can no longer regulate itself and he ceases to be a living Pepe.

Next question: why do people think the soul is not in the body?