4 ms·

> by making little changes to their environment. [...] If you interrupt them, they can't start from where they ended. They start the sequence from the start.

> by making little changes to their environment. [...] If you interrupt them, they can't start from where they ended. They start the sequence from the start. Who says we do any different? Also there's a huge difference between proving something scientifically, and 'knowing' something. It is a hugely useful distinction, but science operates in it's own domain. To insist that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge is a form of solipsism. Scientifically, even if we met face to face, you couldn't 'prove' that I am intelligent, or conscious. It's just a bias that we consider ourselves to be these things and not other animals.

nabla9 5y ago
> Who says we do any different Experiments. You are taking this too philosophically. >To insist that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge is a form of solipsism. I don't insist. It's just that there has not been demonstrated any other form of knowledge that could be accepted as evidence that things are different. > you couldn't 'prove' that I am intelligent, or conscious. Proving is *never* natural science. Science never proves outside "formal sciences" like mathematics. Science can only show that hypothesis is wrong conditionally. In science you can only say you have evidence supporting hypothesis and evidence falsifying it.