4 ms·

> There are situations in which humans will behave predictably that's just high probability guess work at the best. what I mean by conscious is you won't be ab

> There are situations in which humans will behave predictably that's just high probability guess work at the best. what I mean by conscious is you won't be able to predict each and every move of a living thing throughout their lifetime. Nobody "designed" us unlike machines or algorithms. We do not have any function to perform (ironically the cause of all misery :P ) > For example, an airplane engine may unpredictably fail. same argument you can make for the unpredictable direction of wind or the probability of rain. But, still these things are bound by the laws of physics and chemistry hence theoretically 100% predictable.

Guest19023892 4y ago
How can we be certain we're also not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry? If the universe went back in time exactly one year, is there any reason you wouldn't make all of the same decisions?
- jerrygoyal 4y ago
  > If the universe went back in time exactly one year, is there any reason you wouldn't make all of the same decisions? That's rather a difficult test. Let me give you a simple one: can you predict yourself i.e. your own behaviour? you could at most make high probability guesses but you won't always know what you gonna do unless and until you are faced with that situation
- jerrygoyal 4y ago
  > How can we be certain we're also not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry? Try to look at it from this perspective: We are made of 2 things: 1. consciousness and 2. a physical body. Only way to operate in this physical world is via a physical body so our bodies are bound to the laws of physics and chemistry. When someone dies their physical body is still part of this physical world but not their consciousness. Consciousness is like a visitor to this physical world.. it doesn't belong here so laws are not applicable either.
bee_rider 4y ago
This is the basic problem of sentience though, right? Lots of people suspect it is something like wind or rain, but we haven't gotten the physics or biology down yet. When philosophers separate the world into 'high probability guess work' and 'logically provable laws,' pretty much all of experimental science gets put in the former bucket. I think the level of precision in describing behavior can't be it. If we assume human minds are by definition sentient, we can imagine all sorts of hypotheticals -- plug a brain into a virtual reality with very constrained choices, and you'll I guess be able to construct a situation in which it behaves very predictably. Do it from birth, and we've chipped away at your 'lifetime' objection. I think we'll have trouble getting the ethics board to approve this one.

Guest19023892 4y ago

How can we be certain we're also not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry? If the universe went back in time exactly one year, is there any reason you wouldn't make all of the same decisions?

jerrygoyal 4y ago
> If the universe went back in time exactly one year, is there any reason you wouldn't make all of the same decisions? That's rather a difficult test. Let me give you a simple one: can you predict yourself i.e. your own behaviour? you could at most make high probability guesses but you won't always know what you gonna do unless and until you are faced with that situation
jerrygoyal 4y ago
> How can we be certain we're also not bound by the laws of physics and chemistry? Try to look at it from this perspective: We are made of 2 things: 1. consciousness and 2. a physical body. Only way to operate in this physical world is via a physical body so our bodies are bound to the laws of physics and chemistry. When someone dies their physical body is still part of this physical world but not their consciousness. Consciousness is like a visitor to this physical world.. it doesn't belong here so laws are not applicable either.

bee_rider 4y ago

This is the basic problem of sentience though, right? Lots of people suspect it is something like wind or rain, but we haven't gotten the physics or biology down yet. When philosophers separate the world into 'high probability guess work' and 'logically provable laws,' pretty much all of experimental science gets put in the former bucket. I think the level of precision in describing behavior can't be it. If we assume human minds are by definition sentient, we can imagine all sorts of hypotheticals -- plug a brain into a virtual reality with very constrained choices, and you'll I guess be able to construct a situation in which it behaves very predictably. Do it from birth, and we've chipped away at your 'lifetime' objection. I think we'll have trouble getting the ethics board to approve this one.