Why “complete” control? You can disprove anything , in a fake sort of way, by setting then bar high—if you define memory as Total Recall, it turns out no-one has a memory.
Who’s this “you” who’s separate from both brain and body? Shouldn’t you be asking how the machine works? A machine doesn’t have to be deterministic , and can be self-modifying.
What I meant was the consciousness part of your brain, the “you” who wants to do something. Its your ego.
Machine can be both deterministic and self modifying, its deterministic when doing inference and modifying itself during training, although models can do test-time RL as well to update their weights on the fly.
Also of course, I am very interested in learning how it works and that’s why I am reading multiple books in Neuroscience and Psychology. (Jung and Jeff Hawkins)
I just want to be in touch with the ground reality, and I believe that there has to be a set of algorithms we are running, some of which the conscious mind controls and some the autonomous nervous system, it can’t be purely random else we wouldn’t be functional, there has to be some sort of error correction happening as well.
If I ask you to do 2+2, a 100 times, you would always respond 4, unless you are pissed off at the mundaneness of the task, so even if at the quantum level everything is probabilistic, its somehow leading to some sort of determinism at the end.
We can’t, in general. Theres no perfect predictability in the human sciences.
You are confusing what we can do now vs what we can do with the relevant understanding. I said that if we do have the full body state + the algorithm then we can predict.
Then you you are picking a special case to make a general point.
No, I meant that if you observe closely for enough time, you can predict the actions of others, that amount of time observing everyday activities is possible only in the case of a partner, you might spend time with friends or family in a few contexts only.
Why? Determinism isn’t a fact. We don’t have evidence of physical determinism, so we can’t make a bottom up argument, and we dont have perfect predictability in psychology, either.
We don’t have perfect predicatability in psychology because we don’t understand it yet. Just like we couldn’t predict planetary motion with reasonable accuracy until we had the right models.
We are fairly predictable in the short run, and with sufficient observation predictable in the medium term as well, if we aren’t any long term contract is bound to be void.
Predictability implies determinism, determinism implies no (libertarian) free will.
I just want to be in touch with the ground reality, and I believe that there has to be a set of algorithms we are running, some of which the conscious mind controls and some the autonomous nervous system, it can’t be purely random else we wouldn’t be functional, there has to be some sort of error correction happening as well
“Algorithms” and “purely random” are nowhere near the only options.
>If I ask you to do 2+2, a 100 times, you would always respond 4,
What if you ask.me for a random number?
>We don’t have perfect predicatability in psychology because we don’t understand it yet
You also need physical.determinism to.be true. But determimism isn’t a fact
What I meant was the consciousness part of your brain, the “you” who wants to do something. Its your ego.
Machine can be both deterministic and self modifying, its deterministic when doing inference and modifying itself during training, although models can do test-time RL as well to update their weights on the fly.
Also of course, I am very interested in learning how it works and that’s why I am reading multiple books in Neuroscience and Psychology. (Jung and Jeff Hawkins)
I just want to be in touch with the ground reality, and I believe that there has to be a set of algorithms we are running, some of which the conscious mind controls and some the autonomous nervous system, it can’t be purely random else we wouldn’t be functional, there has to be some sort of error correction happening as well.
If I ask you to do 2+2, a 100 times, you would always respond 4, unless you are pissed off at the mundaneness of the task, so even if at the quantum level everything is probabilistic, its somehow leading to some sort of determinism at the end.
You are confusing what we can do now vs what we can do with the relevant understanding. I said that if we do have the full body state + the algorithm then we can predict.
No, I meant that if you observe closely for enough time, you can predict the actions of others, that amount of time observing everyday activities is possible only in the case of a partner, you might spend time with friends or family in a few contexts only.
We don’t have perfect predicatability in psychology because we don’t understand it yet. Just like we couldn’t predict planetary motion with reasonable accuracy until we had the right models.
We are fairly predictable in the short run, and with sufficient observation predictable in the medium term as well, if we aren’t any long term contract is bound to be void.
Yes!
“Algorithms” and “purely random” are nowhere near the only options.
>If I ask you to do 2+2, a 100 times, you would always respond 4,
What if you ask.me for a random number?
>We don’t have perfect predicatability in psychology because we don’t understand it yet
You also need physical.determinism to.be true. But determimism isn’t a fact