Oh I totally agree. It boils down to what I like because I enjoy being reduced to a series of figures and symbols on a page so that someone else can tell me that the most traumatic events in my life were meant to happen because the person who perpetrated them was always going to do that to me or that the most important person in my childhood was going to go against type and stereotype and be a monster because that was predetermined.
I am truly sorry that this happened to you. But from the start, the subject has been what is
true, not what we'd prefer to be true.
It doesn't make sense to me that a thing can do that. It may predict what a trend may be but I don't see how it can do that for the individual. My brain chemistry can't be duplicated because it isn't static. My thoughts are constantly fluctuating and my history, psychology and experience constantly evolving.
We model dynamic, changing systems in physics all the time
. Your brain is an exceptionally complex one, beyond our current technological capabilities, but it's still just another dynamic system. What makes it so special?
Even you or I capable of rational thought will only select the words the other utters that resonate with us and ignore the rest. I try to make a conscious effort to avoid that eventuality but that is my method of discussion.
Apparently you've missed the number of times I've said "Okay, I was wrong, thanks for the rebuttal" around here.
As far as liking and not liking go I do not like being dehumanized. I am not a string of figures and symbols on a page and neither are my thoughts.
Sorry, but not liking it doesn't make it not true. Again, I'm arguing what is, not what we wish.
Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine. He has free will and may make that choice freely. Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do. Neither of you know me or choose to understand me. You don't have to.
Your experiences can be recorded, quantified, measured, and analyzed. As evidence, I submit that you yourself are capable of doing so. Why would something with more
information than you have about your brain state be worse
I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy. In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated. I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.
The bolded bit there? That is a statement about reality. You are claiming that human beings are not predictable, period. My question is: What makes them different than every other physical object in existence?
How do they break the laws that everything else obeys? If you can answer this, I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel in it.
The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted. We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.
"Not currently possible". does not equal "not possible" Commonly-accepted wisdom just over a century ago told us that human beings could not fly, let alone leave the planet. Does that mean it didn't happen?
In the absence of the technology, we have to look at what evidence we have about reality. And what it consistently says is that every
macro-scale physical object - every last one! - behaves in a manner that, given sufficient information, is perfectly predictable. You are making an exceptional claim by saying that the brain, a macro-scale physical object, does not behave in this way. The burden of proof is on you
, not us.
EDIT: Minor grammatical fix, removed a bit of snark.