Let's assume free will does not exist. It follows then, that you should theoretically be able to perfectly predict the actions of a human given enough information about their current chemical & physical state.
I have never seen evidence of such a machine, so I don't think you can prove it either way. I like to believe whichever theory seems to benefit me most at the time.
I volunteer myself as such a machine, though I won't say I can perfectly predict the actions of another human and many others are better than I am. Nevertheless I find I can make pretty good estimates from time to time depending on information.
I'm curious about your "I like to believe" stance. Are you saying you'll ignore any evidence for any theory if you don't think the theory benefits you more than another theory, even if your theory has been shown to be wrong?
Comments
Let's assume free will does not exist. It follows then, that you should theoretically be able to perfectly predict the actions of a human given enough information about their current chemical & physical state.
I have never seen evidence of such a machine, so I don't think you can prove it either way. I like to believe whichever theory seems to benefit me most at the time.
I volunteer myself as such a machine, though I won't say I can perfectly predict the actions of another human and many others are better than I am. Nevertheless I find I can make pretty good estimates from time to time depending on information.
I'm curious about your "I like to believe" stance. Are you saying you'll ignore any evidence for any theory if you don't think the theory benefits you more than another theory, even if your theory has been shown to be wrong?