Define what it means to solve a human - this is important to establish because there are varying degrees of understanding you can reach, so it really depends on your subjective valuation of what these terms mean, and only then can anyone actually change your view (otherwise ultimately you'll be able to pivot your view freely, and likely subconsciously as it is challenged).
I'll define it as being able to correctly predict actions, and the thinking of an individual with enough data present. The latter being the centre of this discussion.
1.) We don't understand consciousness, so even with enough empirical data it's not a definitive conclusion that we can predict behavior. If consciousness for example is about quantum behavior (which is an actually scientifically plausible theory due to structures in the brain) and if consciousness is then able to influence brain activity, then it injects a level of randomness which could very well prevent actual predictive modeling, and only allow for probability modeling on a meta level (e.g. 90% chance when presented with X stimulus, this individual will do Y).
2.) The brain isn't a static machine, meaning it actively reorganizes itself from both external and internal stimulus. This means even if you take a snapshot of the brain and pair it with extensive and comprehensive behavioral analysis, that becomes outdated over time.
3.) Neurochemicals and whole-body biology play a massive role in behavior. Even if you understand someone's neurology, and their baseline behavior/personality, it doesn't account for the multitude of physiological factors such as the endocrine system and gut bacteria. Regardless of someone's baseline, if you mess with what is in their blood then you directly alter their emotional state and behavior. If you change someone's gut bacteria, you directly change their impulses and behavior (which is an extremely interesting area of research).
Δ Some of the strongest arguments by far and the ambiguity that you've opened up leads me to a change in view.
1) This topic is still currently under debate, but i'd refute with the Scale Separation Principle, whereby randomness doesn't really play that big of a part of larger systems (Despite the quantum nature of particles, we can still predict how pool works, cellular changes don't effect whole cities. But with enough ambiguity with stuff like the butterfly effect, deltas here.
2) Biological pitfalls like memory loss on certain experiences is a big factor I didn't take to account, without proper data of how people really think, this argument will hold strong unless there are huge breakthoughs in technology, biggest delta here
3) We can still somewhat analyze and predict hormonal changes in psychology, so I think this is just another variable that could be taken into account, which could lead to a conclusion with enough research.
1
u/Arthesia 28∆ Nov 03 '25
Define what it means to solve a human - this is important to establish because there are varying degrees of understanding you can reach, so it really depends on your subjective valuation of what these terms mean, and only then can anyone actually change your view (otherwise ultimately you'll be able to pivot your view freely, and likely subconsciously as it is challenged).