<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 4:16 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <</span><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>There are also nuances. For example, different interpretations of "to understand".</i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" size="4"><b>Exactly. We can have a general sort of understanding of how our brain works but t<span class="gmail_default" style="">o</span> have a perfect understanding a part of our brain would have to have a sort of internal map of the entire brain<span class="gmail_default" style="">,</span> and for it to be perfect<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>there would have to be a one to one correspondence between the map and the territory, but that would be impossible for something that is finite like the number of neurons in the human brain. However it would be possible for a proper subset of something infinite to have a one<span class="gmail_default" style=""> to one</span> correspondence with the entire set; then you could have such a perfect map with a one to one correspondence,<span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>and then you'd always know what you were going to do long before you did it. <span class="gmail_default" style="">A</span>nd you wouldn't feel free. So by the only definition <span class="gmail_default" style="">of</span> free will<span class="gmail_default" style=""> that is not gibberish (</span><span class="gmail_default" style="">not knowing what you're going to do next until you actually do it) we reach the interesting conclusion that a </span>human being does have free will<span class="gmail_default" style="">,</span> but God does not.</b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" size="4"><b><br></b></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style=""><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" size="4"><b>John K Clark</b></font></div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div> </div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><blockquote type="cite" style="color:rgb(0,124,255)"><pre>non-flying animal.
</pre></blockquote><pre>"If our brains were simple enough for us to understand, we would be
simple enough that we could not."</pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, that just sounds defeatist to me. It makes a nice little
pessimistic soundbite (if you like pessimism), but is there any
evidence that it's true? Or any logical argument for it?<br>
There are also nuances. For example, different interpretations of
"to understand".<br>
<br>
Maybe you are right, given "understand completely" (whatever that
actually means). <strike>Maybe</strike> definitely not, given
"understand enough to be useful/worth the attempt".<br>
<br>
We have, after all, discovered a lot about how brains work already.
Maybe not a lot in comparison to all there is to be discovered, but
more than enough to be useful, and I doubt if we have reached some
sort of limit on what we are capable of discovering and
understanding.<br>
<br>
And there's always AI assistance with this kind of research, which
greatly extends our reach, and adds more variations of "to
understand".<br>
<br>
On the whole, I think the statement is harmful, in that it tends to
discourage even trying.
<pre cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
</div><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>
</div>