If science is so smart why can't he predict what my

free will makes your thoughts unpredictable

File: chicken-game-dont-look-at-this-chicken-game-over[1].jpg (220KB, 735x915px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 735x915px

We already know what you think next ;)

>>8280472
because they don't care.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/29/scientists-predict-human-thought-in-real-time-nearly-every-time/

>>8280477
>implying free will exists

>>8280483

It doesn't mean thoughts can't be unpredictable if quantum mechanics is involved at all

>>8280488
>quantum memechanics
if its random, that means you don't have free will on it as well ;)

>>8280488
i predict that while reading this sentence you will think about a large throbbing cock.

>>8280490

Oh I don't disagree I'm not him

>>8280492

I didn't tho

>>8280488

depends on your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics, no?

>Ascribing psychological predicates such as "smart" to concepts such as "science"
>Anthropomorphising "science" by ascribing it a sex
>Ascribing psychological predicates such as "think" to parts of a whole such as "brain"

Have you ever seen or heard science utter anything smart to judge it as smart?
Have you ever seen science's penis?
How do you conceive a brain (a part), minus the rest of your body (the whole), to think?

So many conceptual blunders, category errors, and mereological fallacies, and of course, sheer nonsense, in a 74-character question. Back to /lit/ I go.

>>8280497

Well I used to be a big believer of determinism but I'm not so sure now simply because of superposition, if it truly is random

>>8280472
you think about sex... all the fucking time

File: 1462165120538.jpg (78KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 338x305px

>>8280483
>scientists-predict-human-thought-in-real-time-nearly-every-time

Meaning
>scientists program a computer to classify past observed brain signals into one of three situation-appropriate groups

Wow, how generally predictive

File: Joesephjoestar.jpg (231KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 300x450px

Tsugi ni omae wa:
Hah! /sci/entists BTFO!
To iu!

>>8280503
fuck off autist; you're no better than he is.

>>8280503
you fell for the bait, autist
>inb4 "i was just pretending to fall for the bait"
>inb4 "I was only being autistic ironically"

>>8280508
Determinist fags ignore infinite regression everytime

>>8280472
50/50 = 1

ether it doesnt or it happens

>>8280479
I was scrolling up so I saw game over before I read the text above. Broken game mechanics I want a refund

>>8280477
>free will
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8280472
>he thinks science is a living thing that thinks and predicts

>>8280488
>if I conflate two things we don't fully understand, it will sound cool

If the brain worked on any level of quantum mechanics we would know. Based on things like nerve responses and the speed at which neurons fire in reactions to stimuli, it has to be based on ions and chemicals. No quantum mechanics at all.

File: question.jpg (59KB, 640x560px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x560px

I know OP is trolling but I had a similar thought. Like what if you were connected to a machine that told the scientists exactly how you will react to the environment. Now what if they show what the machine shows to you? This would create a feedback loop. What would happen?

>>8281878
>if

>>8281878
mind control machine

>>8280472

With well defined initial conditions and enough computing power, they can.