Wouldn't you agree? — RogueAI

No, the behaviour is the same, no? Behaviour is public.

EDIT: for the avoidance of doubt, I agree with you. I'm arguing the opposite, I forgot why.

No, the behaviour is the same, no? Behaviour is public.

EDIT: for the avoidance of doubt, I agree with you. I'm arguing the opposite, I forgot why. — bert1

Yeah, I know. I play Devil's Advocate a lot too. B.F. Skinner thought that behavior is public. That's not too popular these days. I don't know how it ever caught on. But what can I say, other than I think it's loony. It's so obvious to me that my feelings cause my behavior. It's axiomatic to me. It's like trying to prove a=a when someone is trying to argue a can sometimes be b.

How could you show, even to yourself, that your behaviour is caused by your feelings?

Why can't both feelings and behaviour, in parallel, be caused by brain activity?

I'm not rejecting intuition as a bad reason, I'm just wondering if you have any other reasons?

EDIT: and just to be clear, feelings and behaviour being caused in parallel by brain states is not physicalism, it is a kind of dualism. Epiphenomenalism is a dualist position of some kind.

I "just happen" to be among the infinitesimal fraction of matter that became human beings — Dogbert

Generally I think the magnitude of universe should not have an impact of probability of human existence.
What follows for instance is that, the bigger the universe is, there is less and less chance for human existence or existence or life (because it's too small compared to entire universe [or matter]).
— SpaceDweller

If you consider the size of the galaxy, in which there may be 300,000,000 habitable planets, then the number of other galaxies, all the suns and planets they contain, even if only one in a thousand of the potential life-generating planets actually does, life itself is not all that miraculous. — Vera Mont

I say we flip this discussion on its head and, instead of postulating that “life, “human beings” and “consciousness” evolved from non-living matter, we instead say:

All matter and energy in the universe started out as fully evolved life and for the past 15 billion years, it has gradually “devolved” (or shifted) into the proportions we now see – which is a much higher percentage of the universe consisting of non-living “stuff,” and a much lower percentage of the universe consisting of living stuff. And therefore, we can cease being amazed at there being so much of the latter in the universe and such a paucity of the former.

This approach seems to be consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A system of energy, if left alone, tends toward greater disorganization and more entropy. The evolution of life, on the other hand, with all its macromolecules (eg, proteins), complex biological processes (eg, mitosis), etc., would suggest an increase in organization and less entropy.

Looking at the universe in this way may make more sense. Of course, the wonder of life being here at all can still be a perplexing. In suggesting that we turn the telescope around and look into the other end, I have not solved the riddle of “Why Life?,” but rather looked at it from another perspective. Maybe the answer is to just put down the telescope or, as Wittgenstein wrote, “…throw away the ladder [after climbing up].” :cool:

Looking at the universe in this way may make more sense. — Thales

If you start with some fairly implausible premises, yes. God exploded and bits of his body have been decaying ever since. Nice.

If you start with some fairly implausible premises, yes. God exploded and bits of his body have been decaying ever since. — Vera Mont

I like your theistic (deistic?) spin on my thought experiment! :up:

It's not really an original idea. I just scaled it up to fit your hypothesis.