I don't know. I have never met a human without the capacity to touch, smell, hear, taste and see. If a zygote was so defective that the foetus did not have any capacity to touch, smell, hear, taste and see and after birth, the baby continued to be like this we could study how such a baby grows and develops. As far as I know, such a baby has never been born. I could speculate what it may be like for such a baby to grow into an adult but that would be pure speculation - not facts.

How do you know this? Do you have any research that you can cite as evidence?

Thanks for the welcome. The true nature of the self, to keep it brief, is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception. In other words, there is no self without sense perception of the world.

You are most welcome. Why would there be no self without sensory perception of the world? If I am unable to touch, smell, hear, taste and see would my sense of self disappear? I doubt it. I would still be able to think and have emotions and have a personality and have values.

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNvcy5LZPo where Elon Musk explains why he thinks we are living in a simulation. I don't agree with him.

Thank you very much for answering my questions and the link. I learned something new which is great.

I far as I can tell, neither quantum mechanics nor macroscopic determinism makes us free from determinants and constraints. How can we have justice when we are not free from determinants and constraints? If a criminal could not have refrained from breaking the law, is it right to punish him or her for breaking the law? If a law-abiding person cannot help being law-abiding, is it right to reward him or her for not breaking the law? Could anyone really have made a different choice in the past than the choice they made? I don't think so. I think our choices arise out of the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences and we are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy.

Quoting ChatGPT 4:

Monozygotic twins, often called identical twins, originate from the same fertilized egg that splits into two embryos. This shared origin means that they start with the same genetic material. However, saying they are completely genetically identical throughout their lives is an oversimplification due to several factors:

1. Mutations During Development
As the cells of the embryos divide and grow, small mutations can occur. These mutations might be different between the two twins, leading to slight genetic differences as they develop.

2. Epigenetic Differences
While the DNA sequence itself may be very similar, the way this genetic information is expressed can differ due to epigenetic changes. Epigenetics involves modifications that affect gene expression without altering the DNA sequence itself. Factors such as environment, lifestyle, and different experiences can lead to epigenetic changes that differ between the twins, influencing how their genes are expressed.

3. Somatic Mosaicism
Somatic mosaicism refers to the occurrence of two or more genetically different cell lines within the same individual, caused by mutations that occur after fertilization and during cell division. This can also happen independently in each twin, leading to differences between them.

4. Copy Number Variations
Small differences in the number of copies of certain genes can emerge during the early stages of embryonic development after the initial zygotic split. These variations can lead to further genetic divergence between monozygotic twins.

5. Environmental Influences
Even in the womb, monozygotic twins can experience different environments. For example, they might have different positions in the uterus or slightly different nourishment from the placenta. These subtle environmental differences can influence their development, both physically and potentially at the genetic expression level.

While monozygotic twins are genetically very similar compared to other siblings, they are not absolutely identical. The small genetic differences that can arise are typically not significant enough to affect the fact that they are more similar to each other than to anyone else, but these differences can be important in the context of medical research, forensic analysis, and understanding how genes and the environment interact to shape individuals.

I am both a pragmatist and an empiricist. They are not mutually exclusive.

I am a pragmatist - no point wasting time on untestable ideas.

Yes, indeed.

We create simulated worlds e.g. in weather simulations and computer games. People have dreams and hallucinations. Visual illusions are also common. Elon Musk thinks that our perceived world is a simulation created by our descendants. I wish we knew more.

It's ok. Please don't worry about it.

can it do that WITHOUT said sentient beings awareness of such observations occurring meaning avoiding any conscious awareness such attempts to remove determinants and constraints are taking place...observations when sentient beings are aware of them happening, risk unnatural behavior taking place misplaced real data when its bias was just aware and leaning in its favor. The sentient beings level of conscious awareness holds power over attempts, even if they know it or not. Its intuit.

I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry. Please explain. Thank you.

Thank you.

The problem is that we don't have a Theory of Everything that unites the quantum world with the macroscopic world. We know that quantum decoherence occurs. Given the fact that quantum decoherence occurs, how would quantum phenomena such as superposition, indeterminacy and entanglement have any effect on the macroscopic world?

How can quantum randomness remove determinants and constraints from the decision-making process in sentient organisms? You haven't answered any of my questions in my previous reply to you. Is that because you don't know the answers?

Would you agree that the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences can theoretically (not practically) all be reduced to physical phenomena? As in: Changing X gene does, deterministically, result in changes A, B and C. And placying someone in Y environment will, determinisitically, result in changes in D, F and G. And A, B, C, D, F, G are all physical phenomena (think: bigger nose, different neural connections, etc)

I will assume yes.

It depends. If immaterial souls exist, and they are affected by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences then the answer is no.

Do you agree that quantum randomness CAN under certain setups, cause macro level changes? (see cat)

I will also assume yes.

I have never seen your thought experiment as an actual experiment. If you are a physicist, could you please do the experiment and share the actual results with us?

Ah, how are you sure of this? How are you sure that none of the setups where quantum randomness can have a macro effect (like with the cat) don't already exist in some environments or within our own bodies?

I am 100% sure that quantum decoherence occurs, but we don't know if quantum mechanics is involved in the production of consciousness. Quantum features such as superposition, tunneling, entanglement, and indeterminacy all average out - there is indeterminacy about the exact location of any given iron atom but not about the exact location of the centre of mass of a cannonball formed by 10^27 of these quantum-behaving atoms. If it is involved then quantum mechanics could affect our choices which would make our choices random instead of deterministic. How can we be culpable if our choices are random instead of deterministic?

This is a testable hypothesis, but until we know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences on organisms fully, it will not have been tested. Until we fully understand our body and our world, it's still a possibility that such a quantum-randomness enabling setup already exists within us or our environment.

I agree.

Yes, but it is not clear that it would ever be 100% accurate. The only way it can be is if there is no setups that allow quantum randomness to have a macro effect anywhere. And we don't know that.

I am not a physicist, otherwise I would turn your thought experiment into an actual experiment. Is there any physicist on this forum?

I don't see how quantum randomness is any better than macroscopic determinism when it comes to making decisions. I want to remove all determinants and constraints from our choices but it's impossible for me to do that with our current level of knowledge and technology. It may always be impossible to do. So, we are and always will be prisoners of determinants and constraints

Are you talking about the untestable hypothesis that our perceived world could be a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion? Then they are untestable ideas. If we could test them then the results would be in the "matter of facts" but we can't test them.

We don't know anything objectively. We may believe that we do but this is a delusion. Everything we know is subjective. There are two kinds of subjective truths:

1. Exclusive subjective truths e.g. your thoughts, your dreams, your hallucinations, your pain, your pleasure, etc. Only you have access to them.

2. Shared subjective truths e.g. things two or more sentient beings can experience e.g. standing on the planet Earth, looking at the stars, eating at a restaurant, flying in a plane, etc.

I agree with you partially. I know that my body has two legs, two hands, two eyes, one nose with two nostrils, two ears, etc. There may be a one-in-infinity chance that my body and the universe are not real but are part of a simulation or a hallucination or a dream or an illusion. However, my consciousness is real. There is no doubt in my mind that my consciousness is real. I am conscious, therefore I am. I can't prove to you or anyone else that my consciousness is real. You may call me a philosophical zombie and I won't be able to prove to you that I am not a philosophical zombie. Conversely, your consciousness is real for you but you can't prove to me or anyone else that you are not a philosophical zombie.

Welcome to the forum. How would we discern whether or not an AI was conscious? We can't even discern which human is actually conscious and which human is a philosophical zombie, that's if philosophical zombies are real.

In the unlikely event that I am an immaterial soul experiencing the illusion of being in a physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe, my illusory body has two illusory eyes.

Yes, I understand what you mean by proving X means disproving not-X. Even in the unlikely event that my body and the universe are simulated, I still have two eyes. They may be real eyes or simulated eyes but they do the same job.

Just because we can't predict something e.g. weather and earthquakes, etc. accurately it does not mean that they are not deterministic.

I agree that the quantum world is probabilistic but due to quantum decoherence, this does not mean the macroscopic world is like the quantum world.

If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would you not be typing these words when and where I am typing these words? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences would I not be reading these words when and where you are reading these words?

We don't choose to be born. We don't choose our genes. We don't choose our early environments, nutrients, and experiences. Although, as an adult we may be able to change our environments, nutrients, and experiences to something different from what we got as a child. This does not apply to all adults - just the fortunate ones. So, how can we claim that we are culpable for our choices?

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I can't do the following things even though I really want to do them:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Given the fact that I am constantly doing things I don't want to do and can't do what I actually want to do, how can I be a free agent who makes free choices and is culpable?

I think that only omniscient and omnipotent beings are omniculpable. Everyone else is a prisoner of causality. Our thoughts are not free from the electrochemical activities that give rise to thoughts. Our choices are not free from the electrochemical activities that give rise to choices.

I agree with you. How would we figure out if hard determinism is true or not?

Our choices are not free from determinants and constraints e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Does that mean that our choices are inevitable?

The list does not deal with simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypotheses as they can't be tested. Also, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something e.g. unicorns, fairies, angels, demons, gods, etc.

So, the statements below are still provable by using evidence.

1. If I hit the wall with my head it hurts my head.
2. Humans need oxygen to stay alive.
3. Eating a banana means you no longer have the banana to sell or donate or eat again.
4. I am typing in English right now.
5. I have two eyes.
6. The capital of Nepal is currently Kathmandu.
7. The Earth orbits the Sun.
8. The Moon orbits the Earth.
9. Humans don't know how to travel faster than the speed of light.
10. Dogs have four legs.

Most people don't take the simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypothesis seriously. Just as most people don't take the solipsism hypothesis seriously. It is extremely unlikely that the world we perceive is a simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion given how complex everything is. This is why even I don't take them seriously. Although, Elon Musk seems to think that it is more likely that we live in a simulation than not!

It appears that I have a material body. It appears that we live in a material universe. If it were an illusion, we would expect it to appear as if it is real. We can't test the hypothesis. That is my point.

When I say that I can prove trillions of things I mean things like:

1. If I hit the wall with my head it hurts my head.
2. Humans need oxygen to stay alive.
3. Eating a banana means you no longer have the banana to sell or donate or eat again.
4. I am typing in English right now.
5. I have two eyes.
6. The capital of Nepal is currently Kathmandu.
7. The Earth orbits the Sun.
8. The Moon orbits the Earth.
9. Humans don't know how to travel faster than the speed of light.
10. Dogs have four legs.

I don't have the time to list trillions of such things but I think you get the picture.

The untestable hypotheses I listed remain untestable.

Science-fiction is fun.

It's not possible to test that hypothesis. Haven't you read my other posts?

Quoting myself:

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

I agree.

I agree.

It's not a belief. It's an imaginative exploration of a hypothetical situation. This is what science-fiction writers do. This is why I said "What if".

Thank you for the link. I have begun to read it.

I think he is delusional and talks nonsense!

No, the first banana has been broken down by your digestive system. You can't eat it again. You can't sell it or donate it to someone else either. Yes, you could acquire a new banana by receiving it as a gift or by buying it or buy planting a banana tree in your garden, etc. All of these are truths that I or you or others could prove. There are literally trillions of such examples. Here is one: humans need oxygen to stay alive.

I can prove that if you have one banana and you eat it, you won't have a banana left. There are trillions of such things that I can prove. So, it's incorrect to say that there is no proof.

Thank you for the link. I was already familiar with the inefficiency of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in humans and giraffes but I didn't know about the Sauropods. Please see https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-235403/

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Are the choices made by organisms inevitable given their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? If so, do they truly deserve any reward or punishment for their choices?

I think we both would agree that an omniscient and omnipotent being would be omniculpable. I don't know if any omniscient and omnipotent being exists. If such a being existed, he or she should be sued for failing to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs about this. Can you prove your claims?

Here is my first post in this thread:

Who is morally culpable? I don't know. I know that the legal system holds people culpable if they do anything illegal. Are criminals truly morally culpable? If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable. How do we figure out whether or not hard determinism is true? Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. For example, I would not be typing this post if I were alive 1,000 years ago instead of now as there was no computer and internet back then. If I had the genes of a chicken instead of my genes I would not be typing this post either. I would not be typing this post if I didn't experience learning the English language. I would not be typing this post if I was deprived of all the nutrients that I have consumed since I was conceived. Is it inevitable that I typed this post when and where I typed this post? Am I morally culpable for the choice to type this post? Please explain how you have worked out the answer. Thank you very much.

I clearly stated my position that "Organisms make choices but their choices are not free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Their choices are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences."

I am still saying the same thing. So, why are you saying that my position has changed?

I don't know with 100% certainty how consciousness, emotions, rationality, ethics, etc. emerge from the electrochemical activities of the brain. I do know that dead brains don't produce consciousness, emotions, rationality, ethics, etc. So, what is it about brains that are alive that produce consciousness?

Quoting ChatGPT 4:

The question of how consciousness is produced is one of the most profound and challenging in both science and philosophy. There are several major theories and approaches to this question, but no definitive answers as of yet. Here's an overview of some of the leading theories on the production of consciousness:

1. Physicalist Theories
Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Developed by Giulio Tononi, IIT proposes that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system. It quantifies consciousness in terms of "phi," a measure of the system's integration of information. The theory suggests that any system with a high enough phi value is conscious.

Global Workspace Theory (GWT)

Proposed by Bernard Baars and further developed by Stanislas Dehaene and others, GWT posits that consciousness results from certain information being broadcast in a global workspace—a distributed network within the brain. This theory focuses on the accessibility of information across different cognitive systems for decision-making, reasoning, and planning.

2. Biological Theories
Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC)

An approach that aims to identify specific neural systems responsible for conscious awareness. The NCC approach is less of a theory of consciousness itself and more a method of studying how particular brain activities correlate with specific conscious experiences.

3. Quantum Theories
Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)

This theory, developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, suggests that consciousness emerges from quantum state reductions that occur within microtubules in brain cells. They argue that these quantum events are orchestrated by biological processes to produce conscious experience, which is a theory not widely accepted in the scientific community due to its speculative nature.

4. Panpsychism
Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the universe. It suggests that all matter possesses some form of consciousness, with complex systems such as human brains exhibiting a richer and more complex form of consciousness. This perspective shifts the problem of consciousness from emergence to one of combination—how simple consciousness combines into more complex forms.

5. Dual-Aspect Theories
These theories suggest that mental and physical states are two aspects of the same underlying reality. This approach tries to bridge the explanatory gap by positing a non-material, yet not entirely separate, realm of existence that interacts with or parallels the physical.

6. Emergentism
Emergentism argues that consciousness emerges from complex patterns of physical interactions within the brain, but in a way that is not reducible to those interactions alone. This suggests a form of strong emergence where consciousness is seen as more than the sum of its parts.

Current Scientific Endeavors
In the scientific realm, ongoing research involves mapping brain activity and its correlation with conscious experience (trying to pinpoint the NCC), manipulating brain states (through technologies such as TMS and EEG) to see how changes in neural activity affect consciousness, and developing better computational models to simulate how networks of neurons might generate conscious awareness.

Despite substantial progress in understanding the brain's functioning, how consciousness arises from the activity of neurons, or whether it perhaps emerges from other processes, remains a profound mystery. Each theory provides valuable insights, but none has yet achieved consensus acceptance. The pursuit to understand consciousness is not only about discovering its mechanisms but also about exploring fundamental questions about the nature of existence and our place within it.

I am a materialist monist because I have never seen any soul or spirit in any brain scans. I realise that if the soul or spirit is not made of matter or energy as we know them, we won't spot them on brain scans. Then there is the problem of how an immaterial soul or spirit can interact with a brain made of ordinary matter.

In deterministic systems, it is possible to predict outcomes if you know what the interacting variables are. For example, evidence shows that if you behead someone, they die in 100% of the cases. So, you can predict with 100% accuracy that if you were to behead me, I would die. In a random system (as in quantum mechanics), you can't predict outcomes in the same way. Instead, you can only calculate the probability. There is a 50% probability that the electron would spin right and a 50% probability that the electron would spin left. Due to quantum decoherence, our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences don't behave like electrons do.

If we knew the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences on organisms with 100% accuracy, we should be able to predict their choices with 100% accuracy. I can't test this hypothesis because we currently don't know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences with 100% accuracy in all instances. For example, you know that if you were to behead me, I would die as my brain would be deprived of blood which delivers vital oxygen and glucose, etc. for my neurones and glial cells. You can predict this with 100% accuracy. However, what would I do, if you gave me 100 trillion US dollars? It would be hard for you to predict this with 100% accuracy. It's logical to state that the more you knew about my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, the more precise your prediction would be.

What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe?

Why would it be physically impossible?