🚀 go-pugleaf

0. Well, it's not so straight forward, but, in essence, yes.

1. I just wouldn't get caught trying to do such because the first
thing any nervous system confronted with such is likely to do is
'just the opposite stuff'.

2. The difficulties derive the fact that experience is
individually-unique, and given a particular experiential total, an
individual still cannot predict what will occur within her/his
experience in the next 'instant', as in 1., above.

The 'point' that I'm working to communicate is with respect to stuff
that I've been discussing in bionet.neuroscience for the better part
of a decade.

What nervous systems do is, more or less, create an internal 'copy'
of the externally-relevant energydynamics that they've experienced.
Subsequently, nervous systems use these internal energydynamics
'copies' to guide their convergence upon behaviors with respect to
the then contemporaneous external environment they encounter.

As in 2., above, for such to be predictable, the nervous system in
question would have to be 'omniscent with respect to all possible
external environments that it could encounter, which, clearly, is not
the case.

3. However, what I am saying is that there's verifiably exactly zero
do called 'quantum uncertainty' within the energydynamics through
which nervous systems 'feel' their ways through the external
energydynamics.

What nervous systems do is, through experience, converge upon
constructions of internal energydynamics that allow the nervous
system to successfully direct behavior with respect to the
energydynamics inherent in the external environment.

Within such there exists exactly one 'map' of Truth. It's with
respect to such that all behavior is predictable. That is, behavior
will succeed, or fail, to the degree that it is in accord with
Truth's one energydynamics 'map'. [Which, of course, includes stuff
like the sorts of groupwise coersed consensus which takes the form of
the 'nationalism' that precipitates war, groupwise prejudice that
either abandons, enslaves, or slaughters folks who are not like-self,
including groupwise prejudice even with respect to stuff in Physics,
such as non-existent, so-called 'quantum uncertainty'.]

There's a big difference between what's in 3., above, and what you've
conjectured that 'I am saying'.

I am not saying what you conjecture 'I am saying' [in a way that
attributes the absurdity inherent in your conjecture to me, via mere
association].

What I'm saying is that it's possible to converge upon 0., above,
without actively invoking 'chance', even though such will be
passively present.

Is what's here sufficient?

k.p. collins

Bill Vajk wrote in message <3E1D916B.7080507@hotmail.com>...
|Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote:
|
|> Physical reality, including physical reality within nervous
systems
|> is continuous and deterministic - there's absolutely zero
|> 'uncertainty' in-there.
|
|
|Are you suggesting that all thought is predictable?
|
|
|William J. Vajk
|Techny,  Illinois
|