[lazide]

There was a time when I would have believed that too. It’s a probabilistic type view, which in general, on average works out to be mostly correct.

In the physics analogy, I imagine thinking of it like heat.

But, if you pick any individual, just like if you go to an individual atom, you will find that velocity, position, etc. is still impossible to predict except as probabilities on a curve. And unlike atoms, people have strong incentives to lie (to themselves and others), and a rather impressive ability to do so.

And given enough atoms/people or time, you WILL find the truly unpredictable. And you will often find the nonsensical, the self destructive, etc.

The general human motivations (or at least what we perceive them as) are also statistical averages. It doesn’t take much looking to find folks with very, very different ways of acting on them than what we’d consider normal.

Due to this fractal nature of the complexity of reality, it is a delusion thinking anyone can understand the moment. Truly, anyways.

Everything is through a lens, it has to be, or it would be impossible to comprehend at all.

[MichaelZuo]

Even someone with a large iron rod rammed through their brain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) doesn't deviate that much from the median, at least not as much as the aformentioned examples of Napoleon, von Neumann, etc...

So it seems difficult to believe anyone currently alive and capable of walking around can be meaningfully even more different.

Of course people can claim a limitless degree of difference, but their actual behaviour is what matters, not verbal claims.

[lazide]

Huh? Phineas Gage completely switched personality, including behavior.

What exactly do you consider to be ‘degree of difference’?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_nu...]?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_female_ser...]?

Ghenghis Khan?

And that isn’t even counting the vast, unending sea of often bizarre mental illness out there.

The ones you see make a list are functional enough to cause notable damage, which fundamentally restrains them within a certain band of functionality.

The ones who are functional enough to stay alive long enough to make an impact on the world at all will restrain it at an even more outlying band.

That means you can form probabilities and distributions - but you can’t really know individuals for sure.

As anyone who’s been married to someone and had kids with them who later turned out to be gay, or cheating, or whatever can attest - good luck.

[MichaelZuo]

Yes I would classify Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc., as probably even farther from the median adult human then Phineas Gage type oddities.

But this is splitting hairs since the main point is that the maximal case can't possibly be that much more extreme then already well documented cases.

Because only the observable actions of humans in the world is after all what we're capable of perceiving directly. And this is limited to what their body, including vocal chords, is physically capable of doing, no matter how many mental irregularities they have.

Or are you confused about something else?

It's unclear what the meaning of the rest of your comment is.

[lazide]

I’m a bit confused by what your point is, since you seem to be agreeing with me - but taking a static view?

You seem to be saying ‘the current maximal can’t be more than the historical outliers, therefore people are predictable’, while my point is that you can’t actually know that, or fundamentally 100% predict an individual (or a group, really) because those historical outliers obviously occurred and were not obvious until after they had occurred.

Ghenghis Khan existed before he conquered the largest empire in recorded history.

Von Neumann existed before he did what he did.

Einstein existed before he did what he did.

John Wayne Gacy existed before he did what he did.

And there are millions of other examples less extreme, but still important and impactful.

And the next unpredicted maximal person (of whatever stripe) will also exist before you know they are the next maximal person - in whatever direction they happen to be in.

It’s fundamental.

And we’re not even talking about the weird biological stuff - those we had innate immunity to the black plague when it ravaged Europe, or those with innate immunity to HIV being just some very basic examples.

As to your other point I guess - sure, we don’t expect to run across someone that doesn’t need air, and it’s pretty unlikely.

But for example, at some point, before life crawled out of the oceans, it would have been considered impossible to do that. But then something did. It took (depending on the theory or what you attribute causes to) hundreds of millions to billions of years for it to happen (hence my comment on time and/or population), but it did occur.

From the perspective of Groups, History is replete with examples of long tail probabilities occurring and causing major shifts. Not recognizing that they can and will happen, eventually, sets us up for failure, because we refuse to recognize them until too late.

From the perspective of Individuals, near as I can tell it’s impossible to truly even know ourselves, let alone another person. Thinking we have it all figured out is a comfortable delusion. Often it’s functional enough, it works well enough to be ok.

But ask anyone who’s been through a custody dispute and I doubt you’ll get a comforting response on that front.

I’m not saying the X-men are real or ever will be. I’m not saying everyone is a serial killer, or a Napoleon.

Using frequentist thinking when dealing with people is useful the vast majority of the time.

But if you think it’s really true all the time, it isn’t. It’s important to be aware of its limitations.

That’s all I’m saying.

[MichaelZuo]

> You seem to be saying ‘the current maximal can’t be more than the historical outliers, therefore people are predictable’, while my point is that you can’t actually know that, or fundamentally 100% predict an individual (or a group, really) because those historical outliers obviously occurred and were not obvious until after they had occurred.

No, please reread what I said, I never narrowed it down to 'historical outliers' only.

The human genome has been sequenced, brain structure has been analyzed (though we don't precisely know how each piece corresponds to mental phenomena), and so on.

So even ignoring historical outliers, there is still a maximum possible deviation that an adult human brain can physically be capable of.

And the the upper and lower bounds are known. It's not like someone can have a 5x larger brain or a brain with 12 lobes, or a brain with copper interconnections. So there are only outliers within a certain range.

Plus, regardless of how developed or extremely different mental phenomena is, the possible range that others can see is much more finite, bound by signalling constraints and so on. You can only blink your eyes so fast, you can only move your limbs so fast, vocal chords have a speed limit, etc...

For example, a human brain could not function if an iron rod was rammed through the brain stem instead, so if you know this happened to someone, you also can infer there's only one possible mental state they could be in, regardless of any other factors or combination of factors.

There definitely are no outliers in this case.

Another example would be the 24 fps frame rate in film. This was chosen precisely because extensive testing showed this was fast enough to fool the brain into seeing motion without exception.

If someone claims otherwise you can repeat the same testing procedures to determine with certainty, but very likely there are no outliers either in this case.

There probably are a couple hundred hard constraints like this that circumscribes all possible near-future human individual behaviour. Though of course group complexity and more distant scenarios such as cyborgs, etc., would still be unbounded.

[lazide]

Except, as medicine has discovered over and over again, many of those things are not actually true if you get a large enough sample size. And there are plenty of historical examples of behavior that, frankly, no one is going to be able to rationalize today, such as monks meditating themselves to death sealed inside their own tombs.

To pick an example - human brain size:

1 in 50 babies have brains that develop noticeably too large for the curve. Digging into it has identified a gene that regulates Brain sizes. There are of course many variations and mutations of that gene. [https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2014/04/single-gene-muta...]

And current human brain sizes already vary greatly, from (recorded) sizes of 61-l to 122+ cubic cm. [https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/634481-la...].

To pick another example you gave - brain stem injury.

[https://www.brainandspinalcord.org/brain-stem/]

Can someone survive on their own, right now with severe spinal cord trauma? No.

But we can keep their body alive, and they can do basic communication with technical means. They’re locked in, but they aren’t cut off anymore.

Even in the past, people could survive for some time with help with severe and traumatic brain stem damage. I personally know someone who suffered a severe hemorrhagic stroke in her brain stem over a decade ago, was in a coma for months, and recovered. Today the only difference you can see is her fine motor control isn’t as good.

It wasn’t an iron rod, but I doubt it will be much longer before we can help the body recover from something like that too. A century ago, she would definitely have just been dead.

Another example: 24 fps is also not an absolute hard limit or minimum anything.

It’s a picked point where almost everyone can see simulated motion without having to work too hard (on the producer or consumer sides), it’s economical to produce things in (a major problem back in the day when it was all literal film), etc.

It is very noticeably not lifelike to almost everyone. Which is fine for its purpose. People can see motion at far lower frame rates (a flip book being a trivial example), and can see that the motion is artificial at far higher frame rates - picking out that a ‘bad’ frame was stuck into a higher rate feed for instance, or that it’s artificial and not real even in immersive environments (though that is much trickier to create a real test due to technical limitations now, everything we can do is pretty obviously fake to most humans).

Like the specified ranges of human hearing [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range], or the human ‘Normal’ body temperature [https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/01/human-body-te...] or a number of other things - they are generally agreed upon ‘good enough’ values. Useful approximations, not reality.

This is discoverable with sample sizes of hundreds, at most, and I expect you’ve personally experienced this too.

A friend who hears the sound that no one else can hear in a piece of electronics, for instance.

The further from the median we get, the rarer the deviations get of course. And near as we can tell, the probability of faster than light travel, or as you note a copper brainstem, or mind control is zero. At least unless we have evidence it isn’t. If there was some evolutionary advantage and some path via physics to do it (so, still zero odds on the mind control thing).

But the deviations in people in reality are far, far wider than you are stating or implying.

Even your note on the human genome reinforces this. We did not, and could not, and still can’t, sequence every humans genome in any deterministic way. Even the human genome sequencing we have done has just gone to show that it isn’t really very useful or what we thought it was.

Just to name a few factors - Epigenetics, methylation, and a host of other things have made it really clear that what we thought was ‘the story’ is really not. But it is part of it. And that is without even going into Chimeras, which we’ve found more and more of.

What you’re describing is the ‘all the hard problems in physics are solved’ fallacy.

Life is not that easy, for better or worse.

It can be useful to think it is though when we have something to do though.