Yeah… evidence…
Weather isn’t caused by any single event, and it is an emergent phenomenon that is located on the Earth. Does that meet your criteria for something that can make choices?
Total bovine excrement… what happen to your ■■■■ detector?
I replaced it with a mirror.
The world probably divides into those who believe you did and those who believe you didn’t 
I can’t imagine how I could have anything else to say after all this
Best Regards
I use the random module in Python from time to time, so I have experience with what you are describing. Random seeds are especially useful in data science because it allows others to repeat your work, one of the pillars of science.
Ah, yes, random numbers for repeatable experiments are a case where the seed (and the pseudo-random number generator) needs to be documented.
I was thinking of cryptographic applications, where the seed needs to be hard to guess.
That is an interesting circuit board. I sometimes use random numbers from www.random.org, which uses atmospheric noise. These random numbers are “true” for practical purposes, but, in theory, if we knew the complete state of the earth’s atmosphere, they would be predictable. The randomness from quantum mechanics, however, is fundamentally unpredictable.
1 Like
Is there a possible interaction between quantum mechanics and neurobiology?
Yes, there is a growing field of research exploring the potential interactions between quantum mechanics and neurobiology. While the classical mechanics that govern the macroscopic world are well understood, the behavior of small quantum systems such as the molecules and atoms that make up the brain and its neurons remains a topic of ongoing investigation.
One area of research focuses on the role that quantum coherence, entanglement, and other quantum properties may play in biological processes, such as energy transfer and information processing in photosynthesis and the brain. Some researchers have proposed that quantum effects may be important for understanding the functioning of the brain and consciousness.
However, this is still a developing field and much of the work in this area is speculative. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which quantum mechanics plays a role in neurobiology and to fully understand the potential interactions between these two fields.
1 Like
Is it possible that human consciousness is an illusion?
The nature of consciousness and whether it is an illusion is a deeply debated and highly philosophical question that has been discussed by philosophers, scientists, and scholars for centuries.
Some philosophical traditions, such as solipsism, argue that all experience is subjective and that the external world is an illusion. On the other hand, certain scientific explanations of consciousness, such as neuroscientific and materialistic approaches, propose that consciousness arises from the workings of the brain and that subjective experiences are simply the result of neural processes.
Others believe that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone.
Ultimately, the question of whether human consciousness is an illusion is still the subject of ongoing debate and is likely to remain so in the absence of a comprehensive explanation of consciousness.
Is there a connection between solipsism and synchronicity?
Solipsism and synchronicity are two distinct philosophical and psychological concepts that are not necessarily related.
Solipsism is the philosophical belief that one’s own mind is the only thing that can be known or verified to exist, while synchronicity is a concept introduced by psychologist Carl Jung that refers to the experience of meaningful coincidences or correspondences that cannot be explained by cause-and-effect relationships.
While synchronicity can be interpreted as evidence for a deeper interconnectedness or meaningfulness in the universe, it is not necessarily linked to solipsism. Solipsism suggests that all external reality is ultimately unknowable and may be an illusion, whereas synchronicity suggests that there are meaningful connections between events that may reveal a deeper underlying order in the universe.
Therefore, while both solipsism and synchronicity can be considered to address the nature of reality and our relationship to the world, they represent fundamentally different perspectives and are not necessarily connected.
Has anyone considered the connection?
Yes, some people have considered the connection between solipsism and synchronicity. Some interpretations of synchronicity may suggest that the meaningful coincidences or correspondences that are experienced can only be understood in the context of the individual’s subjective experience, which is in line with some aspects of solipsistic philosophy.
However, this is not a widely accepted or dominant interpretation of synchronicity, and many other perspectives on synchronicity exist that are not connected to solipsism.
Ultimately, the relationship between solipsism and synchronicity is a matter of interpretation, and the extent to which these two concepts are connected will depend on one’s philosophical and psychological views.
Who are these people?
I’m sorry, I did not specify who these people are who have considered the connection between solipsism and synchronicity. It is likely that various philosophers, psychologists, and scholars have explored this connection, but it would depend on the specific literature and sources being considered. There is no one specific group of people or author that can be identified as having considered the connection between solipsism and synchronicity.
What does it mean that you are sorry?
As a language model AI, I don’t have emotions, but I apologize in the sense of acknowledging that I made a mistake in my previous response. When I say “I’m sorry”, it means that I regret not providing a complete or accurate answer to the previous question. It is a common way to acknowledge a mistake or to express regret in human communication, and I use it as a way to indicate that I understand that I did not meet the expectation of the user.
Is it possible you contradicted yourself?
Yes, it’s possible for me to make a mistake or to contradict myself in my responses. Despite being a highly advanced language model, I am not perfect and can still make errors or provide inconsistent information. If you believe I have contradicted myself in a previous response, please provide more context or clarify your question and I will do my best to address the issue and provide a more accurate answer.
Is a contradiction necessarily false?
In logic, a contradiction is a statement that asserts both the truth and falsity of the same proposition. A contradiction is considered to be a logical error and is typically used to show that a set of statements is inconsistent or cannot all be true at the same time.
In this sense, a contradiction is considered to be necessarily false, as it asserts both the truth and falsity of the same proposition, which is logically impossible.
However, it is important to note that not all contradictions are immediately apparent, and it can sometimes be difficult to determine if a set of statements is truly inconsistent or if the apparent contradiction is due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the information. In these cases, it may be necessary to clarify or revise the statements in question in order to resolve the contradiction and arrive at a consistent set of beliefs.
So it would be impossible for you to contradict yourself and still produce a true statement?
As a language model, I can produce both true and false statements, and it’s possible for me to make a mistake or to produce a statement that contradicts another statement I’ve made. In logic, a contradiction is a statement that asserts both the truth and falsity of the same proposition, which is logically impossible.
If I were to produce two statements that are logically inconsistent or contradictory, then at least one of them would have to be false. This would mean that I have made an error in my understanding of the information or in the generation of my response.
It is the responsibility of the users of this model to carefully evaluate my responses and to determine their accuracy and consistency, and to provide feedback and clarification if needed.
That is what I was trying to suggest earlier, but nowhere near as well.
1 Like
Oh duh, I didn’t immediately catch that those were your queries and then ChatGPT’s replies. 
1 Like
- Intending to ask ChaptGPT a question, I clicked on
and got this:
4 Likes
I had some of those messages too… keep trying and please post some interesting responses
- Eventually, I was able to ask my question. Shortly thereafter, I asked a different, unrelated question and discovered–much to my surprise–a collection of questions that are related that ChatGPT cannot or will not answer, which surprises me because I was sure that they are variants of an elementary question about a basic concept in Einstein’s special theory of relativity: i.e. simultaneity.
Edit: A subsequent attempt, on 2/5, revealed that answers to my variant inquiries can be available, … after one gives ChatGPT time to think about the inquiries. 
1 Like
I’m as sure the answer is no, as I’m sure you see the comment as frivolous.
Are you a science fiction fan?
Because I wonder what type of science fiction will be written when atheism is found to be as impossible as an infinite number of planets in space.
What is not impossible, is looking at images of the cosmic web, and wondering whether it is part of a larger structure or the very beginning of a new life form.
For me it has done well with philosophy questions. It didn’t do well with this size comparison question:
If a galaxy node in the cosmic web is equivalent in size to an atomic particle, what size would the earth be?
Thinking back, this may be where we got our lines crossed.
I was not nor do I think consciousness is caused by “ionizing radiation hitting the brain.”
What I am saying is that it is possible in your words, that quantum events are affecting the subconscious and causing you to act and you are fooled into thinking you acted, when you didn’t.
I would suggest focusing more on the evidence instead of what people believe.
Your definitions of acted are highly overloaded. You are essentially forcing your preferred conclusion onto your definitions.