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?

The key issue here is not complexity. The key issue here is the structure. A baby's brain is complex but there is a huge difference in structure between someone's brain when they are a baby compared to when they are an adult. The structure of Tokyo is complex, too. However, it does not have the structure a brain has. The behaviour of brains depends on the electrochemical activities of the neurones. This depends on genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I recommend that you study neuroscience. In a previous post I gave you two links and you said you skimmed them because you didn't have the knowledge to understand them. The only way to remedy this is for you to study neuroscience. I know lots of neuroscientists who, like me, are happy to be materialist monists. I think your ignorance is getting in your way.

I agree that we are rational enough to have a discussion and assess whether 2+2=4 is true. This does not require the existence of souls. The capabilities of our brains are determined by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I did not say that events are predetermined. I said that events are determined in the present by the interaction of variables. Even in your thought experiment, what happens is determined in the present by the interaction of variables.

I have noticed something interesting about your posts. You frequently misquote me by claiming that I made statements I never made. I am not blaming you. If I had your genes, your environments from conception to the present, your nutrients from conception to the present, and your experiences from the womb to the present, I would have done the same thing. After all, we are not free from our determinants and constraints.

You keep making the same mistake. Atoms are not rational or emotional or perceptive or wise or ethical or anything else that you would attribute to a conscious being. These attributes are weakly emergent properties of the electrochemical activities of the brain. Please note that I said electrochemical activities of the brain. It is not enough to just have a bunch of atoms. The actual structure matters. You really need to study neuroscience for you to be able to understand this. An average human body is 65% oxygen, 18.5% carbon, 9.5% hydrogen, 3.5% nitrogen, 3.5% other chemical elements. It's not enough to just line up these elements in the correct proportion. They have to be in proper structure for a human body to be alive and functional.

The bodies and brains of all the extant species are good enough for survival and reproduction. Otherwise, they would have gone extinct.

I didn't say this was an actual event. I am talking about a hypothetical scenario. That's why I said "What if".

You are missing my point. What if I am in a special dream which lasts six hours of actual time but 100 years of experiential time? What if I am an alien with this technology that lets me dream I am a human?

I am not convinced. I think that it is extremely unlikely that my perceived reality is a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion but it does not mean that there is not even a one-in-infinity chance of it being a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.

I am surprised that you have not watched The Matrix, Predestination and The Truman Show. They are such excellent movies for philosophical discussions. You can watch all of them on YouTube.

What if I am in a dream that lasts my entire lifetime? What if my death is the only way to wake up from the dream?

What if I am in a hallucination that lasts my entire lifetime? What if my death is the only way to stop the hallucination?

What if I am in a simulation that lasts my entire lifetime? What if my death is the only way to exit the simulation?

What if I am in an illusion that lasts my entire lifetime? What if my death is the only way to break the illusion?

I will either find out when I die or I will just cease to exist when I die.

The way clouds behave and the way brains behave are due to their structure. A cloud can't assess whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 is true. We can. The reason we can assess it is due to the complexity of the human brain which is due to our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. Dogs have brains, too, but they can't even read though dogs are alive and sentient. That's because dogs have different genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I didn't claim that humans are rational. Humans are much more emotional than rational. Billions of us believe in self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions. It's not rational to believe in the religions we have on Earth. We evolved to survive and reproduce. That's why we are so bad at understanding quantum mechanics. Our brains didn't evolve to understand quantum mechanics or dark matter or dark energy. We still haven't figured out a Unified Theory of Everything because our brains didn't evolve to do such things. We still don't know what dark matter and dark energy are because our brains didn't evolve to do such things.

I didn't say that natural selection would favour rational organisms. Natural selection would only favour organisms that are good at survival and reproduction. That's why bacteria are the most successful type of organisms on Earth. They are the most numerous organisms on Earth. Also, they are the longest surviving organisms on Earth because they have been around for 3.5 billion years. Humans have been around only 200,000 years and there are only 8.1 billion of us alive right now. Human bodies have more bacteria cells than human cells. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion (10^30) bacteria alive right now.

Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world does not exhibit the superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement that exist in the quantum world. Can you show me even one instance when macroscopic objects have exhibited superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement? No, you can't. You can't because quantum decoherence makes it impossible. Your thought experiment is irrelevant to how the macroscopic world works.

A dualist doesn't have to deal with this issue, since they can maintain that rationality comes from the immaterial "mind" or "soul" or whatever they call it. Neither does an idealist. However a naturalist determinist does, since he has to concede that:

A- Atoms aren't rational (in the sense that we are not justified in believing any statement uttered or written by any random assortment of atoms... like a cloud for instance)
B- Somehow our brain (a collection of atoms) IS rational — khaled

What evidence do you have that souls exist? How does an immaterial soul grant organisms rationality? How does an immaterial soul interact with a material body? How would idealism make us rational?

I already explained that our brains are more emotional than rational. Do you see one-minute-old babies produce logical statements? No, you don't. But one-minute-old babies cry when they are cold or hungry. This is because their choice to cry is determined and constrained by their genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I used to be a baby. You used to be a baby, too. When we were babies we could not even read 2+2=4. Yet, now we are both capable of assessing that 2+2=5 is false and 2+2=4 is true. This is due entirely to our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. If we were feral children nurtured by monkeys in the jungle, we would not be able to even read 2+2=4.

In my previous post, I invited you to prove me wrong but you failed to prove me wrong.

Sure, we can do that. We can also explore the following movies if you want to. Have you seen the following movies?

1. The Matrix
2. Predestination
3. Inception
4. The Truman Show

I am surprised that you haven't read the Bible at all. It's the bestselling book in the world so far. Christianity is the most popular religion on Earth. Although, all the Christians I personally know read only selected verses from the Bible instead of the whole Bible.

There are five possibilities when it comes to the real world:

The real word is:

1. Real
2. Simulation
3. Hallucination
4. Dream
5. Illusion

It's not possible for me to test the simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypothesis. Just because they are logical possibilities it does not mean they are actual possibilities. My perceived reality seems far too complex to be anything other than real. I am not completely certain about it but I am almost certain about it.

I am familiar with Christianity. I am an ex-Christian. Have you read the whole Bible? I have. It's the most evil book I have ever read. Please see: https://www.evilbible.com

I think that we have no reason to think they're reliable under a deterministic framework and we have reason to think they're unreliable under that same framework. Namely: Every other physical process is not rational, how come our brains just happen to be?

What reason do we have to think they are unreliable under a deterministic framework? There is nothing irrational about any physical processes e.g. clouds forming shapes. What shapes a cloud forms is entirely deterministic. It occurs due to the laws of physics acting on matter and energy. So, your claim “Every other physical process is not rational” is false.

Perception requires some sort of energy. Sight, hearing, etc, all require different organs which consume energy. Which means evolution has to find what are the most beneficial things to perceive in compairson with how much they take to perceive. It's not like creating an omniscient being is just as "cheap" materially and in terms of food intake as creating something that sees much less. Spiders are almost blind and they survive just fine.

Evolution is not sentient. It doesn’t plan and it doesn’t calculate the best option in terms of costs and benefits. It works through mutation – which occurs due to mistakes. We are all mistakes of nature. Nature doesn’t care if we live or die. This is why 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct and the remaining 0.1% are also at risk of going extinct.

Sight is not the only way to create a model of one’s environment. Spiders have eight eyes which can detect light and darkness. Spiders are highly sensitive to motion. Which helps them survive and reproduce. Have you ever seen a human without any capacity to see, hear, touch, taste, and smell? Would such a human be able to survive without help from other humans? I have seen people in a coma. They were kept alive by machines and doctors and nurses. Without their help, the patients would die.

It is well known our brain doesn't perceive everything. We don't perceive UV, we don't perceive microwaves, we don't have that ability that birds have to detect the magnetic field produced by earth's core to know which direction is north (despite it being a very useful ability, considering how impactful compasses are).

Since we cannot perceive what our brain doesn't perceive (by definition), we cannot know how much we do perceive or how much it is altered by our brains (we know our brain alters perceptions, or else how would optical illusions arise?) So I don't believe the argument from evolution works when you take into account that there is a cost for exact perception which might not be worth the payment. What do you think?

I agree that our brain doesn’t perceive everything. It doesn’t have to perceive everything for humans to survive and reproduce. It has to perceive just enough about hazards such as falling off cliffs or getting eaten by lions to ensure our survival and reproduction.

See, what's what I think, but you tell me there is no "choosing" at all.

That’s not what I said. I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

To prove me wrong, you would have to do only the following:

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.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that your choices have no constraints but even then, your choices will still be determined by the variables (e.g. your experience of reading these words) that produced the choices.

If you contend that we can control what we think about, then we can't be running deterministically right? How can we be in control if everything we think is predetermined?

It is because we are running deterministically that we make the choices we make. I didn't say that our choices are predetermined. They are determined in the present by the interactions of four types of variables which are genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Our choices are both determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. This is why banana trees don’t post on this forum and humans don’t do photosynthesis.

We don’t have complete control over everything we do. The amount of control we have is determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

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

If I had as much control as I would like, I would never do the 27 things I listed.

I understand that there are compatibalist views which support both free will and determinism, but you stated multiple times that you don't believe in those, and that we'd need freedom to have any choice, and so any responsibility. For the last couple of paragraphs though you suddenly mentioned "choice" a dozen times. I'm confused...

We would need to be all-knowing and all-powerful to be able to do everything we want to do and to refrain from doing everything we don’t want to do and to have complete control over everything that exists. I am sorry that you are confused. Has reading everything I have said above helped you to understand what I am talking about? I have never said that we don’t make choices. I have said many times that we make choices and these choices are not free from determinants and constraints. These choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

Yes, your thought experiment about connecting the trigger of a gun to the spin of subatomic particles is interesting. However, that is not how the macroscopic world works. Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world does not exhibit the superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement that exist in the quantum world. Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy.

I hope that I have explained everything clearly. If you have any questions, please ask. If you can prove me wrong, please do. Thank you.

I understand how you feel. Like you, I used to be religious. Like you, I found leaving religion very difficult. If you want to talk more about it, you can send me a private message.

I agree.

I appreciate lots of things but what is ultimately the point of existence? If I could have prevented my existence, I would have done so a long time ago. I am upset about all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. I want to make all living things forever happy, but I can't.

The workings of the brain create perceptions, thoughts, emotions, actions. None of these things are dumb physical processes.

We have no way of knowing the degree of correlation between accurate representations of the world, and evolutionary success, so we cannot assume from evolutionary success that our brains are accurate.

That's not true. If an organism's brain can't produce an accurate enough model of its environment it dies from environmental hazards or predation. The fact that I avoid environmental hazards and predators successfully shows that my brain produces a sufficiently accurate model of the reality I live in.

We can choose to think about a specific topic but the thoughts arise unconsciously. For example, the contents of this post are thoughts that occurred to me as a result of me reading your post. It is not dumb, it is responsive to stimuli.

We subject our thoughts to analysis to work out if the thoughts are rational or irrational. A cloud is not sentient. A cloud has no control over the wind. We are sentient and we can control which topic we choose to think about. A cloud can't analyse the shapes it forms to see if it has formed something irrational or rational.

Quantum decoherence stops quantum indeterminacy from creating macroscopic indeterminacy. At macroscopic levels, events are still deterministic. If you toss a coin, whether it lands on its head or tail depends on the forces acting on it.

I am quoting ChatGPT 4:

Quantum decoherence is a fundamental phenomenon in quantum mechanics where a quantum system loses its quantum properties, like superposition and entanglement, due to interaction with its environment. This process effectively makes the quantum behavior of the system unobservable, making it appear more classical. Here are some key factors that cause quantum decoherence:

Interaction with the Environment: Quantum systems are incredibly sensitive to their surroundings. Even minimal interactions with external particles or fields can cause a quantum system to decohere. This includes interactions with photons, air molecules, or even stray electromagnetic fields.
Loss of Isolation: Quantum coherence, which is the maintenance of quantum states like superposition, requires that the system be isolated from external influences. In practical terms, complete isolation is nearly impossible to achieve, and any exposure to the external environment can lead to decoherence.
Entanglement with the Environment: When a quantum system interacts with the environment, its quantum states can become entangled with those of the environmental particles. This entanglement leads to a redistribution of the quantum information into the environment in a way that can no longer be controlled or observed by examining the system alone.
Thermal Interactions: Temperature and heat are forms of kinetic energy associated with the motion of particles. At higher temperatures, the likelihood and intensity of interactions between the quantum system and its environment increase, leading to faster decoherence.
Measurement and Observation: The act of measurement can lead to decoherence. Measuring a quantum system often involves some form of interaction with it (like photons impacting electrons), which can cause the wave function to collapse to a particular state, effectively causing decoherence.
Decoherence is one of the major challenges in developing quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, as it limits the ability to maintain and manipulate quantum states over time.

Thank you for answering my question.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs.