Is to be Able to Predict Someone's Behavior to Know that Person?

[Sunstone]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm not sure. I think all you could really say is "I know them very well."

Think of all the failed marriages where two people thought they knew everything about each other.

Good question, though.

 

[sun rise]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person to a second party observer? Why or why not?

My problem is that I can't predict my own behavior with 100% accuracy ahead of time.

So my answer is 'no' on the basis of self-observation.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure. I think all you could really say is "I know them very well."

Think of all the failed marriages where two people thought they knew everything about each other.

Good question, though.

Are couples ever able to predict each other's behavior with 100% accuracy, as stated in the OP?

 

[Sunstone]

My problem is that I can't predict my own behavior with 100% accuracy ahead of time.

So my answer is 'no' on the basis of self-observation.

So, you're refusing to treat the question as a hypothetical, as requested in the OP?

How boring. The question as stated is a good one. But to turn it into a trite bit of fluff strikes me as downright boring. Please, no offense intended. I'm just venting.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Are couples ever able to predict each other's behavior with 100% accuracy, as stated in the OP?

No but since the statement that people can predict with 100% accuracy is at it stands unproven, the best I know how to answer is the closeness of a couple. And I'm not saying that you haven't seen non-couples that can predict each other with 100% accuracy, I'm just saying it's unlikely... maybe it'd come close if we considered the close connection of twins.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So, you're refusing to treat the question as a hypothetical, as requested in the OP?

How boring. The question as stated is a good one. But to turn it into a trite bit of fluff strikes me as downright boring. Please, no offense intended. I'm just venting.

It's an impossible question because you seemed to want to consider things in a vacuum, since no real world examples were cited... yet the rules of this vacuum were not cited. Like whether betrayal exists in such a world.

 

[MNoBody]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

the OP brought to mind the idea that perhaps how the others are known may have other sides to it.
in that, are people really feeling, or do they just feel real?
or do they feel that they know someone perfectly, or are they really feeling them as the authentic being they are?
we shall see is about all one can say, at that point, and when you do see, then how do you feel about it?

 

[Eyes to See]

View attachment 44041 View attachment 44042
the OP brought to mind the idea that perhaps how the others are known may have other sides to it.
in that, are people really feeling, or do they just feel real?
or do they feel that they know someone perfectly, or are they really feeling them as the authentic being they are?
we shall see is about all one can say, at that point, and when you do see, then how do you feel about it?

That statement reminds me of a video I was watching on intuition.

Intuition is more than meets the eye. The human mind can only consciously focus on one thing at a time. (The idea of multitasking is really a bad one. People who do multitask actually perform poorer.) On the other hand, the human mind is processing billions of bits of data every millisecond, that your conscious self is never made aware of. And not only that, we have what is termed a "second brain" in the gut. It's actually a quite extraordinary thing. These things in combination working without our conscious selves are able to come to conclusions and give you feelings of impending danger, something is off, etc. It's a real thing.

 

[MNoBody]

That statement reminds me of a video I was watching on intuition.

Intuition is more than meets the eye. The human mind can only consciously focus on one thing at a time. (The idea of multitasking is really a bad one. People who do multitask actually perform poorer.) On the other hand, the human mind is processing billions of bits of data every millisecond, that your conscious self is never made aware of. And not only that, we have what is termed a "second brain" in the gut. It's actually a quite extraordinary thing. These things in combination working without our conscious selves are able to come to conclusions and give you feelings of impending danger, something is off, etc. It's a real thing.

you may find this site of some interest to peruse
HeartMath Institute
a snippet from the site
Heart-Brain Communication
Traditionally, the study of communication pathways between the head and heart has been approached from a rather one-sided perspective, with scientists focusing primarily on the heart’s responses to the brain’s commands. We have learned, however, that communication between the heart and brain actually is a dynamic, ongoing, two-way dialogue, with each organ continuously influencing the other’s function. Research has shown that the heart communicates to the brain in four major ways: neurologically (through the transmission of nerve impulses), biochemically (via hormones and neurotransmitters), biophysically (through pressure waves) and energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Communication along all these conduits significantly affects the brain’s activity. Moreover, our research shows that messages the heart sends to the brain also can affect performance.

The heart communicates with the brain and body in four ways:

• Neurological communication (nervous system)
• Biochemical communication (hormones)
• Biophysical communication (pulse wave)
• Energetic communication (electromagnetic fields)

Some of the first researchers in the field of psychophysiology to examine the interactions between the heart and brain were John and Beatrice Lacey. During 20 years of research throughout the 1960s and ’70s, they observed that the heart communicates with the brain in ways that significantly affect how we perceive and react to the world.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

I don't know. The question is obviously hypothetical, but it's hard to imagine being able to 100% predict my own behaviour accurately, yet I would legitimately say I know myself. So if that is the bar, knowing someone 100% kinda suggests I DO know them.
However...theoretically...I could predict their behaviour, yet not understand their rationale. That could be because I misinterpret their rationale for something.
A somewhat forced example (also hypothetical);

It might be that in my background I don't consider 'LOVE' anything more than a concept we dress up. There is not true love, there is a mix of lust and loyalty we have written poems about to convince ourselves we are more than base insticts.
I might know someone who consistently acts as if they love someone. Thoughtful little notes, considerate behaviour, etc. This might allow me to accurately predict behaviour, but not truly understand the person.

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

Less likely. One is a process based on completely rational thought, and the other is quantum mechanics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are couples ever able to predict each other's behavior with 100% accuracy, as stated in the OP?

Nope. I can make a good stab at it, and I'm correct a fair amount of the time (so maybe 'ever' is possible if the actions are small and simple) but I can't even predict my own actions in any complex detail (which I'm assuming is what 100% means). And I've known myself for quite a while now. Certainly longer than I like to admit.

 

[Mindmaster]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

It depends on the person... If they're growth/development oriented then no... Not at all. Your previous information from years back barely matters. I sometimes go back and read my old messages and tweets and just kind look at them and go, "What the hell was that guy thinking?"

I'm sure whatever algorithms in the social media I use are equally perplexed. If someone is the type that just hardens their beliefs then I guess the past information applies, but those who are trying to grow much of it quickly becomes invalid. I mean, if you met me here and go on the 'ten year back info' (which you could do) I'm just so much chiller than that guy, lol.

Anyway, I think most people grow in subtle ways and it's going to be something you miss by working with that information. I try to keep my ear to the ground and not have my mind so made up on people. They might be X or Y now, but they aren't always going to be that necessarily. Few people hold most of their beliefs their entire lives, and their experience and needs change them drastically.

 

[crossfire]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

There are other things a second party observer can know other than behavior. A second party observer can take measurements such as height, weight, temperature, blood pressure, blood cell count, COVID test results, etc.

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

No, but one might become more comfortable with Uncertainty.

 

[exchemist]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

Yes, from a practical point of view I do not see what else there is to know about a person - or indeed any observable system - once one can predict its behaviour with complete accuracy.

I suppose, though, that thinking about this as a problem in science, one would have to add the caveat that one could never know for sure that one would always be able to predict a person's behaviour accurately. There could always in principle be some new observation that did not fit the model.

So in practice one could never claim to know another person completely.

 

[joe1776]

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

No, since it's conceivable that the method used to predict someone's behavior would not inform the observer on why they behaved as they did.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, from a practical point of view I do not see what else there is to know about a person - or indeed any observable system - once one can predict its behaviour with complete accuracy.

I suppose, though, that thinking about this as a problem in science, one would have to add the caveat that one could never know for sure that one would always be able to predict a person's behaviour accurately. There could always in principle be some new observation that did not fit the model.

So in practice one could never claim to know another person completely.

I mostly agree with this but would answer no, since there might be something that the person has never experienced (and the observer too) such that how they react to such is unknown, even if one might presume to do so on previous evidence. But if the new thing is unlike anything else (can't really think of an example though) then how would one know?

 

[Secret Chief]

To accept the premise seems to suggest acceptance that free will is a comforting illusion.

 

[PureX]

Knowing what they will do yet not knowing why they do it ... is not knowing the person.

 

[Brian2]

Assume for the purpose of discussion that you could predict a certain person's behavior with 100% accuracy. That is total and complete accuracy in every instance.

Could it be legitimately said that you knew everything that could be known about that person by a second party observer? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: If you could even in theory predict what @SalixIncendium will consider fashionable a year from now, are you more or less likely to find quantum mechanics a whiz to get by in?

It's hard to know what motivates someone even if you can predict how they will react or what they will do.