>>917419821You have a brain in your head that you've never seen, you could go to a doctor and they'd give you a picture made with a machine that you likely don't understand.
Ask him "this thing is responsible for my thinking?" and even if he tried to explain it to you he would at some point have to admit that science simply doesn't know how exactly your body produces thoughts.
Your memories are a holey, wonky mess, but you piece them together and have a feeling of the past. You literally have no way to determine whether those things actually happened or your brain made them up. Better yet: If these memories appeared out of thin air, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference. But we call that implausible, because worrying about this possibility all the time would disrupt our lives.
You believe that if you walk over the traffic light when it's green the cars will stop, but they could really just drive right through you anytime they wanted. Even then, looking at one of the cars, how do you know your eyes aren't just malfunctioning, and there are no cars there? Statistics and physics models tell you it's improbable. But just mathematically, if you got into those models (I do that for a living), then you would realize that our understanding of probability is, once again, made up, based on our faith in consistency, based on what models have been succesful in guiding us through our everyday lives.
And all the past experiences that the models you trust in are based on are history and data you haven't generated. And even if you did, you would know that it only seems likely that this data has anything to do with real circumstances and isn't randomly showing patterns that aren't there.
There isn't even a good definition for "human". Even the most well defined interpretations of mathematics have holes. Everything you define is based on other definitions, at the end of that chain of definition stands a child that learns from extrapolating a vague mental image of everything.
