>>11493528i think one can safely make an argument that understanding humans, as a human, is impossible.
this is basically a variant of "the map is not the territory" argument. a model is not useful if it is just as complicated as the thing it is intended to model. likewise, a model of human behavior that can be understood in a human mind could not possibly represent an adequate slice of human behavior since the model would need to be scaled down so much in order to be comprehensible to a human mind that it could only model a tiny fraction.
here is an example. computer programs exist to simulate how electrical devices work. like one can run a simulation of an FPGA board on one's computer. one might consider running a simulation of one's computer on one's computer. but you could never really do it adequately -- it would take you orders of magnitude longer to simulate your computer on your computer than it would take your computer to just run.
i am trying to express something here but if it is unclear i can clarify
