“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[steve_bank]

Aha!!! A libertarian in sheep's clothing so to speak.

The craziness always manifests in the long term.

About 40,000 deaths per year out of a population of about 300 million.

Deaths per 100,00 peaked at 28 around 1930 and slowly declines to around 10 today.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Impaired driving due to drugs, alcohol and now pot are a major cause of traffic accidents.

Libertarian voluntary cooperation is chaos and anarchy.

I would lie to take 100,000 anti authority types, put them on an island with methought resources for all of them to live if they work tiogether, give them guns, and see how long it takes before they all start fighting over reources and power.

 

[Elixir]

It is still true that "more people are killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend"

lol! Very true.
Of course we can’t begin to comprehend how many people die every day from needless causes. I guess it’s all relative.
We should probably rate causes in terms of percentages of daily gun death numbers.
I think that still gets car accidents a .95+ rating.

 

[pood]

Aha!!! A libertarian in sheep's clothing so to speak.

I don’t think peacegirl is a political libertarian, and certainly not a free will libertarian.

However, if she were either, I suppose it would be better than being a liar in wolf’s clothing.

However, that’s an inside joke.

 

[bilby]

He wrote this years ago and we still have a very troubling problem. It is still true that "more people are killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend" and with all of the police and all of the laws to deter careless and negligent driving, the problem still exists.

... and will do so as long as driving cars is a common activity.

I am directly and continuously engaged in road safety; It's my job.

Reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the road is a hugely complex and difficult process, and driver attitudes and behaviours are one of the most intractible areas of concern.

The idea that some amateur philosopher who believes himself qualified to comment because he drives a car occasionally can help solve this problem is beyond absurd; People who believe themselves competent on the basis of very limited personal experience are both a major cause and a notable symptom of the wider problem. They are not a route to any solutions.

 

[peacegirl]

Aha!!! A libertarian in sheep's clothing so to speak.

The craziness always manifests in the long term.

About 40,000 deaths per year out of a population of about 300 million.

Deaths per 100,00 peaked at 28 around 1930 and slowly declines to around 10 today.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Impaired driving due to drugs, alcohol and now pot are a major cause of traffic accidents.

Libertarian voluntary cooperation is chaos and anarchy.

I would lie to take 100,000 anti authority types, put them on an island with methought resources for all of them to live if they work tiogether, give them guns, and see how long it takes before they all start fighting over reources and power.

Are you saying that 40,000 deaths or any preventable deaths on the road are acceptable? I don't understand what you're even defending. Yes, there are safer cars on the road (thank goodness), and there are many careful drivers out there, but there still too many fatalities and injuries due to risky driving. This has nothing to do with libertarian politics. If you are considered the cream of the crop, there's no hope for me!

 

[peacegirl]

He wrote this years ago and we still have a very troubling problem. It is still true that "more people are killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend" and with all of the police and all of the laws to deter careless and negligent driving, the problem still exists.

... and will do so as long as driving cars is a common activity.

I am directly and continuously engaged in road safety; It's my job.

And you say that the problem will do so as driving cars is a common activity, which shows me once again that you read nothing. I am not discussing the terrible situation on the roads in today's world. I am showing how conscience, under the changed environmental conditions, will force a change in attitude because of the terrible consequences of hurting someone without justification. Of course you don't get it. You and Steve haven't asked one pertinent question that would show me you understood anything.

Reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the road is a hugely complex and difficult process, and driver attitudes and behaviours are one of the most intractible areas of concern.

Very true. In this world, it is very easy to care less about the collateral damage of risky driving as long as this individual has the advance justification to give to the authorities, should someone die or get seriously injured as a result. Risky drivers often don't care about anybody but themselves and their desires irrespective of who gets hurt. This is what is prevented. Carelessness is not just about driving; it's about anything a person does negligently and applies to all situations that could cause harm.

The idea that some amateur philosopher who believes himself qualified to comment because he drives a car occasionally can help solve this problem is beyond absurd; People who believe themselves competent on the basis of very limited personal experience are both a major cause and a notable symptom of the wider problem. They are not a route to any solutions.

You are making all kinds of assumptions. Um, how do you know this person was an amateur philosopher? Because he wasn't known? How do you know he wasn't competent? And how do you know what limited personal experience he had. More importantly, what does this have to do with his observations after years and years of study? This IS a symptom of a larger problem for sure, which has much to do with the arrogance that I see. I hope this just occurs in philosophy forums because this is what I have encountered. I do not mean to say that in order for people not to be arrogant that they have to agree. But in order to agree or disagree, they should have questions to make sure they understand what they are reading. You have no questions, no curiosity, no nothing. And btw, I'm not a libertarian. We need laws more than ever due to online crime and AI threats. We need cameras and police funding that can help reduce criminal behavior. But imagine a world in which these things are no longer needed. Until then, I'm so glad we have data bases and DNA technology to catch the thieves and the killers. I'm asking you to please stop posting because YOU are a symptom of the wider problem.

 

[bilby]

Self assessment of competence in any field is a non-starter, because as Dunning and Kruger pointed out, incompetence not only renders any assessment of competence invalid, but also entails the inability to comprehend the invalidity of that assessment.

Or as John Cleese summarised it:

'I think the problem with people like this is that they are so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are.'

The ubiquity of driver's licences inevitably and unavoidably leads to a great deal of this kind of incompetence amongst drivers.

Making people aware of the consequences of poor driving decisions (including, but certainly not limited to, the decision to drive at all), is not so much ineffective as it is impossible and futile.

People generally don't think it will happen to them until it has, and they generally don't think that they are responsible for it even after it has.

Suggesting that they should is as valuable as suggesting to a blind man that he should just try being able to see.

 

[bilby]

Risky drivers often don't care about anybody but themselves and their desires irrespective of who gets hurt.

Not so. Most risky drivers genuinely and honestly believe that they are competent to avoid hurting themselves or others.

And you cannot dissuade them from this belief. Even after it has been forcibly demonstrated to them, many refuse to accept it.

There are some genuinely reckless, even psychopathic, drivers, who don't care whether or not they or others are hurt, but such individuals form an utterly minuscule fraction of drivers who have crashes.

Most risky drivers are oblivious of the fact that they are endangering anyone; They care deeply about avoiding injury to temselves or others, but are completely unaware that their behaviour carries a significant risk of that consequence.

It's in large part because humans are innately bad at understanding small probabilities. We consider a one in a thousand chance of an outcome to be close enough to zero as to make no difference. Even a one in ten chance feels too small to worry about. But if we take a one in a thousand chance every day, it is unlikely that we will be able to drive for more than about three years without an at-fault crash.

Persuading people to be averse to a risk that small is almost impossible, and becomes harder the more often they have taken that risk without consequence - and for low probability risks, it's very likely that they will get away without consequence many times, each time increasing their (misplaced) confidence that they are not really taking a risk at all.

Humans suck at probability assessment; That's why we still have casinos and lotteries.

And it's why we will always have crashes on the roads, as long as it is physically possible for people to take risks while driving.

 

[steve_bank]

Aha!!! A libertarian in sheep's clothing so to speak.

The craziness always manifests in the long term.

About 40,000 deaths per year out of a population of about 300 million.

Deaths per 100,00 peaked at 28 around 1930 and slowly declines to around 10 today.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Impaired driving due to drugs, alcohol and now pot are a major cause of traffic accidents.

Libertarian voluntary cooperation is chaos and anarchy.

I would lie to take 100,000 anti authority types, put them on an island with methought resources for all of them to live if they work tiogether, give them guns, and see how long it takes before they all start fighting over reources and power.

Are you saying that 40,000 deaths or any preventable deaths on the road are acceptable? I don't understand what you're even defending. Yes, there are safer cars on the road (thank goodness), and there are many careful drivers out there, but there still too many fatalities and injuries due to risky driving. This has nothing to do with libertarian politics. If you are considered the cream of the crop, there's no hope for me!

As somebody posed you have to look in context of all other risks.

Takee a llok at home risks of injury and death. Kids drowsing in pools.


In one of my incarnations I was an engineering reliability engineer, you can minimize but never eliminate risk. There is a pont of minmizng risk.

Every tine you get in a car or plane there is a risk of death or injury. It will never be zero.

I would argue considering traffic speeds and the number of drivers on the road every day the number of deaths per year are low. per year is low.

I don't know how you got from determinism to saying getting rid of government driver licensing and having guidelines instead of laws will make driving safer, but it is a naive view.

If you want to improve safety limit car speeds to 20 miles per hour, make cars at 20 mph crash proof, and have a zero blood alcohol and recreational drug limit for driving.

Human nature, even with laws and punishments drivers intentionally speed and drive recklessly.

Here in the area illegal street racing has become a problem.

The threat of loss of licence and higher insyrnce rates keeps most of us but not all of us in line.

 

[peacegirl]

Self assessment of competence in any field is a non-starter, because as Dunning and Kruger pointed out, incompetence not only renders any assessment of competence invalid, but also entails the inability to comprehend the invalidity of that assessment.

Or as John Cleese summarised it:

'I think the problem with people like this is that they are so stupid that they have no idea how stupid they are.'

The ubiquity of driver's licences inevitably and unavoidably leads to a great deal of this kind of incompetence amongst drivers.

Making people aware of the consequences of poor driving decisions (including, but certainly not limited to, the decision to drive at all), is not so much ineffective as it is impossible and futile.

I agree with you that new drivers don't know all of the risks, or they think they're invincible. But it also boils down to responsibility and many kids have grown up to care only their own needs, wants, and desires without any thought to the risk to others.

People generally don't think it will happen to them until it has, and they generally don't think that they are responsible for it even after it has.

Suggesting that they should is as valuable as suggesting to a blind man that he should just try being able to see.

The fact that they generally don't think that they are responsible even after it has happened is exactly what this discovery addresses so that these accidents won't occur. Children learn early on how to be responsible if that was part of their upbringing. It is not inevitable that preventable accidents are here to stay. This is not like teaching a blind man that he should be able to see because that's impossible. It's not impossible to teach new drivers what causes accidents and what they can do to avoid them. It is giving them careful instruction to help them see what could happen if they take chances. If they are unable to follow the do's and don'ts of good driving, and they can't see that this can happen to them just as much as anyone if they take the risk, then why does the government give them a license? Rhetorical question. No need to answer.

 

[Elixir]

It doesn’t further anything to bemoan the state of affairs, or “kids these days” or whatever. Painting groups of people with a broad brush doesn’t help much either.
Smart people do dumb stuff, good people do bad stuff and Vice versa. Magic mass alteration of everyone’s behavior isn’t going to change that. Lots of things can make incremental differences but societal miracle cures flat don’t exist and IMO never will, due to the biophysical constraints of life on earth.

 

[bilby]

I agree with you that new drivers don't know all of the risks, or they think they're invincible.

I am not talking about new drivers. I am not even talking about people who drive for only a few hours a day, or who have had no driver training since they got their first licence.

My comments apply equally - indeed, perhsps more so - to professional drivers, and to drivers with higher licence classes, who have passed several driving tests of increasing difficulty, and who are given ongoing and continuous training on a regular basis.

But it also boils down to responsibility and many kids have grown up to care only their own needs, wants, and desires without any thought to the risk to others.

That's a popular idea, and has a grain of truth in it. But it's a very small part of the problem. Most at-fault drivers in most crashes are not selfish, and do not act without consideration for others as a consequence of their selfishness.

This is what the psychologists call "fundamental attribution problem"; When I do something risky while driving, it's because I am tired, or have to deal with an urgent situation, or made an honest but very rare mistake, or some other good reason; But when someone else does the same thing, it's because they are selfish, or heartless, or malicious, or stupid.

Normal humans are always quick to excuse themselves, and quick to condemn others.

The fact that they generally don't think that they are responsible even after it has happened is exactly what this discovery addresses so that these accidents won't occur.

Nothing you have posted qualifies as a "discovery", and none of it is capable of addressing this problem, which is a basic psychological defence mechanism without which we would all be paralysed by fear of our own shortcomings.

Children learn early on how to be responsible if that was part of their upbringing.

No, they really don't. They learn how to avoid getting caught.

It is not inevitable that preventable accidents are here to stay.

Yes, it absolutely is. Humans aren't capable of eliminating all accidents.

This is not like teaching a blind man that he should be able to see because that's impossible. It's not impossible to teach new drivers what causes accidents and what they can do to avoid them.

Of course it's not. But it IS impossible to have them apply that knowledge perfectly, 100% of the time.

It is giving them careful instruction to help them see what could happen if they take chances. If they are unable to follow the do's and don'ts of good driving, and they can't see that this can happen to them just as much as anyone if they take the risk, then why does the government give them a license?

A driver's licence is only intended to show that a person is able to be trusted to continue learning without direct supervision in real-time. It is the absolute minimum standard to be allowed on public roads. It absolutely does not identify the holder as a "competent driver", for any given value of "competent".

Rhetorical question. No need to answer.

Perhaps you should think harder about that question; And about why you think the answer is so obvious that it makes a rhetorical point, while I think it shows your lack of a deep understanding of the subject.

 

[Elixir]

Back in the day there was Drivers Ed in public school… part of it was gory films. Also some useful classroom stuff about cornering g forces, centers of gravity and all, but iirc everyone’s favorite part was the aversion training. It did sorta give one the fear of becoming road pizza, which likely did more to prevent accidents than driving super slow in a car with a big DRIVER TRAINING sign on the roof.

ETA: I gotta get me one of those signs. I remember being amazed at the berth other drivers would give.

 

[peacegirl]

It doesn’t further anything to bemoan the state of affairs, or “kids these days” or whatever. Painting groups of people with a broad brush doesn’t help much either.
Smart people do dumb stuff, good people do bad stuff and Vice versa. Magic mass alteration of everyone’s behavior isn’t going to change that. Lots of things can make incremental differences but societal miracle cures flat don’t exist and IMO never will, due to the biophysical constraints of life on earth.

It’s not true that human conduct cannot change for the better once there is a 180 degree turnabout as we understand truth of our nature and apply it. Your vision is myopic.

 

[steve_bank]

Hope springs eternal.

 

[DBT]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

The past is gone and the future is yet to happen, yet the system - if deterministic - progresses or evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or realizable alternate actions.

Each and every point in the past was a present state of the system, as shall each and every point in time in all future states of the system.

But you continue to omit that humans are part of the deterministic process, and not mindless meat puppets of the big bang. Deterministically, a menu of options is generated from which humans can determine the next output in the system.

I don't.

I have said many times that the human part of a deterministic world is inseparable from it.

Being inseparable, humans are a part or aspect of the evolution or progression of the events of the system.

If it is a deterministic system, everything you see, feel, think and do is inseparable from the progression of events that is the system, where nothing is able to act independent of it. If it did, it would not be a deterministic system.

Of course, but that’s the compatibilist position you deny.

But I don't deny the compatibilist definition of determinism. Never have and never will. I agree with it. Just as I agree with your constant conjunction.

The given definition of determinism is not the issue. It never has been.

The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.

That's where you refer to the given and agreed upon definition of determinism.


Constant Conjuction
Term used by Hume to describe the relation between two events one of which invariably accompanies the other. If catching influenza is always followed by fever, these events are 'constantly conjoined'; if there is no smoke without fire, there is a constant conjunction between the production of smoke and burning........''

​

That's all well and good, but smoke and fire are happening at the moment it happens (in the present). The point he was making is that a person can't use the excuse that the past caused him to act in a certain way; that he shot someone against his will because something other than himself made him do it. This is not true because there is nothing in this world (the past included) that can make a person do something unless he wants to do it, which means he has to give consent before something is done.

Smoke and fire is happening in the present moment. Nevertheless, there can be no smoke or fire without antecedent conditions and events that produced the current conditions of smoke and fire. That is the point. That the smoke and fire does not pop out of a vacuum.

Nor do you 'choose to go into space' out of the blue. The right conditions must be present, which requires progress in science, the person 'choosing to go into space' must have the aptitude and training, etc, etc......where the option to 'choose to go into space' is not open to most of the worlds population.

Nor does determinism mean that we are forced to do what we do.

 

[DBT]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

The past is gone and the future is yet to happen, yet the system - if deterministic - progresses or evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or realizable alternate actions.

Each and every point in the past was a present state of the system, as shall each and every point in time in all future states of the system.

But you continue to omit that humans are part of the deterministic process, and not mindless meat puppets of the big bang. Deterministically, a menu of options is generated from which humans can determine the next output in the system.

I don't.

I have said many times that the human part of a deterministic world is inseparable from it.

Being inseparable, humans are a part or aspect of the evolution or progression of the events of the system.

If it is a deterministic system, everything you see, feel, think and do is inseparable from the progression of events that is the system, where nothing is able to act independent of it. If it did, it would not be a deterministic system.

Of course, but that’s the compatibilist position you deny.

But I don't deny the compatibilist definition of determinism. Never have and never will. I agree with it. Just as I agree with your constant conjunction.

The given definition of determinism is not the issue. It never has been.

The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.

That's where you refer to the given and agreed upon definition of determinism.


Constant Conjuction
Term used by Hume to describe the relation between two events one of which invariably accompanies the other. If catching influenza is always followed by fever, these events are 'constantly conjoined'; if there is no smoke without fire, there is a constant conjunction between the production of smoke and burning........''

​

I initially raised “constant conjunction” in one of the other threads to make the point that the phrase, as Hume uses it, says nothing about free will or, for that matter, determinism.

Yes you did. And the point is that there is no real disagreement on the given definition of determinism, not the compatibilist definition, not Hume's.

The issue has always been the disputed definition of free will in relation to the undisputed definition of determinism.

“Constant conjunction” refers to the idea that when we observe over many instances event B following event A, then they are in “constant conjunction” and we infer from this observation that event A causes event B. However, we do not KNOW this — does, for example, the crowing of the rooster followed by the rise of the sun mean the rooster caused the sun to rise? — and, further, constant conjunction is undermined by Hume’s own Problem of Induction

Perhaps the truly relevant point, though, is that Hume was a compatibilist, and believed we are morally responsible for our actions, provided they are consistent with our known character and not because of some fleeting or erratic, uncharacteristic urge (such as going mad). It therefore seems perverse to invoke his thesis of “constant conjunction” in defense of HARD determinism, because he himself believed no such thing can be derived from his own thesis.

It doesn't matter that Hume was a compatibilist, the point in this instance is that the given definition of determinism is not being disputed.

It is the implications of the given undisputed definition of determinism that is the point of contention.

For instance, you said; ''The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.''

Yet as determinism is defined, there are no alternate actions in any given instance that an option is realized, where the option that is taken is necessarily taken.

Most of the world's population don't get the option to go into space. Some have the right stuff, they are in the right place, they have the desire and the drive, they are selected for a mission from pool of qualified people, etc, etc.


.

 

[peacegirl]

Aha!!! A libertarian in sheep's clothing so to speak.

The craziness always manifests in the long term.

About 40,000 deaths per year out of a population of about 300 million.

Deaths per 100,00 peaked at 28 around 1930 and slowly declines to around 10 today.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Impaired driving due to drugs, alcohol and now pot are a major cause of traffic accidents.

Libertarian voluntary cooperation is chaos and anarchy.

I would lie to take 100,000 anti authority types, put them on an island with methought resources for all of them to live if they work tiogether, give them guns, and see how long it takes before they all start fighting over reources and power.

Are you saying that 40,000 deaths or any preventable deaths on the road are acceptable? I don't understand what you're even defending. Yes, there are safer cars on the road (thank goodness), and there are many careful drivers out there, but there still too many fatalities and injuries due to risky driving. This has nothing to do with libertarian politics. If you are considered the cream of the crop, there's no hope for me!

As somebody posed you have to look in context of all other risks.

Takee a llok at home risks of injury and death. Kids drowsing in pools.

This chapter is not just about car accidents. It's about carelessness in general which will be reduced greatly. Please don't make this all or nothing.

In one of my incarnations I was an engineering reliability engineer, you can minimize but never eliminate risk. There is a pont of minmizng risk.

Every tine you get in a car or plane there is a risk of death or injury. It will never be zero.

Let's not talk about zero because this is becoming a stumbling block. There could be a minimal number of accidents that could not be prevented, such as birds flying into a plane's engine or some natural catastrophe. Let's not lose the forest from the trees, that is, preventable accidents can go down by a landslide with a complete change in environment, which includes how children will be raised. Right now, many adolescents (not all) hate the system and will try to beat it whenever they have an opportunity. It's a challenge to them. They may also want to get the prestige that being a big shot gives them due to not having had unconditional love growing up, which is essential for a healthy self-esteem. They are willing to take chances to get the attention they crave knowing that, if caught, they will have to pay a price for their bad behavior. Whatever the reason for their actions, it is the ADVANCE justification that allows them to go ahead with their plans.

I would argue considering traffic speeds and the number of drivers on the road every day the number of deaths per year are low. per year is low.

I disagree. When you say low, in comparison to what? Does low mean that we shouldn't keep trying to make it closer to zero? The carnage we see on the news every day is heartbreaking. Should they say, "Well, there have only been 50,000 deaths this year so at least we're doing better than last year? Are 50,000 deaths acceptable?

I don't know how you got from determinism to saying getting rid of government driver licensing and having guidelines instead of laws will make driving safer, but it is a naive view.

If you want to improve safety limit car speeds to 20 miles per hour, make cars at 20 mph crash proof, and have a zero blood alcohol and recreational drug limit for driving.

It's not necessary to restrict people to driving at such a low speed, although speed is one of the major factors in fatalities on the road. This, as well as driving while under the influence, is part of every school and will continue. The difference is that young drivers will want to know all of the do's and don'ts of good driving because they will have been brought up in a completely different environment and will not want to be responsible for hurting or killing others whether it's through driving or any other activity where they would be responsible.

Human nature, even with laws and punishments drivers intentionally speed and drive recklessly.

Please don't teach me about human nature.

Here in the area illegal street racing has become a problem.

The threat of loss of licence and higher insyrnce rates keeps most of us but not all of us in line.

Yes, that's the only deterrent we have at this time. Threats from the law may be a deterrent for some, but it's far from stopping those people who are the most dangerous and who don't care about threats. They want to see what they can get away with which is exciting. There is a better way and if people don't want to listen, that's on them.

 

[peacegirl]

It is still true that "more people are killed in car accidents than we can fully comprehend"

lol! Very true.
Of course we can’t begin to comprehend how many people die every day from needless causes. I guess it’s all relative.
We should probably rate causes in terms of percentages of daily gun death numbers.
I think that still gets car accidents a .95+ rating.

Divvying up numbers from all-cause mortality won't be necessary when all causes of negligent and careless behavior will be virtually non-existent. Again, please don't get caught up with numbers by saying we will never have zero accidents.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

The past is gone and the future is yet to happen, yet the system - if deterministic - progresses or evolves from past to present and future states of the system without deviation or realizable alternate actions.

Each and every point in the past was a present state of the system, as shall each and every point in time in all future states of the system.

But you continue to omit that humans are part of the deterministic process, and not mindless meat puppets of the big bang. Deterministically, a menu of options is generated from which humans can determine the next output in the system.

I don't.

I have said many times that the human part of a deterministic world is inseparable from it.

Being inseparable, humans are a part or aspect of the evolution or progression of the events of the system.

If it is a deterministic system, everything you see, feel, think and do is inseparable from the progression of events that is the system, where nothing is able to act independent of it. If it did, it would not be a deterministic system.

Of course, but that’s the compatibilist position you deny.

But I don't deny the compatibilist definition of determinism. Never have and never will. I agree with it. Just as I agree with your constant conjunction.

The given definition of determinism is not the issue. It never has been.

The difference between the earth moving through space and an astronaut moving through the space is that the earth does not choose to do so, but the astronaut does.

That's where you refer to the given and agreed upon definition of determinism.


Constant Conjuction
Term used by Hume to describe the relation between two events one of which invariably accompanies the other. If catching influenza is always followed by fever, these events are 'constantly conjoined'; if there is no smoke without fire, there is a constant conjunction between the production of smoke and burning........''

​

That's all well and good, but smoke and fire are happening at the moment it happens (in the present). The point he was making is that a person can't use the excuse that the past caused him to act in a certain way; that he shot someone against his will because something other than himself made him do it. This is not true because there is nothing in this world (the past included) that can make a person do something unless he wants to do it, which means he has to give consent before something is done.

Smoke and fire is happening in the present moment. Nevertheless, there can be no smoke or fire without antecedent conditions and events that produced the current conditions of smoke and fire. That is the point. That the smoke and fire does not pop out of a vacuum.

No one said it does. All that is being said is that the smoke that is causing the fire is happening in the now, not in the past.

Nor do you 'choose to go into space' out of the blue. The right conditions must be present, which requires progress in science, the person 'choosing to go into space' must have the aptitude and training, etc, etc......where the option to 'choose to go into space' is not open to most of the worlds population.

Nor does determinism mean that we are forced to do what we do.

I'm glad you are in agreement. Many people think that determinism means being forced, by previous events (in a causal chain similar to dominoes being knocked over) to do what they do, even if it's against their will. But their will is involved in the choices they make. They must agree or give consent to whatever choice is being made. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive.