Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Dec 15, 2021 03:07 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]My father’s death was due to the negligence of a physician. I made sure that everyone in charge was aware of it. I didn’t sue, much less think that he deserved to be sentenced to prison. Mistakes and accidents happen.

Having a belief in determinism increases your determination to do better. We can’t use the excuses that free will affords.

"Of these "inward facts" that seem to demonstrate causality, the primary and most persuasive one is that of the will as cause." —Nietzsche

There are accidents and then there is gross negligence (which in medicine routinely results in people losing their medical license, and opens them and their hospital up to costly suits), like operating a deadly weapon without the proper understanding and taking no responsibility in the moment...the over 3 minute and 6 mile moment.

If you believe in determinism, you have no choice in whether you do better or not. Determinism is the excuse that you couldn't have done otherwise, while free will is the belief that you are responsible for everything you do. Your mental gymnastics have made you reverse those two. That's some serious motivated reasoning there.

But do tell, what excuses do you imagine belief in free will affords? Holding others responsible for their own actions?
Are you that afraid of being held accountable for your own?

If this were an aircraft accident the report might be along the lines of:

1/ All trucks must have Jake braking and the driver must be competant to use it.
2/ Drivers must be accompanied by an experienced driver when taking a route for the first time.

A fail on either point results in the automatic confiscation of the truck and prosecution of the driver and anyone else implicated in the offence.

In fairness this is intended to remove (some) 'individual responsibility' and hopefully reduce the number of people weeping in court. In my experience not everyone is as wise as Syne - some don't want to be vaccinated or wear masks - the weeping is by the bedside.

(Dec 15, 2021 03:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]If you believe in determinism, you have no choice in whether you do better or not. Determinism is the excuse that you couldn't have done otherwise, while free will is the belief that you are responsible for everything you do. Your mental gymnastics have made you reverse those two. That's some serious motivated reasoning there.

But do tell, what excuses do you imagine belief in free will affords? Holding others responsible for their own actions?
Are you that afraid of being held accountable for your own?

If I am determined to do better then so be it. My choices may be predetermined but they're still mine.

"We need to understand what we are, not what we wish to be. We need to understand how precious and incredible matter is, and how precious you are. It is not demeaning, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else. What more could you possibly ask for?"— R. Llinás

Doctored up Nietzsche…

BTW, whatever happened to GOD’S WILL? Ah, yes, we became like Gods, to know good and evil.

Free will means lack of necessity, lack of any causality, and absolute chance. There are no ancestors, no external influence, no field of sensuous occurrences, and no God. The WILL desires to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s own actions. As Nietzsche said, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.

"When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."—Gospel of Thomas

"WE CHOOSE A CHANCE" or "A CHANCE CHOOSES US"?

What is the WILL?

I am the creator, says the WILL! A seer of what is to come—a future itself, and a bridge to the future. The WILL cries out…I laugh and mock the present because it is I that knows how to live. I am the composer, riddle-reader, and redeemer of chance! I cook every chance in my pot. And only when it hath been quite cooked do I welcome it as my food.

What does the WILL want? The WILL wants redemption—to become the great redeemer. He takes "IT WAS" and turns it into "THUS I WOULD HAVE IT." The WILL is a malicious spectator of all that is past and it takes revenge. Thus did the WILL, the emancipator, become a torturer. The WILL is capable of suffering. Yes, this GREAT EMANCIPATOR—the WILL itself is in chains, and each link is a past. The will is a prisoner of the past and it takes revenge because it cannot go backwards.

Truly, a great folly dwells in our Will; and it became a curse to all humanity, that this folly acquired spirit! The spirit of revenge: my friends, that has thus far been man's best contemplation; and where there was suffering, it was claimed there was always penalty. "Penalty," so calls itself revenge.

Footage of what is probably the truck:

The brakes aren't smoking.
Have the brakes failed completely or is he not even trying to stop?
Or is he trying to get the truck into a lower gear to use engine braking?
He weaves out of his lane so maybe looking down to sort out the gears?
He doesn't see the escape lane because he's looking at the gears.
Probably 18 ratios and he needs to find the right one so he can match engine speed to road speed.
Such a degree of incompetence isn't exactly a defence would it would be 'understandable'.
The prosecutor used the words commentator suggests he 'chose to' but the judge didn't seem convinced.

(Dec 15, 2021 02:24 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]If this were an aircraft accident the report might be along the lines of:

1/ All trucks must have Jake braking and the driver must be competant to use it.
2/ Drivers must be accompanied by an experienced driver when taking a route for the first time.

A fail on either point results in the automatic confiscation of the truck and prosecution of the driver and anyone else implicated in the offence.

In fairness this is intended to remove (some) 'individual responsibility' and hopefully reduce the number of people weeping in court. In my experience not everyone is as wise as Syne - some don't want to be vaccinated or wear masks - the weeping is by the bedside.

Commercial trucking isn't directly responsible for passengers, so not on par with the airline industry. And Biden's inflation and supply chain woes have exacerbated the need for truck drivers...maybe even leading to cutting corners on driver training, hiring standards, hours behind the wheel, etc.. Broad generalizations about the unvaccinated is just the latest form of bigotry, blaming a whole class of people for all the ills. You've got quite the historical company on that count. Personally, I've never even had the flu and never had any symptoms, which indicates an insufficient viral load to spread.

---

(Dec 15, 2021 02:44 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 15, 2021 03:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]If you believe in determinism, you have no choice in whether you do better or not. Determinism is the excuse that you couldn't have done otherwise, while free will is the belief that you are responsible for everything you do. Your mental gymnastics have made you reverse those two. That's some serious motivated reasoning there.

But do tell, what excuses do you imagine belief in free will affords? Holding others responsible for their own actions?
Are you that afraid of being held accountable for your own?

If I am determined to do better then so be it. My choices may be predetermined but they're still mine.

"We need to understand what we are, not what we wish to be.  We need to understand how precious and incredible matter is, and how precious you are. It is not demeaning, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else.  What more could you possibly ask for?"— R. Llinás

Doctored up Nietzsche…

BTW, whatever happened to GOD’S WILL? Ah, yes, we became like Gods, to know good and evil.

Free will means lack of necessity, lack of any causality, and absolute chance. There are no ancestors, no external influence, no field of sensuous occurrences, and no God. The WILL desires to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s own actions. As Nietzsche said, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.

"When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."—Gospel of Thomas

"WE CHOOSE A CHANCE" or "A CHANCE CHOOSES US"?

What is the WILL?

I am the creator, says the WILL! A seer of what is to come—a future itself, and a bridge to the future. The WILL cries out…I laugh and mock the present because it is I that knows how to live. I am the composer, riddle-reader, and redeemer of chance! I cook every chance in my pot. And only when it hath been quite cooked do I welcome it as my food.

What does the WILL want? The WILL wants redemption—to become the great redeemer. He takes "IT WAS" and turns it into "THUS I WOULD HAVE IT." The WILL is a malicious spectator of all that is past and it takes revenge. Thus did the WILL, the emancipator, become a torturer. The WILL is capable of suffering. Yes, this GREAT EMANCIPATOR—the WILL itself is in chains, and each link is a past. The will is a prisoner of the past and it takes revenge because it cannot go backwards.

Truly, a great folly dwells in our Will; and it became a curse to all humanity, that this folly acquired spirit! The spirit of revenge: my friends, that has thus far been man's best contemplation; and where there was suffering, it was claimed there was always penalty. "Penalty," so calls itself revenge.

If the world is 100% deterministic, you have no idea if you're determined to do better. Or even do better for a bit and then do so much worse. You have no clue. Predetermined choices mean you have no say. So what claim of ownership you can take for those choices is a dubious pretense, at best. Being "one with everything" just absolves one of any accountability...which seems to be a trend for you.

God's will just prioritizes individual free will. Free will does not remove necessity, causality, or chance. Again, your mental gymnastic has completely mischaracterized free will. Free will does not remove survival necessities. It's not magic, deary. Meaningful free will actually requires causality, otherwise no choice could have meaningful consequences. And free will doesn't preclude natural chance, otherwise there wouldn't be natural evils. Free will doesn't remove all external influences either.

You seem to be describing some narcissistic caricature designed to insulate you from believing in a more realistic free will. Keep holding up Nietzsche as your talisman against the reality.

---

(Dec 15, 2021 05:03 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Footage of what is probably the truck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLu4ik2fgWA
The brakes aren't smoking.
Have the brakes failed completely or is he not even trying to stop?
Or is he trying to get the truck into a lower gear to use engine braking?
He weaves out of his lane so maybe looking down to sort out the gears?
He doesn't see the escape lane because he's looking at the gears.
Probably 18 ratios and he needs to find the right one so he can match engine speed to road speed.
Such a degree of incompetence isn't exactly a defence would it would be 'understandable'.
The prosecutor used the words commentator suggests he 'chose to' but the judge didn't seem convinced.

Pedro Olvera testified earlier Wednesday and described how he had seen the truck on the highway prior to the crash as he and several coworkers were headed home from a construction job in the mountains.

He said the truck, driven by Aguilera-Mederos, cut him off near the Buffalo Overlook on the highway. He said his work truck has a maximum speed of 75 mph and that he "could not keep up" with the truck after it cut him off and passed him.

He also described seeing the truck's brakes smoking and said he could smell burning. When he saw a runaway truck ramp, he said he began recording, because he thought the truck was going to use it.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime...6ee35e77f4

So the brakes were smoking shortly before he began filming.

His defense said he didn't realize the brakes had failed and that he wouldn't be able to slow down. But prosecution and defense agreed that he knew they had failed before the runaway ramp.

In their opening statements, attorneys for the prosecution and defense both said that Aguilera-Mederos realized the brakes on his 18-wheeler weren't working when he went over Floyd Hill.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime...6ee35e77f4

If you have to look down long enough to swerve into other lanes just trying to shift gears, you shouldn't be driving ANY manual transmission vehicle. If you have to look down long enough to miss signs and a whole ramp up the side of a mountain just trying to shift gears, you shouldn't be driving ANY manual transmission vehicle.

(Dec 15, 2021 12:39 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 14, 2021 09:47 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Within our capabilities, I feel that we're free to do whatever we want, too.

It's just that I care about most of the "kamikaze" consequences. (As a limiting aspect of reasoning withing the framework of my particular identity -- rather than, say, just making random decisions and not caring about what results.)

I feel that I don't have the choice to not care. It's just part of who I am. Something could happen that could cause me not to care though, e.g., brain damage, disease, etc.

Yes, one's identity as a human and specific person _X_ as comprehensively subsumed by one's entire lifetime.[1] We need the restrictions of a regulated information structure in order to psychologically exist to begin with. Non-governed randomness is not a cognitive entity.

Volition requires a disciplined system that has its own internal reasoning and conditioning dictating its choices, needs, and goals. The latter is contingently free to be itself to the extent that its autonomy is not compromised -- i.e., no exterior minds forcing it to act against the current state of its "identity" on _X_ calendar date.  ("Sue is not responsible because fugitive John threatened to kill her 5-year-old if she didn't rob the store.")

The idea that "free will" should embrace starting options like "I could have been something or someone else", is bogus, since one would thereby not exist.

For instance, replacing Biden with different origin conditions -- such as being born a hedgehog or being born as an identical twin would simply eliminate him (Why Identical Twins Are Not Really Identical). Likewise, if Biden is descended from the same zygote (sans later splintering) as the Biden we know, but grows up in a dissimilar environment (raised by a foster-care system) -- those circumstances would produce an alternative microstructure in the brain (not the exact, same psychological identity of our Biden). Since innate traits don't account for everything.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Or to put another way: Their 4D worm, in total, constituting "who _X_ individual is", as the overarching identity.

Even the Growing Block Universe conception of time still sports a partial "worm" of a currently existing person, which will eventually be completed upon death. Whatever we claimed was "caused" or "uncaused" in the supposed privileged Now of GBU would still retain that status of being caused or uncaused when that Now becomes part of the past.

IOW, the "future" not existing in GBU makes no more impact upon an event being judged random or non-random, caused or uncaused, than does the "future" existing in eternalism. A real compatibilist should be concerned with just that: Free will being compatible with determinism and its set future and past.

And that means placing emphasis on FW being the autonomy of the functioning cognitive system itself (the universe at large cannot think and reason -- it lacks a mind to qualify as a puppet-master). And recognizing that if other thought orientations strangely consider FW dependent upon non-caused and random events -- then such candidate occurrences would still retain that status even in eternalism.

That's not to say that absolute determinism is the case, but why in the world would the advocates of FW not want to have a defense for every metaphysical situation or interpretation about what's going on with time (or at least the primary ones usually rearing their heads)?

Maybe I'm over-thinking this. If a truck is regulated to (say) 65mph - how does the regulator do this? Backs off the accelerator? If so, if the truck is already going over 65 you can't get the engine speed up to match the road speed so even in top gear the gearbox refuses to engage (yes?) .You'd find this out when you were going downhill at 66mph and you tried to shift down for engine braking and the gearbox locks you out.

Again, the endless lengths people will try going to in order to absolve someone else of obvious wrongdoing.

If you've failed to start a steep downhill grade properly, you're already screwed. Doesn't matter if it has a speed governor. You need to already be in a low gear, otherwise you risk burning up the brakes to downshift...and hope you get to a low enough gear first. Hope is not a responsible driving strategy.

(Dec 15, 2021 08:35 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, one's identity as a human and specific person _X_ as comprehensively subsumed by one's entire lifetime.[1] We need the restrictions of a regulated information structure in order to psychologically exist to begin with. Non-governed randomness is not a cognitive entity.

Volition requires a disciplined system that has its own internal reasoning and conditioning dictating its choices, needs, and goals. The latter is contingently free to be itself to the extent that its autonomy is not compromised -- i.e., no exterior minds forcing it to act against the current state of its "identity" on _X_ calendar date.  ("Sue is not responsible because fugitive John threatened to kill her 5-year-old if she didn't rob the store.")

The idea that "free will" should embrace starting options like "I could have been something or someone else", is bogus, since one would thereby not exist.

For instance, replacing Biden with different origin conditions -- such as being born a hedgehog or being born as an identical twin would simply eliminate him (Why Identical Twins Are Not Really Identical). Likewise, if Biden is descended from the same zygote (sans later splintering) as the Biden we know, but grows up in a dissimilar environment (raised by a foster-care system) -- those circumstances would produce an alternative microstructure in the brain (not the exact, same psychological identity of our Biden). Since innate traits don't account for everything.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Or to put another way: Their 4D worm, in total, constituting "who _X_ individual is", as the overarching identity.

Even the Growing Block Universe conception of time still sports a partial "worm" of a currently existing person, which will eventually be completed upon death. Whatever we claimed was "caused" or "uncaused" in the supposed privileged Now of GBU would still retain that status of being caused or uncaused when that Now becomes part of the past.

IOW, the "future" not existing in GBU makes no more impact upon an event being judged random or non-random, caused or uncaused, than does the "future" existing in eternalism. A real compatibilist should be concerned with just that: Free will being compatible with determinism and its set future and past.

And that means placing emphasis on FW being the autonomy of the functioning cognitive system itself (the universe at large cannot think and reason -- it lacks a mind to qualify as a puppet-master). And recognizing that if other thought orientations strangely consider FW dependent upon non-caused and random events -- then such candidate occurrences would still retain that status even in eternalism.

That's not to say that absolute determinism is the case, but why in the world would the advocates of FW not want to have a defense for every metaphysical situation or interpretation about what's going on with time (or at least the primary ones usually rearing their heads)?

Interesting. I'll give it some thought.

Thanks, C C!

---

(Dec 16, 2021 01:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, the endless lengths people will try going to in order to absolve someone else of obvious wrongdoing.

If something else wasn’t wrong, then why fix it.

It sparked some change in highway safety, that’s for sure, e.g., new and improved ramps and easy to read signs.

A few ramps were dangerous, e.g., steep inclines, curves, and short distances. They said that the improvements should encourage more truckers along I-70 to use them when necessary.  The sign in the picture of 'easy to read signs' was the same ramp that he failed to take. Too bad it wasn't done earlier. There’s no fine for using the ramps but the cost of getting the truck out of the area can be pricey.

"Aguilera-Mederos said he saw the first two signs for the truck ramp — at 1 1/2 miles and 3/4 miles before the ramp — but said he did not see the last two signs for the ramp. He testified that he had not lost his brakes until after he’d passed the first two signs for the ramp. He added that he had always seen runaway truck ramps that go uphill, not downhill like the ramp he passed on I-70 heading toward Denver."

He testified that he believed his brakes were in working order after he stopped at Berthoud Pass and called his boss and another trucker for advice.

I wonder what his boss told him.

Someone else also noted that the trucking company, Castellano 03 Trucking LLC, a Houston-based trucking company, had 30 violations over the past two years, including brakes and English proficiency.

(Dec 16, 2021 02:05 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Dec 16, 2021 01:17 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again, the endless lengths people will try going to in order to absolve someone else of obvious wrongdoing.

If something else wasn’t wrong, then why fix it.

It sparked some change in highway safety, that’s for sure, e.g., new and improved ramps and easy to read signs.

Do you even read what you cite? Completely rhetorical question, as it's obvious you don't.
Your first article talks about an improved runaway ramp at Vail Pass (with no mention of any crash as a motive) over 63 miles from the 2019 Lakewood crash: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Vail+Pas...293441!1m0
Your second article says those signs where installed after a 1989 crash, and you can see that exact sign the Lakewood driver passed in the video C2 posted @30 secs:

IOW, neither article is talking about any changed made due to the 2019 Lakewood crash.

Quote:The sign in the picture of 'easy to read signs' was the same ramp that he failed to take. Too bad it wasn't done earlier. 

See, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. That sign has existed for 30 years, deary. The same video, above, even shows him pass two signs, with arrows clearly pointing to the lane for the runaway ramp before reaching the sign pictured in that article.

You're just a bleeding-heart, trying to confirm your excuses for him while failing to read what your own articles ACTUALLY say.

Quote:There’s no fine for using the ramps but the cost of getting the truck out of the area can be pricey.

So you think it's excusable to weigh the monetary cost against the potential loss of human lives? What's wrong with you?

Quote:"Aguilera-Mederos said he saw the first two signs for the truck ramp — at 1 1/2 miles and 3/4 miles before the ramp — but said he did not see the last two signs for the ramp. He testified that he had not lost his brakes until after he’d passed the first two signs for the ramp. He added that he had always seen runaway truck ramps that go uphill, not downhill like the ramp he passed on I-70 heading toward Denver."

He testified that he believed his brakes were in working order after he stopped at Berthoud Pass and called his boss and another trucker for advice.

Again, it doesn't take long to burn out brakes on a steep grade. Berthoud Pass is 35 miles from where his brakes failed: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Berthoud...983203!1m0
And failing to see very obvious road signs, seen in the above video, is again his own gross negligence.

Quote:I wonder what his boss told him.

Someone else also noted that the trucking company, Castellano 03 Trucking LLC, a Houston-based trucking company, had 30 violations including brakes and English proficiency.

Yeah, I was the one who mentioned the trucking company violations, including not understanding English road signs. As I told C2, the trucking company was not in the cab with him. He was the only one in control of that truck. While the company and DMV that issued his CDL may have some civil liability/safety violation fines, he was the driver, accountable for the the truck he was driving.