sysbin

One could argue it should be an opt-in firstly. I find that difficult for creating the same service but just.

> Unlike computers, cells like to do their own thing :(

Fairly the same, if everything at the lowest level is just programmed to do what occurs.

Wow, this is like a drug dealer lacing their services with fentanyl. In all seriousness I'm making the comparison because in both cases the sanctity of life is being violated in favour of arrogant self-interests.

> However, I don't believe in full predetrminism, and you don't either.

I actually do believe in complete predeterminism.

Example: everything you & I wrote was fated to happen and similar to our thoughts on the subject. Multiple persons I've conversed with (even hard determinists) will express similar opinions as you "well then your thoughts on improvement don't matter because if the universe is functioning under under predeterminism, well it was fated to improve if it happens" and then try to use that assertion as an argument in some way to make a rhetoric against my personal thoughts or the discussion.

I personally, enjoy reading about what you wrote to me and similar to myself writing about the subject. Otherwise I'll never learn something new on the topic. I don't care knowing it's all fated and same are my thoughts on thinking the world slowly improves without me having a real will separate from the system.

My thoughts continue to be, I'm a person that enjoys learning about this topic and that requires conversing about it. I think the understanding of free will being an illusion, will one day improve society exponentially faster than a universe that didn't result in people coming to realization sooner. The majority of people just need to function with understanding of the illusion to the point of understanding complete predetermination.

> However, if you believe in a world where the future has not happened yet and it evolves more like a complex computation, with room for changing program code by the program itself, perhaps even with some randomness thrown in, you get a fully naturalistic deterministic world where nevertheless you can try to influence things in some direction or another.

My idea is that the universe is more probable to repeat than not repeat. I do have wishful thinking and it makes me agnostic. I like to think if there is a higher power that people typically name as a God. Well, God cannot do the impossible like making traditional free will be real. So, I like to think that the universe repeats with adjustments made after it runs its course. I take a position close to Einstein, such as once the universe iteration starts, God doesn't interfere, and I acknowledge that belief is impossible to prove. I only assume my thought on that are more probable from the horrible things that happen to people and this is under the assumption a higher power wouldn't want suffering in the complex system created. So again I think after universe runs the course for humanity, it will repeat and there will be adjustments so things improve for the previous stories the humans experienced.

The forgoing will now provide you with different thoughts on what I previously wrote. The last part of what you're expressing is how our brains function and we could describe nature similar to what we define as evolution. But I wouldn't say that's free will. My idea is free will isn't a possibility even if I die, ..the universe eventually repeats, and I live again from the recursion but with new improvements making everyone have a happier story; created from an higher power understands my desires in the previous life I lived. That's not anymore free will because every universe iteration would be fated from the previous summation of forces.

My opinion is compatiblism (like it or not) does delude people into not understanding they have no control over how they came to be as a person, the wealth they accumulate, the relationships, the awful things that happened to them if they do, all these things were by fate, and that people deeply believe the "thought" of realizing free will is an illusion equates to an unpleasant existence or some nonsense of realizing consciousness is really fake (in a sense similar to the colour red changing to orange with yellow added).

I'm sure some people read about compatiblism and shortly later go back to believing the traditional free will nonsense. I don't think many people think about not having free will for much time at all. Thinking about determinism for awhile makes it hard to not understand predeterminism. Progresses into making it fairly easy to understand we're just part of a complex system and the system works from a collective mesh of subsystems being "us" to the smallest thing.

We're similar to the concept of robots. The universe wrote code for the instructions of us. Similar, we made the robots "code" and people don't consider the robots having free will from our "human code" functioning the operating robots. When people have their thought on robots, they think of determinism subconsciously and think "no.., the actions are really from us, who coded & setup the robots" while the residing of the robots has environment external forces interacting with the robots' outcomes.

I personally think the world is good but resembles evil and overtime becomes less resembling evil. I further think the universe repeats more likely than not ever repeat throughout infinity. A good majority of people don't realize they don't have free will; that's keeping evil resembling experiences around longer on earth from what I observe and while people are punished severely. They're never being told they had no free will required to have a better outcome or being given the time observing how their mentality came to be that resulted in the bad outcome.

Most people don't even experience what the punishments are from unfavourable: genetics, financial status, health condition, and whatever life variable factoring into conflicting with the system of society; outcomming in not living a mediocre or higher status life but an awful one.

So yes, I get freaked out when I even observe all the travesties in society, that likely would have more empathy if people understood "success isn't earned" but given to you at birth and like everything else that follows after birth. Awareness of how the universe at the moment of the creation, resulted in the future (sad or happy) outcomes from the summation of sequential forces upon everything and then thinking of the more privileged vs misfortunate situations in comparison.

The forgoing makes me think the system of society would adapt to be more compassionate than the opposite incorrect belief of traditional free will. It's like when people thought it was better to think the world was flat. Delusion isn't better than realism. Eventually, leads me into thinking people can eventually be more likely to agree on universal healthcare and even futuristic things like universal income & homes.

So I think free will belief needs to be killed sooner than later. Even though whatever happens is what fate already decided on upon creation. So I'm somewhat hopeful people examine this topic.

Compatibilism is defining free will differently than how most people think of free will. Free will is an illusion in the traditional sense and thinking of compatibilism changes everything but doesn't give free will in the traditional sense.

The agent cannot make decisions free of what the system has influenced. So, it still is nonsensical to think a person has free will in the traditional sense. People are not making their own decisions when they couldn't have been different from the result of the system they reside in. I do consider Schopenhauer a great philosopher but what most people think of free will isn't a possibility. Compatibilism isn't even worthwhile because it doesn't make determinism & free will compatible but instead just redefines free will to delude people into thinking traditional free will is a real thing.

> philosophically unrefined

No. It's nonsensical to think a person created in the universe is separate from the universe. There are no great philosophers that believe in free will. It would be only wishful thinking with ignoring logic to assume you can make a choice that's truly your own and not the outcome of the system we're in. Furthermore, neuroscience illustrates determinism (no free will) and physics has as well until people lost their minds with quantum physics that's grossly unfinished. please email me if you want to discuss in great detail.

I don't believe in free will because it doesn't make sense when you understand determinism. You cannot be free when every thought & action is the outcome of the past forces exerted upon you.

My understanding of superdeterminism doesn't necessarily rule out the multiverse theory. Maybe my idea of the multiverse theory isn't traditional but I think the universe can very well identically repeat and or repeat but be somewhat different by how forces can be occurring at different intervals than the past cycle of the universe.

edit: people downvote on this site because they don't like thinking of not having free will lol.

I think it greatly depends on where you work, the group of people you're around, and if the atmosphere is open office or something more discrete like cubicles.

My open office division of where I've been assigned, has a group of people that aren't very social and conversations usually end with I need to get back to work. They're all great people but totally different experience compared to previous socializing at work. I typically can get my "social fix" by visiting a different area of team members and that are way more toned down on just writing code all day.

This sort of solution isn't pleasant at all and makes me just want to work from home. In general I could just stay home, code and nothing would be missed.

USA taught me how little people can have as basic rights and because they think of "equality" without factoring in financial status; since they think everyone earns what they get in life. Majority of US is religious. So, I can see why people aren't demanding basic necessities for a decent quality of life and when that would make them feel they haven't earned success.

Knowing the forgoing makes me believe something like loss of life from the coronavirus could possibly be what's needed to get people rallying for change. Otherwise the mentality will continue of I will get mine some day and before then I don't want things to change because I'll get rich eventually.

You don't choose anything. I'm finding it hard that anyone can think otherwise with research such as the article indicating function before awareness.

I’m a hard determinist and I’m finding this philosophy similar to religion. It’s my first time reading about it but my impression is perennial philosophy is for people trying to force meaning by clinging to a constructed belief without the foundation of anything other than hopefulness. I understand the logic of all knowledge builds from collective thought. But the idea there is meaning just reflects wishful thinking.

I disagree, HN is everything opposite of what was originally described. I can go look at youtube & come back to this site and see similarities with the design choice.

devil's advocate: HN is very minimalistic with design.

Bell's theorem doesn't rule out super determinism. So it's kind of whatever you want to believe (kind of situation) when it comes to not being able to have proof one side or the other. I upvoted your post btw.

> Unfortunately that is not the case.

The thing is we cannot say it's not the case. I used to think like you as well.

That's the disturbing problem I witness with people writing off quantum mechanics as not being deterministic. Magic as an adult is known to be trickery and only seems to be magic when lacking understanding of what forces is resulting in the trickery.

Super determinism is a situation where we could be actually witnessing determinism from quantum mechanics but similar to what we believe is true randomness and cannot be observed for the forces causing it.

The only thing I'm hopeful for is witnessing in my life a way to explain how something cannot be deterministic with real understanding. Besides people just thinking it must be random and if I spend hours all day thinking about this it seems like it cannot happen because it's an impossibility.

What's your definition of unpredictable & random?

I'm interested because you write off quantum mechanics as unlikely to be deterministic. When everything being deterministic is more realistic and from scientific understanding of systems working in nature.

Contrary to determinism would be true magic. Having a force without any cause. That just feels like lack of understanding.

I agree. People that dislike someone, wait for things to confirm their personal bias and ignore positive things the disliked person does. First impressions are so important and prevent unreasonable headaches with someone.

Personally, I've purchased water, canned food & bags of beans, supplements, medication, an air purifier and cleaning supplies. I'll be working from home if the virus hits where I live. I think I'm not prepared in the sense of what I would like if the virus truly hits where I live. I'm guessing you would want to isolate yourself from everyone. I can only theorize but I assume 6 months would be how long the disaster could last. An ideal situation would be living in the middle of nowhere with 6 months of supplies. Lastly, invest in things to keep your psych positive.

I'm starting to think it's better to not be born (into society today) unless born into a rich family. The sociopaths have no checks & balances and everyone can just watch everything get worse.

I assume the free will ideology creates unethical behaviour by the outcome of creating justification towards social stratification. Then we get falsehood excuses for materialism and judgement & punishment of the less privileged. The higher social class ends up being delusional to reality.

> Forced incarceration is pretty rare, and doesn't seem likely to become common or misused in severe ways.

How do you know if it's pretty rare? I'm unaware of anyway for people to collect data on it. I'm doubtful anyone can get justice when it happens, unless insanely rich and or large media following while being wrongly forcibly incarnated.

I'm not aware of many limitations besides some people getting their driver's license taken away. I think most people don't seek treatment because they don't really believe in the psych illnesses. Also the baggage that comes with relying on medication with the short or long term side effects.

The new UI in Catalina is worse. You cannot view other albums when you have an album open, instead you have to click a button to go back for viewing all the albums again. I also think the music app takes way too much space of the screen for what it needs shown to function. Apple must not have anyone seriously working on it.

The only thing coming to my mind for a possibility to this question is any type of research that would be for pro-assisted-suicide. Research promoting positives of assisted suicide for people with illnesses or disabilities. That type of thing likely was held back by certain ideologies rooted in culture. I'm not sure if it can be proven and makes me think the question is very difficult to prove.

First glance makes me think you would need to attend either Carleton University or York University.

I'm doubtful the discussion will go anywhere productive but I think part of your argument is an assumption, "And now you want to imprison doctors for treating pain and taking care of patients?" because filling a role of a job to just prescribe medication isn't really trying and when we don't actually know what the outcome will be. Following a protocol isn't really trying is all.

Research from the past few years has been questioning if the brain will just adapt overtime while on medication to the point of becoming oversensitive when off the medication and where the normal state of the person gets worse. I've only read this about antipsychotics more so than antidepressants.

In any case much if not all research in the topic of mind altering medication is still in the infant years and should be read while being skeptic. Multiple unique life factors can make research very difficult to get right in this topic.

I agree with your view. An algorithm is manipulating the image and similar if a person used photoshop for manipulating an image. The process being more automated than a person doesn’t matter because both situations are altering the pixels for an altered outcome.

One thing I wish for the future tech around brain machine interface & gene modification and thats less people being born into a life where they end up wishing they had never been born. I think that goal is realistic with what theoretically can be done. The what ifs about identity around previous unmodified genetics can take a back seat imo.

Each woman was seeking 2 million from what I've found online. The judgement ended up being a payout of 12.7m sum and that's for splitting between 22 victims with their representation. I wonder how much each person walked away with after their attorneys were paid. I've not witnessed justice in my life but I like to think they will be happy with the judgement even though it's a lot lower than they sought.

I'm doubtful one exists for android or iOS but I can imagine it wouldn't be that hard to implement with a smartwatch signalling to a phone (instead of a laptop). The only trouble a developer would have with implementing is if they have sufficient access to APIs that might be private and the ability to run a background service using the APIs at a sufficient interval.