Of course, I drive (I kind of have to because of the way our landscape is designed to mandate it), so I have to include myself in this. It’s well-established by psychological research that drivers have very little empathy for other drivers, but especially little empathy for bicyclists and pedestrians, viewing them as less-than-human annoyances. Add in that driving in a city requires that one subject other people to the noise, the pollution, the danger, and the arrogation of space by one’s vehicle, and you pretty much have to suppress any empathy for the people who live there, otherwise it’d be unbearable to do. That lack of empathy is textbook sociopathy, induced by the activity of driving. It just happens to be widely normalized, but we still see posts even here on Lemmy from new drivers who are struggling to suppress those thoughts.

Putting the shoe on and loudly announcing that it fits?

I feel like this objection makes the most sense in a particular context, like a culture that views beef as some sort of prize, or a marker of being ahead in the competition for social status with one’s neighbors. (U.S. culture very much views it that way.)

If Person A eats only 1 unit of beef per month, what would make dropping to zero “unfair” is if we assume that they are too poor to afford more (“losing”), or engaging in asceticism, but holding on to that one unit as a vital connection to the status game, or a special treat that they covet.

But what if it’s just food? Person A may just not be that into beef, and probably not even miss it, just like Person B probably also wouldn’t notice a difference between 100 units and 99 units. In the sense that neither A or B really would notice a small change all that much, it’s fair

Anyway, random thoughts from somebody who thinks steak is just kind of meh.

Getting trapped in a building with a mass shooter is something very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I face the danger of death by automobile at least twice a day, on my ride to work, and my ride home. More, if I go other places. It may seem not that bad because it’s so normalized. Dying in or under the wheels of a car is something that happens to people every single day, and it barely rates a mention in the local news. Sometimes the victim doesn’t get even get a name. By contrast, the stochastic nature of mass shootings makes them scary, like plane crashes or terrorist attacks, the natural order of things is upended. Death is death, though, and I wouldn’t be less dead if it were a texting driver rather than a gunman.

And the texting driver is a whole hell a of a lot more likely. So, yes, it’s entirely logical that I’m afraid of that. Not being able to understand and denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I’m talking about.

Throwing insults is not a discussion, by the way.

You don’t understand what fear is like?

They’re not the same. This is privilege speaking, I know, but gun violence mostly occurs between people who know each other. I’m not in those circles or neighborhoods, so only the occasional mass shooting might affect me.

But cars? They’re omnipresent. There’s a steady stream of them in front of my home, so I can’t avoid the danger. My life is threatened by cars every damn day, and my quality of life degraded by them. And you can’t tell me that driving a car around a city is anything but sociopathic disregard for the well-being of others, because that’s what it amounts to.

Cars as bad as guns? No, they’re worse.

An automobile, at the end of the day, is a luxury item. A toy. Humanity existed for most of its history without cars, and even today, you can get to work or the grocery store without one. (Granted, often not easily, but that’s only because we’ve made it difficult to get there any other way. But making it difficult was a deliberate policy choice designed to exclude poor people.) One could argue that the automobile is an anti-tool, as its use is making our lives materially worse (traffic violence, health impacts, pollution, ecosystem destruction, climate change, the burden on government and personal budgets), but that ignores a car’s major function as a cultural identity marker, and for wealth signaling. We humans value that a lot. Consider, as but one common example, the enormous pickup truck used as a commuter vehicle, known as a pavement princess, bro-dozer, or gender-affirming vehicle.

In that way, they’re exactly the same as firearms, which are most often today used as a cultural identity marker. (Often by the same people who drive a pavement princess, and in support of the same cultural identity.) Firearms are also also luxury toys in that people enjoy going to the firing range and blasting away hundreds of dollars for the enjoyment of it. But beyond that, the gun people have a pretty legit argument, too, that their firearms are tools used for hunting and self-defense. They are undeniably useful in certain contexts, and no substitute will do. One certainly wouldn’t send mounted cavalry with sabers into war today.

I appreciate the gamer aesthetic when scientists need to buy gear with the power to run scientific calculations for relatively cheap. The RGB lights under the case windows bring a bit of pizzazz to the laboratory.

Well, why would somebody not want to get better? Would somebody decide that of their own free will for no reason at all?

If it’s free will, why would somebody not do it if it would make their life better? All of the reasons that I can think of are either in-born traits (e.g. anxiety, ego, getting more pleasure out of drugs than other people), or external influences.

Anyway, LLMs can learn from past mistakes, too.

I have to say that I doubt that very much.

I’m sorry that you’ve had such troubles in the past. Learning from past mistakes isn’t an example of free will, though.

I’m not telling you to do anything, it’s all hypothetical: Could you decide that punching yourself in the face—hard—is enjoyable? It seems like if you could decide that right here and now, that’d be a real easy way to make life (as good as it may be) even better.

Cards on the table, I’m pretty sure we all know the answer. No, we cannot decide to improve our lives by cutting off digits or socking ourselves in the nose, because those things are damaging, and we cant simply decide to make them feel good. I feel very confident that I can’t convince you to to it. (Thank goodness!)

The things that we can change our emotional reaction to are things that we were conditioned by an external stimulus (tradition or trauma or whatever) to have a certain reaction to. The decision to change is always driven by discomfort with that emotional reaction, another stimulus. Nobody is going to decide that they need to stop enjoying social affirmation, for instance, unless there’s some powerful, outside factor driving that decision.

In short, if we all react to the same stimulus in predictable ways, where’s the free will?

I figured out recently from Lemmy discussions that people have different concepts of what free will means. Humorously, one of them operates within a deterministic mindset, while the other points out the determinism.

Best analogy that I can think of at the moment is the difference between a drill press and a 4-axis CNC mill. The drill press has one degree of freedom, down and up. It’s locked in. The mill has 4 degrees of freedom, and it can run code that makes its behavior highly complex. For some people, that’s good enough: The mill has free will while the drill press does not.

The view of free will that recognizes determinism says that humans have innumerable degrees of freedom, so our behavior looks complex, but our conscious choice is just the various competing influences shaking out.

No, I mean you, right now, with your free will.

Can you decide that you’ll enjoy cutting off one of your fingers? If so, it seems silly not to, since you’ll enjoy it!

The speed you’ll drive is the product of innumerable in-born and external influences (which include past experience). Laws would be useless if people had free will, actually. They work because of a deterrent effect; getting pulled over paying fines, and maybe going to jail feels bad. It’s the threat of feeling bad that makes laws an effective incentive, and we can’t change that emotional response.

If humans had free will, though, we could decide how we emotionally react to anything. We could decide to flip a switch in our minds so that jail is emotionally fulfilling and preferable to freedom. Then there’d be no way to punish anybody, and thus we could have no laws.

Same, but skin hydration / moisturizing. That’s 300,000 years of human history without Aveeno. The skincare industry is a scam to sell product, and our skin works fine if you mostly leave it alone.

That just makes it worse! (From my point of view here.) People behaving reprehensibly because an authority figure asked them to do it? That’s just the Milgram experiment, but without any apparent hesitation!

The Milgram experiment. The Zimbardo prison experiment. The bystander effect. At the end of the day, humans are just monkeys with smart watches. As social primates, it’s really hard to be the one to stand up against the crowd. Our brains decide how to act based largely on the reactions of other humans around us.

It’s disheartening.