You said "determining" not "determined," but then you conclude with some absolute ontological statement about something-such not existing.
A: "Are you going to school tomorrow?"
B: "Well, statisticians tell me crime rates are incredibly high; so I probably won't make it to school. Why go, it might as well not exist?"
The point of A is lost — get an education. It's not all teet-sucking techno-commerce; those statistics say nothing about how peoples came to build those systems in the first place of which those [EDIT:] quantificational terms like "income level" describe.
Moreover, a revolution does not require that anyone die off, but that a system, or status quo, ends.
I don't think your sentences are analogous to mine.
The more data we get, the better we've been able to predict what people are going to do. Uncertainty reduces if you assume that people's choices are determined. But free will - what does that get you; what does that even look like as a prediction of the distribution of behaviour? It's an empty premise, like saying phlogestine.
The idea that everyone, many of whom have serious problems with motivation and the practical concerns of doing so, should or can just choose to educate their way into the workforce pays no attention to the difficulties faced by in doing so. It's a denial of the reality in which many people live and how they interact with that.
I do some charity work in my free time, many of people there can't even work out how to attach their CV to their job applications for god's sake. Many of them have serious mental problems. Many of them feel entitled to benefits. Many of them just have no motivation for any sort of learning - never really having seen benefits from it. They're not going to sit down and do umpteen years worth of self-education. Free will, choice, these are not serious answers to the sorts of problems that we face as a society.
Comments
You said "determining" not "determined," but then you conclude with some absolute ontological statement about something-such not existing.
A: "Are you going to school tomorrow?" B: "Well, statisticians tell me crime rates are incredibly high; so I probably won't make it to school. Why go, it might as well not exist?"
The point of A is lost — get an education. It's not all teet-sucking techno-commerce; those statistics say nothing about how peoples came to build those systems in the first place of which those [EDIT:] quantificational terms like "income level" describe.
Moreover, a revolution does not require that anyone die off, but that a system, or status quo, ends.
I don't think your sentences are analogous to mine.
The more data we get, the better we've been able to predict what people are going to do. Uncertainty reduces if you assume that people's choices are determined. But free will - what does that get you; what does that even look like as a prediction of the distribution of behaviour? It's an empty premise, like saying phlogestine.
The idea that everyone, many of whom have serious problems with motivation and the practical concerns of doing so, should or can just choose to educate their way into the workforce pays no attention to the difficulties faced by in doing so. It's a denial of the reality in which many people live and how they interact with that.
I do some charity work in my free time, many of people there can't even work out how to attach their CV to their job applications for god's sake. Many of them have serious mental problems. Many of them feel entitled to benefits. Many of them just have no motivation for any sort of learning - never really having seen benefits from it. They're not going to sit down and do umpteen years worth of self-education. Free will, choice, these are not serious answers to the sorts of problems that we face as a society.