[keybored]

> You are arguing different points. Just because we use different metaphors over time does not mean the core analogy does not hold. Mainly, systems that intake input and emit output, whether they be in the form of silicon based computers, steam powered machines, etc, seem quite similar to biological machines that also take in input and emit output.

And what part of that do people like to pretend is not the case (see OP)? That we have senses and that we act on sense information?

If input-output is the only message here then it’s a boring and obvious one.

[satvikpendem]

> If input-output is the only message here then it’s a boring and obvious one.

Not really. Most people do not even believe this to be the case, hence my comments. They are thoroughly convinced that they are not machines like stated above whatsoever.

[atoav]

See, now we are getting to the interesting core of the whole thing, a core argument which was masked by a somewhat trendy metaphor.

Which is precisely why I dislike them.

The core argument is one about the non-existence of free will and one many people reject as you were right to point out. The reasons vary from personal discomfort with the idea of not being in control, over religious ideas of souls, to basically falling for the illusion and defending it.

The more interesting question about determinism is in which way it is deterministic? Like the movement of the planets? Like the weather? Or like brownian motion? Probably a mix of all of those, but what mix?

And if everything is an input and output and any slight variation throws of the long term development of the system, there would be no way to test that theory with two separate human entities and no way to make accurate predictions on long time scales, which makes the whole point kinda moot.

[satvikpendem]

> The more interesting question about determinism is in which way it is deterministic? Like the movement of the planets? Like the weather? Or like brownian motion? Probably a mix of all of those, but what mix?

Yes, as I stated, if you follow philosophers of the mind, they cover all of these aspects and more. It is hard for me to go in depth without rehashing their arguments so I will invite you to study them.

> there would be no way to test that theory with two separate human entities and no way to make accurate predictions on long time scales, which makes the whole point kinda moot.

Just because this is the case does not make it untrue. There are lots of things we cannot fully test with certainty (in the Locke epistemology sense) that we nevertheless assume to be true. This may or may not be one of these cases, but it does not make it "moot."