Do you Think we have Free Will

[shunyadragon]

"the" theory? What theory?

..and please don't say 'theory of evolution', because that could mean many things.

No, that cannot mean anything. What is called the Theory of Evolution is specific to the falsified theories and hypothesis that support the natural evolution over more than 3,7 billion years.

You have failed to offer anything of substance in response, just stone wall rejections based on a religious agenda, It is not a coincidence that your view is based on and conforms to your Islamic beliefs and not remotely anything to do with science

It could refer to natural selection, which we learn about in elementary school .. or
it could refer to 100's of other theories or 'extended evolutionary synthesis' , which is
deceitful.

It is your religious agenda that is intentionally deceitful and dishonest.

i.e. saying that ToE is 'proven science', and being purposely vague

Of course driverless car cannot be human. So what?!?!!?!?

Purposely vague reflects your religious agenda and rejection of science, Science does not prove anything. You misuse of terminology, and intentional ignorance of science continues unabated.

I'm not saying that NCBI is not a professional source, but when it comes to having debates with
others, be they Christians, atheists or anything else, it is no good if there are no rules in the debate
and we can quote links willy-nilly.

My quotes are not willy nilly, but actual peer reviewed scientific literature.

..and in this case it is about quoting scientific articles by authors of your/my choice.
Wikipedia functions as an effective neutral ground for the scientist, the layman, believer or disbeliever.

No wikipedia is not a neutral source. It is NOT a scientific reference. It represents second and third hand commentary.

i.e. all of us


Would I say that driverless cars can become human? No.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No wikipedia is not a neutral source. It is NOT a scientific reference..

..but science is not the only academic pursuit.
Science can lead one astray .. just like philosophy and religion.

Wikipedia is suitable for ALL of us .. the layman and scientist alike.
It's easy for you to complain that I won't acknowledge your links .. too bad.

I don't offer any refs. but Wikipedia for that very reason .. you can't claim that my refs. aren't valid
or biased.

Oops .. that is what you are saying about Wikipedia .. that its not valid .. I must accept Christian website links,
or atheist scientist articles, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Copernicus]

No wikipedia is not a neutral source. It is NOT a scientific reference.

..but science is not the only academic pursuit.
Science can lead one astray .. just like philosophy and religion.

Not quite in the same way. Philosophy and religion are not disciplines that depend on physical evidence to establish facts about how nature works. But it is misleading to say that academic disciplines lead one astray. People trained in those disciplines can arrive at false information and false doctrines, and what is interesting about them is the methodology they use to correct falsehoods. No religion that I am aware of has any such methodology, since "faith" is basically a denial of needing one.

Wikipedia is suitable for ALL of us .. the layman and scientist alike.
It's easy for you to complain that I won't acknowledge your links .. too bad.

I agree with you up to a point. Wikipedia is often a good place to start, and it isn't as bad as it used to be in terms of getting things wrong. The administrators do make an effort to clean up the detritus or at least post warnings about shaky content. Crowd-sourced information is not always reliable. For philosophy, there are more professionally vetted sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Generally speaking, it is better to go with peer-reviewed sources. Wikipedia is less reliable on that front.

I don't offer any refs. but Wikipedia for that very reason .. you can't claim that my refs. aren't valid
or biased.

Oops .. that is what you are saying about Wikipedia .. that its not valid .. I must accept Christian website links,
or atheist scientist articles, etc. etc. etc.

There are atheists who are scientists and who promote atheism with references to science. However, there really is no such thing as "atheist science". Science is compatible with materialism, but that is a methodological bias, not necessarily a rejection of dualistic spiritualism.

 

[shunyadragon]

If we are not free to make choices, because we are not in "complete control", then we wouldn't be safe
to drive, for example.

Instinct of self preservation is the mechanism in everyday life and driving cars that reduces accidents no problem.

No .. most people, while not being in "complete control", ARE safe to drive .. because it is a matter of
degree i.e. how often do we lose control of our will, and to what extent.

Of course, NOT always safe to drive. Perfect justification for the fact that our freedom of choice is limited by factors beyond our control. Thank you for accepting the concept of Limited Free Will based on sound neurobiology scientific references,

..but science is not the only academic pursuit.

True, but needs clarification. It is the only the academic discipline that falsifies theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence. Example: Other academic disciplines use science, Academic history uses science in their research concerning the history of humanity.

What other academic disciplines (pursuites?) would deal ith the objective verifiable evidence for evolution. physics and cosmology?

Science can lead one astray .. just like philosophy and religion.

Not concerning the physical nature of our physical existence. Philosophy and religion kack objective verifiable evidence, which is the reason why philosophies and religions are not consistent and widely conflicting between different beliefs. Without objective verifiable evidence philosophies and religions can lead one astray especially bias against science.

Wikipedia is suitable for ALL of us .. the layman and scientist alike.
It's easy for you to complain that I won't acknowledge your links .. too bad.

No, wikipedia references are NOT necessarily written by scientists, and not subject to peer review, The represent articles that are written second and third hand and not published in scientific journals.

Regardless it is a given you are very selective as to what agrees with your religious agenda, and the bottomline is your reject science.
You hang your hat on the use of one word "hypothetical" in one reference on LUCA to justify your agenda, ignoring the vast number of references on Wikipedia that unconditional support the sciences of evolution, physics and cosmology which you reject, based on your current Islamic beliefs..

I don't offer any refs. but Wikipedia for that very reason .. you can't claim that my refs. aren't valid
or biased.

I can reject to selective misuse of references to justify your rejections of science based on your religious agenda.

Oops .. that is what you are saying about Wikipedia .. that its not valid .. I must accept Christian website links,
or atheist scientist articles, etc. etc. etc.

I am saying specific peer reviewed scientific articles take precedence over Wikipedia.

Yes there are scientists that do not believe in God and some that do. There are no 'atheist articles' in peer reviewed scientific journals. Religious beliefs are not referenced in scientific journals. Though in philosophy and religious journals the religion of the authors may be relevant.

In scientific research journals how do you tell if it is written by an atheist scientist?

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years (see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). Additionally, it is possible that some errors may never be fixed. It is also possible for an edit correcting an error to later be reverted. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, and non-English Wikipedias.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance.

1. Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources that vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views and inappropriate self-referencing).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, biases, education, and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors, and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.

 

[Copernicus]

No .. most people, while not being in "complete control", ARE safe to drive .. because it is a matter of
degree i.e. how often do we lose control of our will, and to what extent

Of course, NOT always safe to drive. Perfect justification for the fact that our freedom of choice is limited by factors beyond our control. Thank you for accepting the concept of Limited Free Will based on sound neurobiology scientific references,

But, if that is all you mean by "Limited Free Will", then we are all in violent agreement. I wish that your term were defined in some sound scientific reference, but all we've ever gotten from you for a definition was that post from a social media source from five years ago and which the moderators shut down for being out of bounds for the topics under discussion. Frankly, what you call "limited free will" is just what most people call "free will", and I see no significant difference between what you are saying and what compatibilists are saying--that one can define free will in such a way that it is compatible within the framework of determinism. Either one is a compatibilist or an incompatibilist, and it appears to me that you are not an incompatibilist, no matter how much you insist on staking out some kind of middle ground.

 

[shunyadragon]

But, if that is all you mean by "Limited Free Will", then we are all in violent agreement. I wish that your term were defined in some sound scientific reference, but all we've ever gotten from you for a definition was that post from a social media source from five years ago and which the moderators shut down for being out of bounds for the topics under discussion. Frankly, what you call "limited free will" is just what most people call "free will", and I see no significant difference between what you are saying and what compatibilists are saying--that one can define free will in such a way that it is compatible within the framework of determinism. Either one is a compatibilist or an incompatibilist, and it appears to me that you are not an incompatibilist, no matter how much you insist on staking out some kind of middle ground.

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It

Conclusion​

Free will is an elusive but crucial concept. For many years we have known that the functioning of our brain has to do not only with the belief that we have free will but also with the existence of free will itself. Evidence of the unconscious start of movement, highlighted by the RP signal, has led to believe that we had reached an experimental proof of the non-existence of free will—which many already claimed at a theoretical level based on the argument of the incompatibility between determinism and freedom. Along with other evidence provided by experimental psychology, the branch of studies inaugurated by Libet has contributed to seeing free will as an illusion: this view seemed to be reliably supported by science, and in particular by neuroscience. Recent studies, however, seem to question this paradigm, which sees the initiation and conscious control of the action as the first requirement of free will, allegedly proving that there are no such things.

The stochastic models and the models of evidence accumulation consider decision as the crossing of a threshold of activity in specific brain regions. They do not restore the idea of conscious control but turn away from the previous paradigm. These studies cannot yet fully explain how the intention to perform an action arises in the brain, but they better account for the complexity of the process. In particular, they recognize the role of the spontaneous activity of the brain, of external cues and other factors—including those that might be called “will” and “reasons” (which, however, do not currently have precisely identified neural correlates)—in reaching the critical threshold. Studies that show how we can consciously block movements whose preparation has already begun unconsciously, then, indicate how the subject is able to exercise a form of control, whose genesis however is still unclear.

One could state that free “decision-making draws upon a rich history of accumulated information, manifested in preferences, attitudes and motivations, and is related to the current internal and external environment in which we act. Complete absence of context is impossible” (Bode et al., 2014). In this framework, I have here proposed to integrate neuroscientific research on free will by connecting higher-level concepts with their neural correlates through a psychological operationalization in terms of skills and cognitive functions that do not necessarily imply a continuous conscious control over the decision-making and action process. This may also allow one to create a quantitative index, albeit still quite rudimentary, of the degree of freedom of each subject. This freedom would be specifically defined and therefore may not perfectly coincide with the intuitive concept of free will. Starting from these functional indicators, which psychology has well clarified, one could then move on to investigate the precise neural correlates for a different and (possibly) more fundamental level of explanation in terms of brain processes that enable the executive functions.

According to Craver (2007), a mechanistic explanation is able to lead to an inter-field integration. There are two relevant aspects to this approach. The functional knowledge that can be drawn from psychological research is a tool to identify neural mechanisms; the knowledge of the brain structure can guide the construction of far more sophisticated psychological models (Bechtel and Mundale, 1999). The index of free will that I am proposing (Lavazza and Inglese, 2015)—despite surely needing further refinement—might be useful to explore the brain mechanisms that underlie what appears in behavior as “free will”, which no longer seems to be an illusion, not even for neuroscientific research.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not quite in the same way. Philosophy and religion are not disciplines that depend on physical evidence to establish facts about how nature works..

No, not in the same way .. but the result is the same .. we are misled.

But it is misleading to say that academic disciplines lead one astray..

I didn't mean that they directly lead us astray, but that we can be misled NOT ONLY by religion..
..which is what atheist scientists claim.
i.e. they claim that their science is proved, and beyond doubt

..which is often untrue. It's like adverts on TV, using the "science" word to impress.

People trained in those disciplines can arrive at false information and false doctrines, and what is interesting about them is the methodology they use to correct falsehoods. No religion that I am aware of has any such methodology, since "faith" is basically a denial of needing one..

I don't agree with that entirely.
Theology is not just an expression of "what one must believe", it is a methodical approach,
using all available material.
Naturally, people have their own biases .. but so they do in the physical sciences too .. we are only human.

I agree with you up to a point. Wikipedia is often a good place to start, and it isn't as bad as it used to be in terms of getting things wrong. The administrators do make an effort to clean up the detritus or at least post warnings about shaky content. Crowd-sourced information is not always reliable. For philosophy, there are more professionally vetted sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Well that's the problem. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is superior to other sources.
It's just that each of us have our own agendas and biases, and through experience, I have
concluded its better to limit references when debating.

eg. you want to use a specialized philosophy site .. another wants to use a Christian site ..
.. another wants to use an Islamic site .. another wants to use a science site etc. etc.

Wikipedia is not confined to any particular discipline .. neither is it pro-atheist or pro-science
or pro-Muslim and so on..

Generally speaking, it is better to go with peer-reviewed sources. Wikipedia is less reliable on that front.

It has references .. it's not just random people, saying random things without reason.
Any major topic will be controlled, and semi-locked from interference.
..so in effect, it IS peer-reviewed .. but not a specialist site.

There are atheists who are scientists and who promote atheism with references to science. However, there really is no such thing as "atheist science".

No, there isn't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"the" theory? What theory?

The theory of (biological) evolution.

please don't say 'theory of evolution', because that could mean many things. It could refer to natural selection, which we learn about in elementary school .. or it could refer to 100's of other theories or 'extended evolutionary synthesis' , which is deceitful.

That's my answer anyway. The theory of evolution is one thing, namely, that the tree of extant and extinct lifeforms descended from a single primordial population through natural selection applied to the results of variation in populations across generations. Your link refers to a proposed addition to the modern synthesis. All of these are additions to Darwin's theory described above.

I believe that the modern synthesis refers to the new understanding of genetics, and the one you referred to adds punctuated equilibrium, but these are also the theory of evolution. We can say they evolved from Darwin's idea, that is, descended with modification, but not to the core claims of Darwin.

saying that ToE is 'proven science', and being purposely vague

Proven is your word, and it seems that you can't get away from it. What I say is that the theory is demonstrably correct beyond reasonable doubt, and there is nothing vague there, at least not for me.

Would I say that driverless cars can become human? No.

You weren't asked that. You were asked, "Will you say that such cars have free will because they drive safely?"

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am saying specific peer reviewed scientific articles take precedence over Wikipedia.

..and I'm not saying that they don't.
It's just that I'm not interested in dredging through myriads of other people's links,
from multiple sources.

I'm the same when it comes to Muslims quoting 'youtube', or this site or that about Islam, or any other subject.
.. I'm not interested !

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect...

Yeah, yeah, yeah .. we know all that. Disclaimers .. licenses .. cookies .. etc. etc.
Boring .. but necessary for legal reasons.

After all .. ANY encyclopedia cannot guarantee content .. but I find it preferable that it is not PUBLISHED
by a country, religious group, scientific research group etc. .. Wikipedia is a charity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The theory of (biological) evolution.

That's my answer anyway..

..what? To be purposely vague?

The theory of evolution is one thing, namely, that the tree of extant and extinct lifeforms descended from a single primordial population through natural selection applied to the results of variation in populations across generations.

Right .. so that is what YOU mean by the theory of evolution .. thankyou.

Your link refers to a proposed addition to the modern synthesis. All of these are additions to Darwin's theory described above.

Well, that is only an example .. there are 100's .. and many people include these under the umbrella
of T of E.

What I say is that the theory is demonstrably correct beyond reasonable doubt..

Fine .. I would agree with you..
..but not for the 100's of extensions .. I would need to examine them one by one.

You weren't asked that. You were asked, "Will you say that such cars have free will because they drive safely?"

I'm well aware of that.
My answer should give you 'a clue' as to what my answer to your question is.

 

[Copernicus]

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It

Conclusion​

Free will is an elusive but crucial concept. For many years we have known that the functioning of our brain has to do not only with the belief that we have free will but also with the existence of free will itself. Evidence of the unconscious start of movement, highlighted by the RP signal, has led to believe that we had reached an experimental proof of the non-existence of free will—which many already claimed at a theoretical level based on the argument of the incompatibility between determinism and freedom. Along with other evidence provided by experimental psychology, the branch of studies inaugurated by Libet has contributed to seeing free will as an illusion: this view seemed to be reliably supported by science, and in particular by neuroscience. Recent studies, however, seem to question this paradigm, which sees the initiation and conscious control of the action as the first requirement of free will, allegedly proving that there are no such things.

The stochastic models and the models of evidence accumulation consider decision as the crossing of a threshold of activity in specific brain regions. They do not restore the idea of conscious control but turn away from the previous paradigm. These studies cannot yet fully explain how the intention to perform an action arises in the brain, but they better account for the complexity of the process. In particular, they recognize the role of the spontaneous activity of the brain, of external cues and other factors—including those that might be called “will” and “reasons” (which, however, do not currently have precisely identified neural correlates)—in reaching the critical threshold. Studies that show how we can consciously block movements whose preparation has already begun unconsciously, then, indicate how the subject is able to exercise a form of control, whose genesis however is still unclear.

One could state that free “decision-making draws upon a rich history of accumulated information, manifested in preferences, attitudes and motivations, and is related to the current internal and external environment in which we act. Complete absence of context is impossible” (Bode et al., 2014). In this framework, I have here proposed to integrate neuroscientific research on free will by connecting higher-level concepts with their neural correlates through a psychological operationalization in terms of skills and cognitive functions that do not necessarily imply a continuous conscious control over the decision-making and action process. This may also allow one to create a quantitative index, albeit still quite rudimentary, of the degree of freedom of each subject. This freedom would be specifically defined and therefore may not perfectly coincide with the intuitive concept of free will. Starting from these functional indicators, which psychology has well clarified, one could then move on to investigate the precise neural correlates for a different and (possibly) more fundamental level of explanation in terms of brain processes that enable the executive functions.

According to Craver (2007), a mechanistic explanation is able to lead to an inter-field integration. There are two relevant aspects to this approach. The functional knowledge that can be drawn from psychological research is a tool to identify neural mechanisms; the knowledge of the brain structure can guide the construction of far more sophisticated psychological models (Bechtel and Mundale, 1999). The index of free will that I am proposing (Lavazza and Inglese, 2015)—despite surely needing further refinement—might be useful to explore the brain mechanisms that underlie what appears in behavior as “free will”, which no longer seems to be an illusion, not even for neuroscientific research.

Thanks for the reference, but, as with all of your references of this sort, the content lacks any reference to your term "limited free will". Worse yet, you are just citing a work written by someone else that makes claims outside of the context of this discussion. Presumably, it is left to me to go off and read this text, then have an "Aha!" moment, and think you have made your point. There is nothing in your post to indicate what impressed you about the article--perhaps everything?--or how it relates to the concept of "limited free will" that you are on about. Nobody disputes that free will is limited by all sorts of things. Muhammad has been agreeing with you on that point in so many ways, even if you both disagree on religion. So, to me, your article is just someone else's take on how neuroscience might have some bearing on a loosely defined concept of "free will" that may or may not have much to do with how ordinary English speakers actually use the expression. Libet himself didn't participate in the intellectual debate over determinism and free will, but a lot of other people have felt his work was relevant to it. I'm in the camp of those who don't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If we are not free to make choices, because we are not in "complete control", then we wouldn't be safe
to drive, for example.

No .. most people, while not being in "complete control", ARE safe to drive .. because it is a matter of
degree i.e. how often do we lose control of our will, and to what extent

Most driving decisions are not consciously made, but are instinctual. When someone suddenly and dangerously cuts you off, braking is not something you consider and choose. You just react.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Most driving decisions are not consciously made, but are instinctual..

I would challenge that .. and agree that SOME decisions are instinctive reactions.
..such as braking in emergency.

A good driver concentrates on driving, and uses their free-will to make the necessary decisions to
look in their mirror(s), and leave plenty of room in front of them etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would challenge that .. and agree that SOME decisions are instinctive reactions.
..such as braking in emergency.

A good driver concentrates on driving, and uses their free-will to make the necessary decisions to
look in their mirror(s), and leave plenty of room in front of them etc.

But the truth is that most drivers, at least a good deal of the time, are NOT concentrating on driving. They are talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio, or thinking about this morning's board meeting, or planning what to say to their girlfriend, etc. Driving is boring, and people tend to move into auto-pilot. Their conscious focus is reserved for making sure they make the right turns to get to their location and waiting for red lights to turn green.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But the truth is that most drivers, at least a good deal of the time, are NOT concentrating on driving..

No .. they are concentrating, but perhaps not as much as they should be.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Fine .. I would agree with you..

You agree that "the theory is demonstrably correct beyond reasonable doubt" after asking what theory and saying I'm being vague.

I'm well aware of that. My answer should give you 'a clue' as to what my answer to your question is

Now who's being vague?

 

[danieldemol]

If we are not free to make choices, because we are not in "complete control", then we wouldn't be safe
to drive, for example.

You are only considering freedom from external constraints *not* internal constraints, which makes your assertion a non sequitur in my view.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No .. they are concentrating, but perhaps not as much as they should be.

I stand by what I said. It's fine if you disagree.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the reference, but, as with all of your references of this sort, the content lacks any reference to your term "limited free will". Worse yet, you are just citing a work written by someone else that makes claims outside of the context of this discussion. Presumably, it is left to me to go off and read this text, then have an "Aha!" moment, and think you have made your point. There is nothing in your post to indicate what impressed you about the article--perhaps everything?--or how it relates to the concept of "limited free will" that you are on about. Nobody disputes that free will is limited by all sorts of things. Muhammad has been agreeing with you on that point in so many ways, even if you both disagree on religion. So, to me, your article is just someone else's take on how neuroscience might have some bearing on a loosely defined concept of "free will" that may or may not have much to do with how ordinary English speakers actually use the expression. Libet himself didn't participate in the intellectual debate over determinism and free will, but a lot of other people have felt his work was relevant to it. I'm in the camp of those who don't.

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conlusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

 

[shunyadragon]

I would challenge that .. and agree that SOME decisions are instinctive reactions.
..such as braking in emergency.

You cannot arbitrarily limited our instinct to self=protect and survive to just breaking in emergency. A computer can do that Instincts limit our freedom of choices throughout out lives including driving a car.

A good driver concentrates on driving, and uses their free-will to make the necessary decisions to
look in their mirror(s), and leave plenty of room in front of them etc.

Your running this foolishness into the ground and not responding to the key issues of my posts,