Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Quantum Quack]

Baldeee
As Capricius is alluding to a personalised intelligent universe I think the following analogy might be worth throwing on the table...

Think of the nature of agency.
You have a Principle ( the universe and it's staring conditions)
Then you have an Agent. ( self determined human)
The Principle lays down the rules of engagement for the Agent in a universal deterministic environment.
The Agent is restricted in his actions but has the autonomy to do as he pleases with in the rules (laws of physics) laid down by the Principle.

In some religious circles this is in effect the relationship a God would have towards the humans he created.
Principle and agent... relationship.
Mankind may very well be doing the will of God but he has the freedom to do it in any way he sees fit.

In this case an atheist would subscribe to the notion that God is replaced with deterministic universe and the the agent is replaced with self determined human.

Does the analogy of Principle and Agent make the idea of self determination any easier to fathom as being an intrinsic part of a deterministic universe?

 

[DaveC426913]

the Universe predetermination evolves a human being capable of learning how to self determine

This simply does. not. follow.

Let's simplify matters down to molecules for a moment.

Atoms propagate from the Big Bang at the trajectories they do, and - due to the laws of physics alone - collect into bunches.
They have no choice in the matter; if the process were repeated, they would follow the exact same trajectories and clump together identically.
Some of these atoms form molecules. Again, there are no options here. Repeat the process identically and the exact same thing happens.

Wherein lies the difference between small clumps of atoms and very (very) large clumps of atoms?
Very (very) large clumps of atoms have very complex interactions, to be sure, but that doesn't mean any of them are free from the laws of physics that control them.

The fact that some of these very large clumps of atoms are arranged in such a way as to keep certain atoms inside and certain atoms outside doesn't mean it isn't still going to play out identically if rewound.
The fact that these very large clumps have subclumps that are sensitive to light (again, purely due to physics/chemistry), and have some subclumps arranged to move the whole thing in the direction of the light - doesn't mean there is any choice involved anywhere.
And the fact that there is a whole subclump that has other stimuli imprinted on it (such as a mechanism that thwarts the signal to move into sunlight, when overridden by the signal that roaring sounds often cause 'inside atoms' to become 'outside atoms') - does not mean there was any self-determination involved. It is simply clumps of atoms, doing what they must.

So, again what is this "self-determination"? Is it simply synonymous with "life" and no more?

 

[iceaura]

They have no choice in the matter; if the process were repeated, they would follow the exact same trajectories and clump together identically.
Some of these atoms form molecules. Again, there are no options here. Repeat the process identically and the exact same thing happens.

According to current math and physics - quantum and chaos theory, etc - one cannot in theory repeat that process "identically". There is no such thing as an identical repetition - the odds against it are too great, the lifespan of the universe too short.

That is in theory, notice - pragmatic difficulties are irrelevant.
Also, it doesn't matter much - the issue is a digression. If one could in theory build a perpetual motion machine or repeat a complex process identically, if the objections were entirely pragmatic, it would make no difference at all to the observed physical reality that grounds this discussion.

So, again what is this "self-determination"?

I don't know what QQ means by it, but the obvious fact of selves determining things - including some of their own behavior, guided by internal factors - is a matter of observation and record.

Wherein lies the difference between small clumps of atoms and very (very) large clumps of atoms?

In their logical levels of organization, for one.

The fact that these very large clumps have subclumps that are sensitive to light (again, purely due to physics/chemistry), and have some subclumps arranged to move the whole thing in the direction of the light - doesn't mean there is any choice involved anywhere.

Entities making choices are observed. They exist in physical fact. None of your considerations of substrate etc render them nonexistent.

 

[iceaura]

No. If free will exists then the universe can't be deterministic.

That is false - only supernatural free will denies determinism, and we agreed that we were not discussing supernatural anything, here.

 

[iceaura]

If humans are composed of the same atoms and molecules as everything else in the universe that acts on the golf ball, and all of those non human atom and molecules are not considered self determined, then what reason is there assume that the human variety are?

Observation of fact, theoretical consideration of logical levels, etc.
Starting with the reminder that humans exist, as entities and parts of the universe. They are the part of the universe that makes human choices, does human deeds, etc.

The human decision, whether to leave the golf ball or not, would be predetermined from the start.
The human "self-determination" is just a subset of the overall mechanism at play

Leave out the muddle words that are confusing you - "just", "the start", the "pre" of "predetermined", etc - and reread with care.
The human decision, whether to leave the golf ball or not, is determined almost entirely by constituent factors of the human - subsets of the human involved. That's how the "overall mechanism" is set up to work.
The "overall mechanism" is the human being involved.

But this hypothesised scenario is, as has been mentioned numerous times in other threads, by more than one person, merely a counterfactual alternative to that which has been predetermined.

Those people had not only knotted themselves in time, but even lost track of sequence: they were insisting on causal determinism at the same time as they had future events obviating the existence of current physical realities.

There is nothing counterfactual about the existence of capabilities now, regardless of what the future is determined to be - the opposite is the case: currently existing alternatives and capabilities and so forth are significant factors involved in determining that future. They are part of the means by which the future is determined by the universe - they are the means of determination.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is false - only supernatural free will denies determinism, and we agreed that we were not discussing supernatural anything, here.

Agree. We're not discussing anything supernatural. Because it doesn't exist.

What definition of "free will" is compatible with a deterministic universe? It sounds like that's what QQ is trying to pin down with his "self-determinism". Is yours different?

So my assertion is not "false", it's arguing that free will, as the term is generally understood, does not exist.

According to current math and physics - quantum and chaos theory, etc - one cannot in theory repeat that process "identically". There is no such thing as an identical repetition - the odds against it are too great, the lifespan of the universe too short.

Of course. I should have added 'hypothetically'.

All I'm trying to illustrate is that there are no mysterious unaccounted-for influences on the atoms. They have the properties they have, and they do what they do, and those things are not subject to any optional magic forces that give them freedom of movement.

I don't know what QQ means by it, but the obvious fact of selves determining things - including some of their own behavior, guided by internal factors - is a matter of observation and record.

This is what I'm concluding too.

'Self-determination' simply means 'each organism operates on its internal electro-chemistry, not on some external string-pulling'. That is little more than one of the criteria for 'life'.

It does not follow that these organisms are self-determining in some more meaningful way. Their atoms are still "doomed" to interact with other atoms (even if extremely complex) without any choices.

If humans are self-determining, then so are bacteria.

After all, cyanobacteria terraformed an entire planet - polluting themselves almost out of existence. Humans aren't the best at self-determination - they aren't even the first - by several billion years.

 

[iceaura]

It does not follow that these organisms are self-determining in some more meaningful way

There is quite a bit of meaning in the human capabilities of self-guided thought and self-controlled action.

Their atoms are still "doomed" to interact with other atoms (even if extremely complex) without any choices.

Nobody has suggested that willed choices are made on the atomic substrate level - the necessary logical levels of organization are far removed from atoms (even farther than molecules are from quarks).

If humans are self-determining, then so are bacteria.

That is not what we observe.

After all, cyanobacteria terraformed an entire planet - polluting themselves almost out of existence.

They never came near vanishing. And none of that was "self" determining - they lack the level of organization (mental) required to close that loop.

 

[Baldeee]

and if all is predetermined as you suggest, then how can you claim anything to be objective, including the difference between true and false? Or determinism and non-determinism?

In the hypothesised universe, determinism is to be considered objective: it has been premised as being the case.

In the deterministic paradigm, you contend for some unsupported and inexplicable reason, that only one course of action is possible. Therefore there is no ability to consider the veracity of anything as being objectively true or false.

It is neither unsupported nor inexplicable: it is the implication of causal determinism that has been premised.
Causal determinism is the philosophy that all events are completely determined by previously existing causes.
If a combination of causes (e.g. X+Y) can lead to either output A or output B then those causes do not completely determine the outcome, and there is no determinism.
Only if the causes can lead to one possible outcome, and always the same outcome, do you have determinism.
Therefore if you start with A (let A denote the entire set of starting conditions) then in a deterministic system the output is completely determined - i.e. set in stone - by A, and can only be output B.
If you start with B... the output can only be C.
If you start with C... the output can only be D.
And so on.
Thus if you start with A, ultimately you end with Z.
There is no alternative in a causally deterministic system.
Thus the path from A to Z is predetermined, it is set in stone as soon as A is the set of inputs to the system.

Your paradigm states that the philosophy of Determinism itself is the product of universal determination there fore has no value as a philosophy. Not true or false but just is, as it was predetermined to be.
Determinism with out self determinism included renders all intellectual endeavor utterly subject to universal starting conditions. Thus purely subjective. Not a shred of objectivity is present or possible.

This doesn't follow.
In a hypothetical universe which is premised as deterministic, the determinism is necessarily objective, otherwise you haven't premised it.
It is objective in as much as, regardless of any subjective view, the universe operates in a deterministic manner.
Being the product of something doesn't negate the thing, nor the truth of the thing.
Furthermore, since self-determinism is simply a subset of the overall deterministic system, it is itself subject to those same starting conditions, as is everything else.
The inclusion of self-determinism doesn't alter this.
You can't escape a deterministic universe through self-determinism, which is what you seem to be claiming (although it is somewhat unclear to me just what you are claiming, so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick).

I am not claiming any such thing... self determination is relative to the capacity to learn how to self determine. A baby learning to choose for example between their left or right hand is learning how to determine which hand they wish to move and certainly NOT which atom does what. Self determination is never absolute as you so erroneously hold to. Nor is the quality of freedom that self determination affords the self determiner.
I am amazed that you and others believe the way you do..

I'm not adhering to any absoluteness of self-determination.
I am actually still trying to comprehend what you actually mean by self-determination.
You have claimed, after all: "Cause and effect...ultimately evolving a human capable of learning how to manage, alter and manipulate that which has been predetermined by the universe."
If something can, as you suggest, learn how to manipulate that which has been predetermined, then how is this not you suggesting that self-determined actions can override that which the universe predetermines?

An unsupportable claim of only one course of events when there are an infinite potential number of equally predetermined events.

It is not unsupportable, and has been supported above.
The only way to have an infinite number of equally predetermined events is to look at an infinitely long predetermined course of events.
If, however, you think that one moment (A) could lead to either B1 or B2 or B3 then you are no longer talking of a deterministic system.
But this discussion, I thought, was.

How do you logically conclude that there is only one course of events with out using hindsight to conclude as such?

Hindsight has no say on the matter other than to identify that which transpires.
It is simply the premise of causal determinism that leads to the conclusion of a single predetermined course of events:
A deterministic system is one in which a set of inputs can only lead to a certain output, i.e. the same inputs will always lead to that same output.
Not the same set of possible outputs governed by a probability function, but the same specific output.
Therefore if you have A as your input you will always output B.
If you have B you will always output C.
All the way from one letter to the next.
Thus if you start with A there is only one course of events before you: A, B, C, D, E... etc.
If one thinks that it could go A, B, C, G... or A, B, C, D... then you are saying that input C could lead to output D or G.
This is then no longer a deterministic system.

nope.. see above

It is wrong, for the explanation already provided.
Ignore that explanation if you want, or don't, but your analysis of what I was saying remains wrong.

 

[Baldeee]

Leave out the muddle words that are confusing you - "just", "the start", the "pre" of "predetermined", etc - and reread with care.

Those words are there for a reason.
Which one are you struggling with?

The human decision, whether to leave the golf ball or not, is determined almost entirely by constituent factors of the human - subsets of the human involved. That's how the "overall mechanism" is set up to work.
The "overall mechanism" is the human being involved.

No, the overall mechanism is the universe, of which the human is merely a rather highly concentrated set of interactions.
If one only looks at the open sub-system then one can certainly get the appearance of localised indeterminism from that system - i.e. the ability for a given input to result in one of a set of possible outputs.
But that doesn't stop it being predetermined, from the course of events set out from the moment the starting conditions were there.
If it can be changed then it isn't predetermined, and we are no longer talking about causal determinism.

Those people had not only knotted themselves in time, but even lost track of sequence: they were insisting on causal determinism at the same time as they had future events obviating the existence of current physical realities.

Without reading the specific posts, you'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

There is nothing counterfactual about the existence of capabilities now, regardless of what the future is determined to be - the opposite is the case: currently existing alternatives and capabilities and so forth are significant factors involved in determining that future. They are part of the means by which the future is determined by the universe - they are the means of determination.

There is everything counterfactual about them.
We can of course hypothesise and say that we have the ability to do A or the ability to do B, depending upon a future input to the system, but the input to the system is always predetermined.
We just don't know what it is yet.
Given that it is predetermined, though, and the system is deterministic, there is only one output that can possibly unfold to that input.
To consider the possibility of any more than one is therefore to consider counterfactual alternatives, not genuine ones.
And we may not even consider the actual outcome at all, such that all options we consider are counterfactual.

I also not you have skipped over the following (post #451):

iceaura said: ↑
And step by step causation does not involve anything analogous to a script - a script describes an extension into the future, not what will happen now, and such a script has been proven to be theoretically as well as pragmatically impossible.

On what basis do you assert that such a script has been proven to be theoretically impossible?
Pragmatically impossible, yes, I grant you that, but where has it been proven that it is theoretically impossible?
Are we to take your word on it?
Are you denying that a causally deterministic universe is one in which everything is predetermined?
Are you still erroneously thinking, per chance, that such matters as quantum mechanics are deterministic?

 

[C C]

Isn't it kind of tendentious to demand that everyone accept a particular (hard-determinist) answer to the free-will/determinism problem as a precondition to even discussing the free-will/determinism problem? Sounds like the definition of circular reasoning.

Why would anyone want to champion an overarching perspective and category (incompatibilism) that outputs and subsumes three basic, conflicting views? Apparently those who love that kind of group incoherence, the problem(s) it generates, and the endless squabbling which this thread exemplies.

Incompatibilist thought is not a serious activity. It's a recreational game/competition (without a winner) pretending to be serious. It's built from the outset to create problems -- the struggle of those aforementioned stances it subsumes, which are consequences of it, which war against each other. (1) Declaration of a deterministic universe but denial of free will; (2) Declaration of free will but denial of a deterministic universe; (3) Denial of both determinism and free will.

The goal, ability, etc to resolve such is not part of incompatibilism's properties. Such would be the end of the feuding, the very recreational play its purpose is to spawn and maintain. It selectively seeks or formulates definitions and understandings of an _X_ which ensure discord.

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee
As Capricius is alluding to a personalised intelligent universe I think the following analogy might be worth throwing on the table...
...
Does the analogy of Principle and Agent make the idea of self determination any easier to fathom as being an intrinsic part of a deterministic universe?

This is roughly what I understood you to mean to a degree, yet you throw that understanding on its head when you claim: "Cause and effect...ultimately evolving a human capable of learning how to manage, alter and manipulate that which has been predetermined by the universe."
Here you are advocating, or at least what you have written seems to advocate the flouting by the Agent of the laws that the Principle has set out.
One can not manipulate determinism, or the predetermination that it results in.
One can not likewise alter any of the laws of physics.
One can certainly achieve things through application of those laws, but that is a somewhat different kettle of fish than altering them.

The Principle in your anaolgy dictates everything, and I do mean everything, that the Agent does.
From the subjective viewpoint of the Agent, who isn't consciously aware of their predetermined course of events, there is the apparent ability to do as you suggest.
I.e. it only appears to be the case from the subjective viewpoint.
And that much has never been objected to.

 

[Baldeee]

Why would anyone want to champion an overarching perspective and category that outputs and subsumes three basic, conflicting views? Those who love that kind of group incoherence, the problem(s) it generates, and the endless squabbling which this thread exemplies.

The squabbling isn't, on the whole, between the incompatibilist viewpoints.
The discussion is primarily between compatibilists and incompatibilists, as one would expect when the subject of the thread is whether freewill and determinism are compatible.
That is certainly the "squabbling" that this thread exemplifies.

Incompatibilist thought is not a serious activity. It's a recreational game/competition (without a winner) pretending to be serious. It's built from the outset to create problems -- the struggle of those aforementioned stances it subsumes, which are consequences of it, which war against each other: (1) Declaration of a deterministic universe but denial of free will; (2) Declaration of free will but denial of a deterministic universe. (3) Denial of both determinism and free will.

The goal, ability, etc to resolve such is not part of incompatibilism's properties -- that would be end of the feuding, the very recreational play its purpose is to spawn and maintain. It selectively seeks or formulates definitions and understandings of an _X_ which ensure discord.

Incompatibilism isn't a specific position on the reality of free will and/or the reality of determinism, and makes no allusions to be so (although I suppose some individuals might misunderstand it to be).
As you say, it is three possible view points that are brought under a single moniker (primarily when discussing with the compatibilist), but that is not a reason in and of itself to denigrate their shared viewpoint, as you are doing, especially in a thread that is specifically to address not those differences between incompatibilist positions but the difference between the compatibilist and incompatibilist positions.
As such it is a viewpoint that has merit, is borne of and involves serious thought, whether you personally choose to expend any energy in that direction or not, and one can certainly consider (nearly) all of philosophical thought and discussion to be a recreational game.

As has been offered in almost every thread on the subject, though: the side one takes on the question of their compatibility (i.e. compatibilism or incompatibilism), and the conclusions one reach, is mostly dependent on the notion of "free" that one uses, and what that notion entails.
You have offered one, a compatibilist notion.
Another is the notion that to be "free" there needs to be genuine alternatives to what occurs.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This simply does. not. follow.

Let's simplify matters down to molecules for a moment.

Atoms propagate from the Big Bang at the trajectories they do, and - due to the laws of physics alone - collect into bunches.
They have no choice in the matter; if the process were repeated, they would follow the exact same trajectories and clump together identically.
Some of these atoms form molecules. Again, there are no options here. Repeat the process identically and the exact same thing happens.

Wherein lies the difference between small clumps of atoms and very (very) large clumps of atoms?
Very (very) large clumps of atoms have very complex interactions, to be sure, but that doesn't mean any of them are free from the laws of physics that control them.

The fact that some of these very large clumps of atoms are arranged in such a way as to keep certain atoms inside and certain atoms outside doesn't mean it isn't still going to play out identically if rewound.
The fact that these very large clumps have subclumps that are sensitive to light (again, purely due to physics/chemistry), and have some subclumps arranged to move the whole thing in the direction of the light - doesn't mean there is any choice involved anywhere.
And the fact that there is a whole subclump that has other stimuli imprinted on it (such as a mechanism that thwarts the signal to move into sunlight, when overridden by the signal that roaring sounds often cause 'inside atoms' to become 'outside atoms') - does not mean there was any self-determination involved. It is simply clumps of atoms, doing what they must.

So, again what is this "self-determination"? Is it simply synonymous with "life" and no more?

until that super clump of atoms learns how to make a choice...

So again I ask you how does the capacity to LEARN something impact on your assessment?

eg. a Gymnast learns to do what?
the act of learning is essential to an act of self determination...By ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't make it go away...

The ability to learn how to choose happens at what age in an human infant?

 

[Quantum Quack]

They are part of the means by which the future is determined by the universe - they are the means of determination.

Oh ... I like this.... well put..

 

[Quantum Quack]

In a hypothetical universe which is premised as deterministic, the determinism is necessarily objective, otherwise you haven't premised it.

but the "YOU" doesn't exist to do any premising...
Determinism with out self determinism defeats itself logically. Because it takes self determined YOU to determine whether something is objective or not.
According to your no choice, single event outcome paradigm, determinism means pure subjectivity...no objectivity is available.

Or put it this way:
Objectivity requires binary logic
A deterministic universe has no binary logic. It is only a YES system with out a NO.

That said, the notion of cause and effect ( binary) is actually non-existent in a deterministic universe with out a self determined actor capable of choosing right from wrong, yes or no, true or false, cause or effect.

Or ask the question:

How can objectivity exist in a deterministic universe if all outcomes and evaluations are predetermined as a single possibility?

or deeper...
Do we exist as part of a duality ( Ego ) or non-duality (no ego)?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Principle in your anaolgy dictates everything, and I do mean everything, that the Agent does.

nope, the principle provides the environment for the agent to do his thing to the best of his learned capability.
In this scenario try the words "Delegated authority".

 

[iceaura]

So my assertion is not "false", it's arguing that free will, as the term is generally understood, does not exist

The "general understanding" you refer to is the notion that to be free one must defy physical law - be supernatural. (other available understandings do not conflict with determinism) So that is redundant - supernatural anything does not exist, by assumption. You are fixated on a meaningless redundancy.
And you are not alone:

There is everything counterfactual about them.

Nothing. Capabilities are observed in fact - equivalent to each other in their status as existent, indistinguishable in their physical reality and features, differing only in their employment in a future event - which, being in the future, has no bearing on their nature at the time of observation. Causation does not go backwards in time.
How do you overlook that obvious fact? Apparently, like this:

Those words are there for a reason.

Yes. And that reason informs - because it has nothing to do with your argument itself.

They are unnecessary, notice, in this context - as you go to much trouble establishing for QQ, above, there is no difference between predetermined and determined in a caused event; likewise there is no difference between "just" a subset and a subset, and so forth. But you are very reluctant to omit them - you resist cutting them. You insist on these redundancies, you type them out, you object to leaving them out even when it would make life easier.

That is a symptom. The role they play is important to you. Without those completely unnecessary syllables, something starts to go wrong with your argument - you can feel the foundation weaken. That should warn you.

If one only looks at the open sub-system then one can certainly get the appearance of localised indeterminism from that system - i.e. the ability for a given input to result in one of a set of possible outputs.

You introduce "indeterminism" for some reason. It is bizarrely irrelevant. I don't forget about determination when evaluating present circumstances and things that exist now - why would anyone else?

Without reading the specific posts, you'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

You have seen the quotes and explanations of the dozens of examples dozens of times here - in every thread on this topic, clearly laid out. In the second paragraph of this very post is another - "causation does not go backwards in time", as the obvious response to your quite silly claim that capabilities which will not be used at a given time in the distant future are somehow "counterfactual" right now. You have never once bothered to register the point, and you won't this time either. The reason you won't is probably the same as the reason you insist on typing "pre" in front of "determined" - psychological reassurance being the most obvious possibility.

Which leads to a small step recently made in this topic, as I was pondering why the deluded materialists here refused so adamantly to register this small set of more or less obvious points - that capabilities are observed entities in the physical universe, that a driver approaching a string of traffic lights does not gain or lose capabilities depending on the future color of each light any more than they lose teeth based on their future diet, that degrees of freedom in human choices and willed actions are physically real, that a human being is the means by which the universe makes human choices and the location in which such choices are made - human will is fully participant in the process of determination, and so forth.

While pondering that, as noted, in came a half dozen repetitions of the weird phenomenon of having the driver/light illustration stubbornly and insistently and invariably rewritten before being addressed; given a collapsed or even inverted timeline, replaced by bricks in space and calculators and so forth, and not once - not one single time, ever - considered and analyzed as posted.

So this emerged from the shadows: the deluded materialist habitually and reflexively reacts to news of high level mental events as if they were essentially supernatural.
Subconsciously they don't "genuinely" exist, in other words, . That's why causality ends at the level of cue balls and bricks , why they talk about "human atoms" making human decisions rather than minds, why they can post about capabilities appearing and disappearing from the present according to information about the distant future - claims they would immediately laugh at if made about toenails.

 

[iceaura]

Just cause it came up:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

 

[DaveC426913]

The "general understanding" you refer to is the notion that to be free one must defy physical law

No it isn't.

I think that's how you interpret what people are doing, but that's not the same thing.

That is not what we observe.

Bacteria act and react as autonomous units.

According to QQ, that's enough to call them self-determining. We just went over this.

They never came near vanishing.

They once owned the world. Now they are relegated to niches that are conducive to anaerobic life. You're nit picking.

And none of that was "self" determining - they lack the level of organization (mental) required to close that loop.

And this tells me that we are not even talking about the same thing.

You have created a definition for self-determining that seems to require "mental organization". I see no such definition anywhere anyone has written.

I think you should probably state your definition before using it in an argument. (I stated mine - what I think QQ's is - in post 450).

 

[Quantum Quack]

Which leads to a small step recently made in this topic, as I was pondering why the deluded materialists here refused so adamantly to register this small set of more or less obvious points - that capabilities are observed entities in the physical universe, that a driver approaching a string of traffic lights does not gain or lose capabilities depending on the future color of each light any more than they lose teeth based on their future diet, that degrees of freedom in human choices and willed actions are physically real, that a human being is the means by which the universe makes human choices and the location in which such choices are made - human will is fully participant in the process of determination, and so forth.

It is interesting that it seems impossible to grasp that the ability to choose what to do when confronted with colored street lights was learned when the driver was learning how to drive and possibly in part all the way to kindergarten when learning about colors and playing a car game on the floor in the local community hall.. An ability the actor retains whether in a car or not for the rest of their functional life. To use when and how he deems appropriate.
Why this fact of learning preceding events by sometimes many years is no acknowledged is rather bewildering...