Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

That may very well be the case. If it is then we are as we necessarily must be. I advocate for libertarian free will not becuz I'm wrong (or right) but simply becuz it's what I, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. You advocate for determinism not becuz you're right (or wrong) but simply becuz it's what you, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. If we're meat machines neither of us have any choice about it.

That's determinism. Of course, you aren't really a determinist: you're a compatibilist, which is, as I say, nonsensical (cuz you wanna have your cake and eat it too).

Let’s dive a little deeper, because I think there’s an angle here worth exploring—something that could shift how we think about determinism, free will, and the way we function as, well, "meat machines."

Henry, you make a fair point: if determinism is true, then everything we do—arguing, thinking, advocating—unfolds as it must. And that includes this discussion we’re having now. But here’s something worth pondering: what about learning and memory? Both are physical processes, and they operate in a deterministic framework. Yet they allow us to refine how we think, decide, and act. So, here’s the question: how does this fine-tuning, this deterministic reprogramming of the brain, fit into your view of libertarian free will?

Let’s break it down. Learning is essentially the brain modifying its neural pathways in response to experience—a deterministic process driven by cause and effect. You read a book, hear an argument, or observe an event, and your brain physically changes. New synaptic connections form. Old ones weaken. This is why you remember how to ride a bike or why you might adjust your perspective after a compelling conversation. It’s all physics and chemistry—neurons firing, proteins being synthesized, circuits being rewired.

Now, memory. Memory stores those changes, creating a framework that shapes future decisions. Again, this is entirely physical and deterministic. But here’s where it gets interesting: as we learn and remember, we become better at reasoning, problem-solving, and even advocating for ideas—whether it’s libertarian free will, determinism, or something in between. In other words, while the process is deterministic, it’s also dynamic. It evolves. It allows for growth.

So, the question to ask is this: if learning and memory are deterministic processes—and if they can demonstrably change our views, improve our understanding, and guide our actions—doesn’t that suggest a form of freedom within determinism? Not freedom in the libertarian sense, but freedom as the capacity to refine ourselves within the constraints of cause and effect?

In this light, determinism isn’t a cage. It’s a framework that allows for growth and adaptation. The beauty of it is that even though we’re bound by physical laws, those laws enable the richness of thought, learning, and change. And that, I think, is where compatibilism finds its footing. It’s not about having your cake and eating it too; it’s about recognizing that deterministic processes—learning, memory, reasoning—are what make meaningful discussion and progress possible.

So maybe the next step in this conversation is to reflect on how learning and memory shape our views. If they’re physical, deterministic processes, what does that say about the arguments we advocate for—or even the ones we resist? Because within that question lies a fascinating paradox: the very mechanisms that make us "meat machines" also make us capable of so much more.

[Atla]

A deterministic framework says this: you don’t blame the avalanche for crushing the village—you figure out why it happened, then build systems to prevent it. That’s what accountability looks like when you accept that causation, not free-floating agency, is the real engine behind human behavior.

You're autistic right? Just like that other guy who also says these kind of things and also has "big" in his nickname.

Neither free-floating agency nor causation is the "real engine" behind human behaviour. Yes deterministic causation is the case, but the "real engine" is still the human decision-making process. Whatever decision you make is part of determinism.

[Immanuel Can]

Every atom, every synapse in your brain, every fleeting thought you believe you’ve “freely” chosen is simply the inevitable consequence of these laws in motion.

That may very well be the case. If it is then we are as we necessarily must be. I advocate for libertarian free will not becuz I'm wrong (or right) but simply becuz it's what I, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. You advocate for determinism not becuz you're right (or wrong) but simply becuz it's what you, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. If we're meat machines neither of us have any choice about it.

That's determinism. Of course, you aren't really a determinist: you're a compatibilist, which is, as I say, nonsensical (cuz you wanna have your cake and eat it too).

Let’s dive a little deeper, because I think there’s an angle here worth exploring—something that could shift how we think about determinism, free will, and the way we function as, well, "meat machines."

Henry, you make a fair point: if determinism is true, then everything we do—arguing, thinking, advocating—unfolds as it must. And that includes this discussion we’re having now.

Right. There's no argument happening at all, really: because "argument" doesn't change anything in the Determinist's assumed preconditions for the brain to be in a state of belief or of disbelief. "Argument" is an abstract property...it has no extension in space, it is convertable into black wiggles on a computer screen, but these cannot be said to have any meaning, because meaning is an abstraction, too.

And worse than that, these abstractions have to be perceived by a mind. And mind has no extension in space, no single physical location, and no testability for its existence or non-existence by even the most up-to-date methods of formal science. So it has to be excluded from anything the Determinist can use to explain what's going on.

But here’s something worth pondering: what about learning and memory?

Those are also abstractions. They are not meat.

Both are physical processes, and they operate in a deterministic framework.

Neither is true: we cannot call them "physical," but rather abstract. And there's no evidence at all that they operate deterministically; in fact, to all appearances, as everybody, even the most ardent Determinist has to recognize, they don't. Even a Determinist thinks the reason he believes in Determinism would be that it was true, not that it was merely put into his head-meat by prior physical conditions.

Yet they allow us to refine how we think, decide, and act. So, here’s the question: how does this fine-tuning, this deterministic reprogramming of the brain, fit into your view of libertarian free will?

It doesn't: but only because it isn't "deterministic" or "programming of the brain." Essentially, Mike, you're assuming your wanted conclusion, then asking why your demanded conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence.

The answer seems obvious, does it not?

[BigMike]

That may very well be the case. If it is then we are as we necessarily must be. I advocate for libertarian free will not becuz I'm wrong (or right) but simply becuz it's what I, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. You advocate for determinism not becuz you're right (or wrong) but simply becuz it's what you, as an aggregate of particles, necessarily must do. If we're meat machines neither of us have any choice about it.

That's determinism. Of course, you aren't really a determinist: you're a compatibilist, which is, as I say, nonsensical (cuz you wanna have your cake and eat it too).

Let’s dive a little deeper, because I think there’s an angle here worth exploring—something that could shift how we think about determinism, free will, and the way we function as, well, "meat machines."

Henry, you make a fair point: if determinism is true, then everything we do—arguing, thinking, advocating—unfolds as it must. And that includes this discussion we’re having now.

Right. There's no argument happening at all, really: because "argument" doesn't change anything in the Determinist's assumed preconditions for the brain to be in a state of belief or of disbelief. "Argument" is an abstract property...it has no extension in space, it is convertable into black wiggles on a computer screen, but these cannot be said to have any meaning, because meaning is an abstraction, too.

And worse than that, these abstractions have to be perceived by a mind. And mind has no extension in space, no single physical location, and no testability for its existence or non-existence by even the most up-to-date methods of formal science. So it has to be excluded from anything the Determinist can use to explain what's going on.

But here’s something worth pondering: what about learning and memory?

Those are also abstractions. They are not meat.

Both are physical processes, and they operate in a deterministic framework.

Neither is true: we cannot call them "physical," but rather abstract. And there's no evidence at all that they operate deterministically; in fact, to all appearances, as everybody, even the most ardent Determinist has to recognize, they don't. Even a Determinist thinks the reason he believes in Determinism would be that it was true, not that it was merely put into his head-meat by prior physical conditions.

Yet they allow us to refine how we think, decide, and act. So, here’s the question: how does this fine-tuning, this deterministic reprogramming of the brain, fit into your view of libertarian free will?

It doesn't: but only because it isn't "deterministic" or "programming of the brain." Essentially, Mike, you're assuming your wanted conclusion, then asking why your demanded conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence.

The answer seems obvious, does it not?

Immanuel, let’s not dance around the edges here—let’s cut right to the point. You claim that abstractions like learning, memory, and mind are not “meat” and therefore cannot be explained within a deterministic framework. But this argument fundamentally misunderstands what determinism is about and how abstractions fit into the causal tapestry of the universe.

First, let’s address the idea that abstractions “aren’t meat.” Correct—they’re not physical objects, but they arise from physical processes. Learning and memory aren’t mystical phenomena; they are the emergent properties of neural networks reshaping themselves in response to stimuli. You call them abstractions, but every abstraction is rooted in the physical. The mind isn’t a ghost in the machine—it’s the machine operating under the rules of physics. The abstraction you’re talking about exists because those synapses fire, not in spite of it.

You argue that argument itself has no meaning because meaning is an abstraction. This is a red herring. Meaning exists in the context of shared frameworks, built and interpreted by brains operating within causal structures. When I write these words, they’re encoded in the activity of my neural pathways, transmitted as signals, and interpreted by your neural pathways. The fact that meaning is subjective doesn’t disprove its causal underpinnings—it confirms them. Meaning is how deterministic systems interact with complex stimuli and patterns.

Now, your bigger claim: that determinism leaves no room for belief, reason, or truth. This is where the argument collapses. Determinism doesn’t deny that we seek truth or engage in reason—it explains how we do. We believe things because deterministic processes in our brains have built a model of reality that aligns with the evidence we encounter. If determinism were false, we’d have to explain how beliefs and reasoning arise from something other than causation—something unbound by physical laws. But that’s never been demonstrated.

Here’s the kicker: even your critique of determinism is itself a deterministic process. The skepticism, the phrasing, the references—it’s all the product of your brain interpreting inputs, drawing conclusions, and formulating responses according to the laws of physics. That doesn’t diminish the critique; it contextualizes it.

So, to answer your question directly: learning and memory aren’t abstractions divorced from physicality. They are precisely what a deterministic framework predicts—dynamic, adaptive processes that allow complex systems to refine behavior and respond to the environment. You don’t need libertarian free will to explain them. You don’t need it to explain belief. And you certainly don’t need it to argue about them. You only need the ability to recognize that determinism doesn’t erase the richness of human experience—it grounds it.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, let’s not dance around the edges here—let’s cut right to the point.

"Dance"? I was as direct as one can be, I would say.

You claim that abstractions like learning, memory, and mind are not “meat” and therefore cannot be explained within a deterministic framework. But this argument fundamentally misunderstands what determinism is about and how abstractions fit into the causal tapestry of the universe.

First, let’s address the idea that abstractions “aren’t meat.” Correct—they’re not physical objects, but they arise from physical processes.

Wait: "arise"?

This is interesting. Unlike most Determinists, you seem to concede the existence of non-physical realities. Are you sure that's what you want to do? Because it really gives away the whole Determinist game. It admits that there are non-physical realities in the universe, among which are (plausibly) such real entities as mind, consciousness, arguments, rationality, logic, identity, will, volition, choice, and so on.

Maybe you want to wind that back. I'll let you, if you wish to. If you don't, we'll go on. But I'll take a favour, in exchange, if I may. Describe that process of "arising," as you see it. How do non-physical things "arise" from "physical processes"?

Learning and memory aren’t mystical phenomena; they are the emergent properties of neural networks reshaping themselves in response to stimuli.

Well, "emergence" is not an explanation, anymore than "arising" is. It fails to identify how the something which, according to Determinists, has to be nothing but physical, magically generates non-physical realities.

You call them abstractions, but every abstraction is rooted in the physical.

Here you use your third synonym: "rooted." So we really need to clear up this process of "emerging," or "arising," or "rooted in." What is it? How does the purely physical suddenly produce the non-physical?

The mind isn’t a ghost in the machine—it’s the machine operating under the rules of physics.

We don't know that's what it is. It doesn't look, to any of us, like that's what it is. It looks very much, to all appearances, and to all assumptions (including your assumption that we are making rational points here), that mind is doing something non-physical, but nonetheless real.

The abstraction you’re talking about exists because those synapses fire, not in spite of it.

Or do the synapses fire because an idea is being produced? Which is it? How do you know?

You argue that argument itself has no meaning because meaning is an abstraction.

I do not. Rather, I point out that Determinism argues that what produces belief is not the quality of the argument acting on a rational mind, but rather the firing of synapses, as occasioned by prior physical causes. And if that were true, it would mean that all argumentation is NOT keyed to the finding of truth, but merely to whatever the natural results of the physical and chemical preconditions conduce. Truth would no longer be guaranteed to be associated in any way with argumentation; if any particular argument were true, it would be merely accidental that it was. And we'd never have any way of knowing what truth was, because the deliverances of our brains would be keyed to neurochemical precursors, not to the finding or recognizing of truth.

Meaning exists in the context of shared frameworks, built and interpreted by brains operating within causal structures.

"Shared"? Why "shared"?

Many people can be as easily wrong as one. It's happened many times in history. And "interpreted"? That, only a mind can do. Brains, all by themselves, as physical constructs, do not "interpret."

This is an old problem with Determinist arguments. They assert Determinism as an absolute theory; but every time they run into an unsolvable puzzle, they just revert to using the language of will, of interpreting, of thinking, of meaning, and so on -- all qualities that a consistent Determinist would have to say are nothing more than the accidental products of neurochemicals, all of which are themselves nothing but the products of earlier physiological and physical preconditions.

I don't know if this is a product of their un-self-aware self-contradiction, or deliberate obfuscation. But in your case, I'm happy to assume it's a well-meant error, rather than anything more sinister. Nevertheless, that's how these discussions go.

"When I write these words, they’re encoded in the activity of my neural pathways, transmitted as signals, and interpreted by your neural pathways. The fact that meaning is subjective doesn’t disprove its causal underpinnings—it confirms them. Meaning is how deterministic systems interact with complex stimuli and patterns.

"Encoded" and "interpreted" require the action of a mind. So does "subjectivity" and "meaning." This is yet another good example of what I was just pointing out: Determinists really struggle to be consistent with their language, and to describe such processes in terms of mere physical causes.

But perhaps you'll prove the exception: can you describe the exact process by which physical entities can actually generate non-physical realities such as "meaning," or "interpretation," or "rationality" or "argumentation"?

Determinism doesn’t deny that we seek truth or engage in reason—it explains how we do.

Not true. The "HOW" is always left out. And that's what I'm asking you to provide. HOW is that claim possible?

We believe things because deterministic processes in our brains have built a model of reality that aligns with the evidence we encounter.

That's not the case, according to Determinism. There's no "aligning" required at all. One might believe anything, so long as ones neurons fired in a particular way; and they'll fire in that way if the neural preconditioners force them to do so; and the neural preconditioners are purely physical, and so have no opinion about whether or not the final product "aligns" one way or another.

If determinism were false, we’d have to explain how beliefs and reasoning arise from something other than causation—something unbound by physical laws.

Yes, we would. And we'd be able to, so long as our interlocutor was happy to concede the existence of non-physical realities, such as will, choice, meaning, volition, consciousness, rationality, argumentation, and so on...which you've already conceded.

But I'm still open to you winding that back, if you wish.

Here’s the kicker: even your critique of determinism is itself a deterministic process.

If it were, then neither you nor I could ever know whether or not we were right: not because the evidence didn't exist, but because evidence would be irrelevant. The only thing that would make our minds up are the neural preconditions inside our heads, conditioned by the physical conditions outside, and without any "alignment" to truth. Moreover, there would not even be a real, conscious "you" to know, or "me" to argue. All there would be is the clash of physical forces, like random waves on the sea.

But that's not how it is. And clearly, that's not even how YOU think it is. Because here you are, arguing mind-to-mind, aiming at the truth. That's impossible, in a Deterministic universe. But you're not really a Determinist, if you think otherwise; because then you've abandoned Determinism's total explanation for everything -- namely, that mere physical processes are the real origin and limit of all cognition.

[BigMike]

Immanuel, this discussion keeps circling back to the same misconception, so let me try again, but let’s be razor-sharp about it this time.

You keep insisting that determinism falls apart because it can’t explain how physical processes lead to non-physical phenomena like meaning, rationality, or consciousness. But this argument presupposes that non-physical realities exist independently of physical processes—when, in fact, there’s no need for such a dualistic divide. Let’s unpack this.

1. The Nature of Abstractions
You argue that abstractions like meaning, rationality, and interpretation require something beyond the physical. But they don’t. These are emergent properties—patterns or phenomena that arise when physical systems reach a certain level of complexity. For example, "wetness" isn’t a property of individual water molecules, but it emerges from their collective behavior. Similarly, the "meaning" in a sentence arises from the structured activity of neurons interpreting symbolic input. It’s not mystical; it’s an emergent layer of causality.

Emergence isn’t "magic." It’s how complex systems operate. Your brain is a system of interacting neurons, which process sensory data, store memories, and generate higher-order thought. From that physical substrate, abstractions arise. To claim that the physical can’t generate the non-physical is to ignore decades of advancements in neuroscience, systems theory, and information science.

2. "Emerging," "Arising," and "Rooted"
You object to terms like "emergence" and "arising," as if they’re placeholders for ignorance. But they’re not—they describe well-documented processes. Emergence happens when simple systems interact in ways that create patterns or phenomena not reducible to the individual parts. Consciousness, memory, and meaning are examples. The firing of neurons doesn’t just cause thoughts—it is the process of thought. The abstraction exists because the system as a whole produces it.

3. The Illusion of Free Will
You assert that determinism renders argumentation meaningless because if everything is determined, there’s no rational mind capable of seeking truth. This is where your argument runs into trouble. In a deterministic framework, rationality itself is a product of causation. Brains evolved to process information, discern patterns, and adapt to environments. Rational thought isn’t exempt from causality—it’s an outcome of it.

Think of it this way: a computer processes data deterministically, yet it can perform logical operations, solve problems, and even simulate randomness. Similarly, human brains operate deterministically, yet they generate rational thought, creativity, and innovation. The determinism doesn’t negate the validity of the outcomes—it explains how they’re possible.

4. Truth and Determinism
Your claim that determinism undermines truth is misguided. Truth, in this context, is the degree to which a belief or model aligns with reality. Determinism doesn’t block us from discovering truth; it’s the very mechanism through which we do so. Evolution has shaped our cognitive faculties to model the world accurately enough for survival, and science refines these models further.

The process is straightforward: sensory data (physical input) interacts with neural structures (physical processors), creating mental representations (abstractions). These representations are tested against reality through feedback loops. The brain updates its models based on evidence, all within a deterministic framework. There’s no need to invoke "free-floating agency" to explain this process.

5. The Self-Refuting Argument
Finally, you argue that if determinism is true, we can’t trust our own beliefs, because they’re merely the product of physical processes. But this critique applies equally to any worldview, including libertarian free will. If beliefs arise from non-physical will, how do you verify their reliability? Why trust that your "free" choices align with reality, rather than being arbitrary?

Under determinism, we trust our beliefs not because they’re free, but because they’re shaped by causal processes that have been refined through feedback and evidence. Determinism doesn’t undermine trust in cognition; it provides the framework that makes cognition comprehensible.

Conclusion
Your critique assumes that determinism reduces everything to meaningless collisions of particles. But that’s a straw man. Determinism explains how complexity, rationality, and meaning emerge from causation. It doesn’t deny abstractions—it roots them in the physical processes that create them. And it doesn’t negate truth or rationality—it explains how they arise. So the real question isn’t how determinism accounts for these phenomena—it’s why you keep insisting they require something more.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, this discussion keeps circling back to the same misconception, so let me try again, but let’s be razor-sharp about it this time.

There's no misconception. I've got it straight.

You keep insisting that determinism falls apart because it can’t explain how physical processes lead to non-physical phenomena like meaning, rationality, or consciousness.

Not quite. I'm willing to hear your explanation of how that's possible.

At the same time, in all honesty, I'm not optimistic about you doing it, because even the foremosts philosophers of mind are still struggling with that question. Hence, the invention of "emergence" as a term: all it really means is, "Golly gosh; we don't know how this happened."

But this argument presupposes that non-physical realities exist independently of physical processes—when, in fact, there’s no need for such a dualistic divide.

There is. And you made the move yourself. You already admitted the necessity of the existence of non-physical realities. Are you now ready to take that back? I don't see why that's a better move than abandoning Determinism, but you can.

1. The Nature of Abstractions
You argue that abstractions like meaning, rationality, and interpretation require something beyond the physical.

Well, obviously they do. Because they're not physical. You may, as some Determinists, wish to argue speculatively that they "emerge" from the physical, but not even the most ardent Determinist makes the mistake of not understanding the difference between abstraction and the concrete. These things are abstract, in the sense of being non-physical. And the only way Determinists can get away from them is by denying they're real at all.

But so far, you've still conceded their existence as real. Unless, that is, you're changing your mind about that.

...emergent properties—patterns or phenomena that arise when physical systems reach a certain level of complexity.

How?

For example, "wetness" isn’t a property of individual water molecules, but it emerges from their collective behavior.

Wetness is a perception. Perception requires consciousness, subjectivity, interpretation, and other such mind stuff. Not brain stuff. Brains, all by themselves, don't "know" anything. They're meat. They're only physical.

Similarly, the "meaning" in a sentence arises from the structured activity of neurons interpreting symbolic input.

"Interpreting"? Again, we come back to the need for a proper explanation: how does an ability to "interpret" happen from mere physical phenomena?

To claim that the physical can’t generate the non-physical is to ignore decades of advancements in neuroscience, systems theory, and information science.

On the contrary: this "decades of advancement" is not in the relevant area. Where we have advanced is in understanding the physical stuff. But as to mind, and especially in regard to the mystical process of "emergence," we haven't a clue.

2. "Emerging," "Arising," and "Rooted"
You object to terms like "emergence" and "arising," as if they’re placeholders for ignorance.

Not "ignorance," per se. They may be obfuscators. Or they may be being used naively. But whatever the case, we can see that they don't actually specify the process they hope you'll believe in.

If I say that my happy home "arose out of" bricks, or "emerged from" bricks, or was "rooted in" bricks, I haven't really told you anything at all about why my house exists, or how it came to be a house. And this kind of explanation doesn't get any better when the words aren't "home" and "bricks" or "mind" and "matter." There's still no actual explaining being done.

But they’re not—they describe well-documented processes.

Then it should be very easy for you to "redocument" this "process" here. But it isn't. You can't do it. So that should tell you you're trusting in a non-explanation as if it were some kind of explanation.

In a deterministic framework, rationality itself is a product of causation.

Then causality, not truth, is its orientation. So what we think are the deliverances of our "minds" cannot be trusted. It's the mere accidental product of material accidents. Truth is not involved at any stage of its "production."

Think of it this way: a computer processes data deterministically,

Human beings are not computers. Without human beings and their ingenuity and choices, in fact, there would be no computers. And nothing like "mind" has ever "emerged" from even the most sophisticated computers. They're all mere products of their construction and programming, and in that sense, quite predetermined. But they are not human beings. So you would need to justify transferring statements you want to make about computers to people who are not computers.

4. Truth and Determinism
Your claim that determinism undermines truth is misguided.

I did not make that claim. What I claimed is that if our brains are predetermined strictly by material forces, then truth is not involved in the process, and we can't trust the pronouncements of our own brains.

Evolution has shaped our cognitive faculties to model the world accurately enough for survival...

Then it would be to "survival" that brains would be keyed, not to truth. And again, you would not know why you trust the deliverances of your own brain. For survival can be aided by false beliefs.

For example, I might have an irrational fear of flying. Hence, I might never get on a plane. That would guarantee I would never die in a plane crash -- and hence, would be survival-adaptive. But it might also be a false or unwarranted belief, since planes are actually the statistically safest mode of transportation. Still, it would aid my surviving of plane crashes.

False beliefs can aid survival. False beliefs can be generated by physical precursors. Truth is not required in either scenario, so there would be no reason in either explanation for our minds to be keyed to the discovering of truths.

5. The Self-Refuting Argument
Finally, you argue that if determinism is true, we can’t trust our own beliefs, because they’re merely the product of physical processes.

That is correct. But no criticism of free will would suffice to excuse it. Even if we were to admit that free will was untrustworthy, that would not go one logical step in the direction of giving us reason to suppose that deterministic processes were something keyed to truth. They might both be errant, plausibly.

If beliefs arise from non-physical will, how do you verify their reliability?

Not from Determinism, because Determinism doesn't give us any reason to expect truth. So far from being a refutation, you've now only extended the problem further. But as the case is, it's actually much easier to explain in terms of mind: mind is keyed to the discovery of reality. Reality gives us the information to test our cognitions, at which time we find out minds can lead us to truth...provided those minds are disciplined by things like logic, reasoning, evidence and so on...but these are non-physical realities, and as such, Determinism has to deny they even exist.

Now, how you're going to get to truth with a brain that's purely the product of neurochemicals that respond only to non-sentient, physical preconditions, that's a real problem.

Under determinism, we trust our beliefs...

There's no "we" under Determinism. Human beings are not in any way importantly distinct. They're all mere automatons driven by physical preconditions. Moreover, they do not have "beliefs." Their cognitive epiphenomena are generated by the physical preconditions for them. And to "trust" such things would be unwarranted: there's no particular agency of truth involved in them, or allegedly, in us as the recipients.

Determinism explains how complexity, rationality, and meaning emerge from causation.

You say that, but then lapse immediately into "emerge." I don't want to flog a dead horse, but if you check back you'll note I've asked four times now: would you please specify how these "emerge" from purely physical preconditions? Otherwise, you're simply making the old error that Determinists always make: that of lapsing into the language of free will that they, themselves deny can have any reference to reality.

What does "emergence" entail? Break down the specific process.

[BigMike]

Immanuel, let’s focus on the crux of the matter. You keep circling around the concept of "emergence," demanding a specific, step-by-step explanation for how non-physical abstractions like meaning, rationality, and consciousness arise from physical processes. Yet you simultaneously seem to suggest the existence of non-physical realities that are independent of physical phenomena.

Here’s the challenge: if you have evidence of a non-physical reality that isn’t based on or doesn’t emerge from physical processes, you should publish it. And I mean that seriously—not as a rhetorical flourish. Prove the existence of these non-physical realities, and you might not only revolutionize the fields of neuroscience and philosophy but also physics and medicine. Who knows? You could be awarded a Nobel Prize—maybe even two.

Now, let’s address the key points:

1. Emergence is Not a Placeholder for Ignorance
You claim that terms like "emergence" are just obfuscations or admissions of ignorance. But that’s not accurate. Emergence describes the phenomenon where complex systems exhibit properties that their individual parts do not. Examples include wetness (a collective property of water molecules), temperature (a statistical measure of particle energy), and yes, consciousness (an emergent property of neural networks). While the exact mechanics of consciousness are still under investigation, this doesn’t invalidate the framework of emergence—it highlights the complexity of the system.

To demand a "step-by-step" explanation that satisfies your skepticism is like demanding a precise molecular blueprint for how birds evolved flight before accepting evolution as valid. Science operates incrementally, but the lack of a comprehensive answer doesn’t discredit the explanatory model.

2. "Non-Physical Realities" Require Evidence
You’ve argued that abstractions like rationality and meaning cannot be derived from physical processes. Yet, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to the contrary. Cognitive neuroscience has demonstrated that thought, memory, and perception correlate directly with neural activity. Alter the brain, and you alter the mind—stroke patients, brain injuries, and neurodegenerative diseases provide ample evidence.

If you insist these "non-physical realities" exist independently of physical structures, the burden is on you to provide empirical evidence. Without it, these claims remain speculative, no more credible than asserting the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

3. Causation and Truth
Your assertion that deterministic causation negates truth-seeking is a misunderstanding. Truth, in this context, is a model’s correspondence to reality. Determinism explains how our brains—through evolution and neural plasticity—develop increasingly accurate models of the world. A deterministic framework doesn’t preclude the discovery of truth; it provides the mechanism for refining our understanding through trial, error, and evidence.

You argue that survival, not truth, is the brain’s primary focus, and that false beliefs can be adaptive. While true, evolution has also selected for cognitive faculties that recognize patterns and accurately predict outcomes. Without this capacity, we wouldn’t have science, logic, or even the ability to debate determinism versus free will.

4. The Real Challenge for Determinism Critics
You’ve asked repeatedly how determinism accounts for abstractions like meaning, rationality, and interpretation. But here’s the real challenge: how does your alternative explain these phenomena without relying on physical processes? If you’re claiming that meaning and rationality are independent of the physical brain, where is the evidence? How do these "non-physical realities" interact with the physical body? Until these questions are answered with empirical rigor, the deterministic model remains the most plausible framework we have.

So, to summarize: If you have evidence of non-physical realities that exist independently of physical processes, don’t just argue it here—publish it. The scientific community would be fascinated, and your work could earn a place alongside the greatest breakthroughs in human history. But until that evidence emerges, determinism offers a robust and testable explanation for the phenomena we’re discussing.

[accelafine]

You need to stop using that term.

If I'm a meat machine then I have no choice in the matter: I'm doin' what I necessarily must do.

The only time we could become meat is if something came along and decided it was going to eat us.

Yes, exactly.

When was the last time something tried to eat you? Well as Mr Big pointed out, whether or not you feel like a supermarket meat package makes no difference one way or another to reality.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, let’s focus on the crux of the matter.

We are. I've asked the key question: how do you get "emergence" to work?

Here’s the challenge: if you have evidence of a non-physical reality that isn’t based on or doesn’t emerge from physical processes, you should publish it.

Say what you mean by "emerge."

Emergence describes the phenomenon where complex systems exhibit properties that their individual parts do not.

No, that doesn't work. The properties that a large mass of something (like water, or whatever) exhibits are still strictly physical properties. And there's nothing special about saying that, say, a thousand pieces of gravel exhibit more of feature called "weight" than one does.

But for the "emergence" explanation to work, you'd have to explain how something of a completely different order suddenly "emerges" when something reaches a certain level of complexity. It's like you're saying, "When there are enough inert molecules, then a ghost jumps out ("emerges")". That's not the kind of explanation anybody reasonably should accept. It doesn't account for the complete qualitative (not merely quantitative) difference between the alleged base property and the "emergent" phenomena.

But all this is well-documented in the Philosophy of Mind literature. I would suggest you spend some time with something like Jaegwon Kim's "Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind," and then you won't have to take my word for that. Or, if you're looking for a faster read, try Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos." Nagel's an outright Atheist...but he sees the problem you're not yet aware of.

To demand a "step-by-step" explanation that satisfies your skepticism is like demanding a precise molecular blueprint for how birds evolved flight before accepting evolution as valid.

That would be an excellent idea. It would explain how a flightless animal is prevented from being eliminated through "survival of the fittest," while it takes millions of years to develop the means to fly even a foot or two. I'm sure scientists would be exceedingly grateful if you could manage that, too.

You’ve argued that abstractions like rationality and meaning cannot be derived from physical processes. Yet, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to the contrary.

Please provide that "scientific evidence."

If you insist these "non-physical realities" exist independently of physical structures,..

I don't. I just point out that they don't "emerge" from them. Nobody doubts that physical and non-physical realities have a relationship: we just don't know what it is, and "emergence" is a nonsense explanation that really does no work of explaining at all.

Determinism explains how our brains—through evolution and neural plasticity—develop increasingly accurate models of the world.

Determinism does not even try to do that. It's not capable. You might argue that you think Evolutionism does, but it doesn't really either. Both depend on the bogus "emergence" kind of explanation, which doesn't actually explain how the thing's supposed to work.

You argue that survival, not truth, is the brain’s primary focus, and that false beliefs can be adaptive. While true,...

Yes, it is.

...evolution has also selected for cognitive faculties that recognize patterns and accurately predict outcomes.

Why? How has Evolutionism, which is supposed to be blind, unguided process, "selected for" anything? It can only be on the basis of survival, and survival does not require true beliefs, as you've just recognized. If Evolution were truly unguided and blind, it could not "select" for anything, anymore than a roulette wheel can "select" the numbers that turn up on it -- only the odds against Evolution "getting it right" would be astronomically higher than the odds against a roulette wheel "selecting" 00.

4. The Real Challenge for Determinism Critics
You’ve asked repeatedly how determinism accounts for abstractions like meaning, rationality, and interpretation. But here’s the real challenge...

No, no...don't change the "challenge." Meet it. If you can. If you can't, just say so.

[attofishpi]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀is akin to asking

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Why Do the Atheists Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[BigMike]

Let’s engage directly with your challenge, but also clarify a few key points where I think the discussion is veering into misunderstanding.

You repeatedly ask for a step-by-step mechanism for "emergence," and I understand your skepticism. Emergence is not magic, nor is it meant to hand-wave away complexities we don’t yet fully understand. It’s a term used in science and philosophy to describe phenomena where new properties arise from complex systems that are not apparent in their individual components. This isn’t about ghosts jumping out of molecules, but about new patterns of interaction at higher levels of complexity.

Take life as an example. The properties of a living cell—metabolism, reproduction, response to stimuli—don’t exist in a single molecule but emerge when molecules interact in specific ways. We don’t yet have a complete explanation for how consciousness emerges from neural activity, but this lack of complete understanding doesn’t invalidate the deterministic framework. Science works incrementally, and the study of consciousness—through neuroscience, AI, and systems theory—is still in its early stages.

Ongoing research into neural correlates of consciousness, for instance, seeks to map specific brain activities to subjective experiences. Projects like the Human Connectome Project aim to understand how brain connectivity generates behavior and thought. While these are far from definitive answers, they represent the frontiers of exploration, not failures of determinism.

You claim that abstractions like rationality, meaning, and consciousness cannot "emerge" from physical processes. However, abstractions are not things that exist independently of physical reality; they are conceptual tools created by minds—minds that are deeply tied to physical processes.

Rationality, for instance, arises because our brains are structured to model the world in ways that are useful for prediction and survival. This doesn’t mean that every belief is true or rational, but that the capacity for rational thought is grounded in the brain’s physical architecture. To say this capacity "emerges" is to describe a transition from basic neural computations to higher-order reasoning, a process we observe as the brain develops from infancy to adulthood and adapts through learning.

You argue that if determinism is true, our beliefs are simply the result of physical processes and therefore cannot be trusted to align with truth. But this assumes that truth must somehow be independent of the physical. On the contrary, our ability to discern truth is rooted in the brain's deterministic processes. Evolution has favored cognitive faculties that are *good enough* at modeling reality to ensure survival. While survival doesn’t guarantee truth in every instance, the ability to predict and respond accurately to environmental challenges has been a crucial driver of our species' success.

Does this mean our brains are infallible truth-detecting machines? Of course not. That’s why science exists—to systematically correct for cognitive biases and errors in perception. Science itself is a deterministic process of refining models through observation, experimentation, and falsification.

Let’s address your critique of "emergence" as insufficiently explanatory. Science often begins with descriptive frameworks that precede full mechanistic explanations. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution was initially descriptive, explaining the patterns of life’s diversity long before genetics provided the mechanisms of inheritance.

Similarly, consciousness and abstractions are areas where our descriptive understanding is ahead of our mechanistic understanding. But this does not mean the deterministic framework is flawed; it simply means we’re still filling in the details. Lack of a full explanation doesn’t disprove determinism—it highlights the areas where further inquiry is needed.

You’ve pointed out the alleged insufficiency of determinism to explain non-physical phenomena. But here’s the flip side: where is your evidence for non-physical realities that are not rooted in or emergent from physical processes? If you have a mechanism or evidence for such realities, that would indeed be groundbreaking. Present it, and the scientific world would take notice. If such evidence is lacking, then dismissing determinism because we haven’t answered every question seems premature at best.

Science progresses through testing hypotheses, refining models, and building on evidence. Determinism, while not complete in its explanations, remains the most coherent framework we have for understanding the relationship between physical processes and the phenomena we observe. If there’s a better framework, the onus is on its proponents to demonstrate it.

[Immanuel Can]

Let’s engage directly with your challenge, but also clarify a few key points where I think the discussion is veering into misunderstanding.

'I'm understanding. I see no "veering."

You repeatedly ask for a step-by-step mechanism for "emergence,"

Well, of course. Why should a philosopher be exempted from defining his terms, and doing so precisely? How else does he expect to make himself comprehensible?

Emergence is not magic, nor is it meant to hand-wave away complexities we don’t yet fully understand. It’s a term used in science and philosophy to describe phenomena where new properties arise from complex systems that are not apparent in their individual components. This isn’t about ghosts jumping out of molecules, but about new patterns of interaction at higher levels of complexity.

We dealt with that. There is neither explanation of how that process would ever work, nor any scientific evidence of it ever doing so. So "emergence" is just a placeholder for "we don't know."

Take life as an example. The properties of a living cell—metabolism, reproduction, response to stimuli—don’t exist in a single molecule but emerge when molecules interact in specific ways.

This "emergence" you believe in has never been recorded in history. Not that it hasn't been tried. Scientist have worked assiduously on manipulating millions of generations of fruit flies and issuing countless zaps of energy through inert chemicals, all in an effort to produce life...let alone intelligent, self-aware life. And the results so far are zero.

We don’t yet have a complete explanation for how consciousness emerges from neural activity,...

Let's not spin this: it's not "incomplete," it's "non-existent." We have not the foggiest idea of how it happens...if it ever did...which we also have no evidence for.

Ongoing research into neural correlates of consciousness, for instance, seeks to map specific brain activities to subjective experiences.

If such research were successful, it would be as inane as research that shows that frozen water produces ice. Nobody doubt that there is a correspondence between physiological symptoms and cognitive events. But much shows that the relationship is not straightforwardly causal or physical -- which is what Determinism needs it to be.

Neuroplasticity, for example, is problematic. If the relation between brain and mind is simple, then it should be the case that stimuli or damage in one part of the brain invariably occasion certain mind-outcomes. But the opposite turns out to be true.

For example, I have a friend who has MS. Right now, she's developed lesions on the brain. But she's in therapy, and the therapist is retraining new parts of her brain to perform exactly the same tasks and cognitions that her former brain did, but using whole new areas of the brain. Or, to take another example, there are many well-documented cases of people born with significant portions of their cranial cavity simply empty...devoid of all the usual brain matter in a given region...and yet these folks are perfectly cognitively normal, new areas of their brain having taken over for the missing regions.

In fact, if you read neurological experts, you find that they are more mystified than informed by what they find. Whatever the real relationship between brain and mind is, we know it's not straightforwardly material-causal. A lot of really spooky stuff is going on there. Henry pointed me to Wilder Penfield's research, and it's certainly worth a read on this.

You claim that abstractions like rationality, meaning, and consciousness cannot "emerge" from physical processes.

My claim is more modest and honest than that: it's that there is no explanation for how that can be. And while you keep returning to relying on "emergence," I'm still waiting to hear you say what the precise process it involves would be.

Rationality, for instance, arises because our brains are structured to model the world in ways that are useful for prediction and survival.

Our brains, Evolutionists tell us, is keyed to survival not truth. But I've pointed this paradox out before, so I'll leave it there.

To say this capacity "emerges" is to describe a transition from basic neural computations to higher-order reasoning, a process we observe as the brain develops from infancy to adulthood and adapts through learning.

Actually, that's not "emergence." Remember that "emergence" isn't like growth or development, as with infancy to adulthood. It's the idea that a totally different, totally new, totally unlike thing can suddenly "emerge" when something reaches a certain point. Here's a formal definition:

"An emergent property is a characteristic of a system that is not present in the individual components of that system, but rather emerges when the components are combined. Emergent properties are often unexpected and can be thought of as "surprises"."

There would be nothing "surprising" about a latent property developing into a fully-actualized one, as in learning from infancy to adulthood. The required properties of cognition, intelligence and ability to learn are already in the infant. Emergence requires much more than that: it requires that some new, "surprising," unanticipatable property suddenly "bursts forth" from a process that up to that point has had no element of it at all, as when some posit that life and cognition must have suddenly "emerged," each in time, from inert matter.

You argue that if determinism is true, our beliefs are simply the result of physical processes and therefore cannot be trusted to align with truth. But this assumes that truth must somehow be independent of the physical.

No, it doesn't. Rather, it points out that whatever is true of both the physical and the cognitive, Evolution isn't keyed to it at all. It's keyed to survival, and has no interest in truth. It's not even capable of having an interest.

Let’s address your critique of "emergence" as insufficiently explanatory.

Good. Let's begin by defining what you mean by "emergence." What is the exact process that is being alleged?

Lack of a full explanation doesn’t disprove determinism

No. But lack of coherence does. And it's incoherent that you find yourself arguing to defend a viewpoint. For according to Determinism, you are fated to believe in Determinism, no matter what happens; and equally, I am locked into believing in free will, no matter what happens. Therefore, argumentation is a luxury only of those who believe in free will; for argumentation makes no sense at all in a Deterministic universe. It cannot possibly "convince," because minds are not "convinced," according to Determinism: rather, they mindlessly crank out only the conclusions that the neurochemical and neurophysiological precursors, stimulated by prior physical causes, conduce to. So argumentation just won't work, if Determinism is true. And the rationality of an argument is a zero factor in its being believed, according to Determinism.

That's incoherent. The case cannot even be made, because Determinism says that no cases can be "made." Only what was fated by the prior conditions is going to happen.

You’ve pointed out the alleged insufficiency of determinism to explain non-physical phenomena.

Yes, I have. And you have admitted the existence of non-physical phenomena. Which means you've lost any reason to resist the idea that will is among them. If you already believe in such nebulous, non-physical realities as "meaning," and "rationality" and "scientific knowledge," which are all strictly cognitive phenomena, then you would need to explain why, of all those, you refuse to believe in the possibility of will -- will, which is a thing we not only see demonstrated to us every day, but which you and I cannot go five minutes without exercising.

But here’s the flip side: where is your evidence for non-physical realities that are not rooted in or emergent from physical processes?

I'd love to respond...if I knew what you mean by "emergence." But it seems you're not willing to tell me.

Very willful of you. See what I mean? You're making a decision right now about what you think of that. So prima facie, will is obvious to all of us, and to you right now. Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on the will-denier, not on the believer in will.

Science progresses through testing hypotheses, refining models, and building on evidence.

And it's not possible without a mind. Science is, par excellence, a mind-product, not a product of inert matter.

[BigMike]

Immanuel, let's cut through the noise. If you're so convinced that non-physical realities exist independently of physical processes, the burden is on you to provide evidence of even one instance—just one—where this holds true. It’s not up to me to disprove your claim; it’s up to you to substantiate it. And no, assertions and philosophical musings won’t cut it—real evidence is required.

You demand a "step-by-step" explanation of how emergence works, while conveniently sidestepping the fact that science often operates in realms where full mechanisms are not yet understood. Lack of complete understanding doesn't invalidate determinism—it simply marks the frontier of research. For example, we’re still uncovering how quantum mechanics underpins classical physics, but no physicist claims this proves classical mechanics false. Your critique of emergence as "incoherent" holds no weight until you can present a coherent alternative.

Now, about your repeated assertion that abstractions like rationality or meaning cannot arise from physical processes: show me one instance of a "non-physical" phenomenon that isn't reliant on or derived from physical reality. If you have this evidence, then stop wasting time on a philosophy forum. Go publish it. With such a groundbreaking discovery, you could very well claim not one but two Nobel Prizes—one in physics for rewriting the foundations of science and one in medicine for revolutionizing our understanding of consciousness.

Until you do that, your critique remains just that: unsubstantiated rhetoric. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers right now, but it offers the tools to get closer. If your alternative explanation is a "non-physical" reality untethered from the physical, bring the evidence. Otherwise, the conversation is just you dancing around the same unproven claims, while demanding others do the heavy lifting.

[promethean75]

Mr. Can likes to fill the gaps with his bizarre 'god' hypothesis, see. Anytime you aren't fully able to explain something, IC will be there to say, "See, any alternative explanation to 'god' is incomplete. Therefore, 'god' exists, and he did it."