Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Noax]

I am saying that the basis contributes to the choice made.

I don't know why you're bothering to say it, because I don't know a person on earth who denies that. "Contributes to," yes; "determines," no.

We are more or less in agreement then. Your wording had suggested otherwise, which is why I had chimed in.

'Genuine choice' has not been defined.

Then let's do that: a "genuine choice" is a choice that actually alters the possible outcome of an incident.

That's actually pretty good, but some clarification is needed about what it means to change a possibility, and also some of the other words.
First of all, there are classical and quantum ways to describe things, and it is possible, but dangerous to mix them.
Classical physics is about pool balls and such, and it is deterministic and time reversible. Classical descriptions don't classify 'decisions' one way or another. Quantum physics is about interpretations, some of which are deterministic and some not.

There is typically a list of possible outcomes to a situation, and the way that list changes is that over time, some possibilities get eliminated. That'
s a change. For instance, my son planned a wedding for about a month ago, date being picked about 18 months prior. The possible weather that day could be anywhere from blizzard/hurricane to balmy. As the date got closer, the list of possible weather diminished until the day of when it collapsed into what happened. That's not an example of choice, but it is an example of the only way I see how to interpret the 'alteration of possible outcomes'. By definition, no new possibility can be added to the list, since if it was, it should have been listed as a possibility in the first place. So what do you mean by that?

Side note: I think most definitions of free choice require a presentism assumption, which precludes me since it posits the existence of an additional thing for which there is zero evidence, sort of like positing the proverbial orbiting teapot. That's fine. I will attempt to consider a small section of view, none of which I hold, which includes hard determinism like Bohmian mechanics (with realist state, one history), a soft deterministic one like MWI which lacks any counterfactual state, but has no randomness. Copenhagen is also non-deterministic, but is arguably an epistemological view, not ontological, so it just means lack of predictability, not implying true randomness. Also a non-deterministic view like objective-collapse, something with which I have little familiarity, but seems to come down to 'god rolling dice' that Einstein so vehemently denied. And then there's your view, which I am reluctant to describe for fear of putting wrong words in your mouth, so don't hesitate to correct if I get it wrong.

Determinism insists there is only ever one possible outcome to everything, and since "choice" requires a minimum of two possibilities, no genuine choice ever exists under Determinism.

Choice exists under any view. It is free (or genuine as you now call it) that is in question, and yes, in any deterministic (or even non-presentist) view, your definition is not met. There is one history, and the notion of 'possibility' doesn't come into play at all.

So does a non-deterministic view help? I don't see how. Look at the quantum amplifier gadget in the Schrodinger's cat story. We have a device that runs for a minute. If it detects the decay (an uncaused truly random event) of some sample (with a Geiger counter), it amplifies that quantum event into a classical one by dropping a hammer onto a bottle. That''s a quantum amplifier, linking the quantum world quickly to a classical difference. There is no deliberate decision going on in that scenario, but it is an example of a change in possibility. At the start, bottle intact or broken are two possibilities, and after a minute, one of those is eliminated.

But the 'choice' made here is not deliberate. I don't see how any deliberate will can be amplified into a classical difference in outcome. That's where I need your help, if you would. Randomness may be genuine by your definition, but not being deliberate, it isn't choice, and it needs to be both.
I say all this to illustrate why it isn't about determinism at all since the same problems result from non deterministic views.

Causal Determinism has to insist that volition is not a factor

This seems completely wrong since volition is just a connection between will and action, and that connection very much exists under any view, deterministic or not. Lack of volition only occurs in something like an epiphenomenal view where said connection isn't there. This occurred to my father, who was blessed with the granting of a wish. I was on the phone with him, conversation cut short by a particularly bad coughing spell. We hang up. He gets over it and says "I hope I'm taken soon". Sits down, and has a massive stroke. No motor control to anything from neck down, but lucid and able to communicate with expressions and such. This is an example of what it's like to not have volition;, which is why I bring it up.
The coughing was necessary and he lacked the volition do it. He lasted less than a day after the phone call. Wish granted, an incredible gift of mercy.

You lean on the term 'volition' a lot, and it constitutes a different definition of 'free'/genuine, one which does not preclude determinism. Stick to the definition you give above. It conveys what you seem to want far better.

The Determinist is going to say, "Prove that." And you won't be able to, because for every evidence you try to give, he'll simply say, "That was predetermined."

It being determined does not mean there is no will. The two terms are not opposites, so saying that it was determined (or predetermined if that means something different) does not counter the claim.

But what you can neither prove not prove wrong is whether it could have been a different choice.

Nor prove that it could not have been.

The Determinist is going to say, "There never was a possibility of anything but exactly what happened being chosen."

I can think of exceptions to this. MWI is fully deterministic and yet still very much supports other outcomes being chosen. You need to qualify your statement even more restrictively to make me agree with it. Point is, careful about asserting what would be said by somebody who holds a different view than your own.


Final note: I continue to not have read a single post in this topic except this chain between you and I. I have zero idea about what is being discussed, but I don't doubt that this is an official sidetrack. Yay notify feature, without which I would not see your replies. I enjoy the interaction because of the glorious civility of it compared to my recent interactions involving someone else. Take care, and happy holiday if it's a holiday where you are. It is here.

[BigMike]

The dishonesty, deceitfulness, and outright maliciousness of the people here rejecting science have answered the central question—"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"—with a resounding, disgraceful demonstration of exactly why. By their vile behavior, their duplicity, their shameless hypocrisy, they have laid bare the very mechanisms that underpin their rejection of science and embrace of fantastical impossibilities.

These fraudulent purveyors of bad faith, these dishonest deniers of reality, don’t reject science because they’ve found some flaw in its reasoning or evidence. No, they reject it because it holds up a mirror to their lies, their corruption, their cowardice. Science demands evidence, accountability, and integrity—qualities that are utterly alien to those who wallow in the falsehoods of superstition and metaphysical fantasies.

The deviousness, the wickedness, the sheer moral bankruptcy of these individuals is staggering. They refuse to engage with the facts, dodging every challenge to provide coherent reasons for their beliefs. Instead, they spew vitriol, mock reason, and insult those who hold a mirror to their mendacity. Is this the behavior of people grounded in truth? Of course not. It's the behavior of people so deeply entrenched in their own malevolent self-delusions that they would rather tear down reality than confront their own falseness.

Their treachery answers the question clearly: Why do they reject science while embracing the impossible? Because they cannot handle the light of truth. They are deceivers, charlatans, and moral cowards. Their defiance of science isn’t born of misunderstanding—it’s born of a willful commitment to dishonesty, a deliberate choice to shield their fraudulence behind dogma and superstition.

By their vile actions, these morally reprehensible deniers have proven the point for everyone to see. Their rejection of science isn’t intellectual; it’s a failure of character. It’s an indictment of their mendacious, corrupt, and wicked nature. No wonder they embrace the impossible—they need something as hollow and false as themselves to hide behind. Shame on them, and shame on anyone who tolerates such disingenuousness without calling it out for the vile hypocrisy that it is.

[promethean75]

I was just about to say the same thing but then i thought: Mike, maybe you better tell them

[FlashDangerpants]

Dude who's so weak he puts everyone who disagrees with him on his little list of enemies to ignore, and who blows smoke so far up his own arse that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him must be opposed to science, has now decided that those people are more afraid to face up to truth than he is.

What do we get if we switch channels? Two medically problematic psychopaths arguing about what women want in the gender sub. And Australia's drunkest nazi ranting at New Zealand's most unpleasant bearded lady about a photo of a worried young man holding a grandma's tits in "the lounge".

Stay weird PN.

[accelafine]

Dude who's so weak he puts everyone who disagrees with him on his little list of enemies to ignore, and who blows smoke so far up his own arse that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him must be opposed to science, has now decided that those people are more afraid to face up to truth than he is.

What do we get if we switch channels? Two medically problematic psychopaths arguing about what women want in the gender sub. And Australia's drunkest nazi ranting at New Zealand's most unpleasant bearded lady about a photo of a worried young man holding a grandma's tits in "the lounge".

Stay weird PN.

You get scummier and more hypocritical by the day. Keep 'being kind' wokie

[Atla]

The dishonesty, deceitfulness, and outright maliciousness of the people here rejecting science have answered the central question—"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"—with a resounding, disgraceful demonstration of exactly why. By their vile behavior, their duplicity, their shameless hypocrisy, they have laid bare the very mechanisms that underpin their rejection of science and embrace of fantastical impossibilities.

These fraudulent purveyors of bad faith, these dishonest deniers of reality, don’t reject science because they’ve found some flaw in its reasoning or evidence. No, they reject it because it holds up a mirror to their lies, their corruption, their cowardice. Science demands evidence, accountability, and integrity—qualities that are utterly alien to those who wallow in the falsehoods of superstition and metaphysical fantasies.

The deviousness, the wickedness, the sheer moral bankruptcy of these individuals is staggering. They refuse to engage with the facts, dodging every challenge to provide coherent reasons for their beliefs. Instead, they spew vitriol, mock reason, and insult those who hold a mirror to their mendacity. Is this the behavior of people grounded in truth? Of course not. It's the behavior of people so deeply entrenched in their own malevolent self-delusions that they would rather tear down reality than confront their own falseness.

Their treachery answers the question clearly: Why do they reject science while embracing the impossible? Because they cannot handle the light of truth. They are deceivers, charlatans, and moral cowards. Their defiance of science isn’t born of misunderstanding—it’s born of a willful commitment to dishonesty, a deliberate choice to shield their fraudulence behind dogma and superstition.

By their vile actions, these morally reprehensible deniers have proven the point for everyone to see. Their rejection of science isn’t intellectual; it’s a failure of character. It’s an indictment of their mendacious, corrupt, and wicked nature. No wonder they embrace the impossible—they need something as hollow and false as themselves to hide behind. Shame on them, and shame on anyone who tolerates such disingenuousness without calling it out for the vile hypocrisy that it is.

But this has been known for centuries, you seem to be surprised at it?

[godelian]

The dishonesty, deceitfulness, and outright maliciousness of the people here rejecting science have answered the central question—"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"—with a resounding, disgraceful demonstration of exactly why. By their vile behavior, their duplicity, their shameless hypocrisy, they have laid bare the very mechanisms that underpin their rejection of science and embrace of fantastical impossibilities.

These fraudulent purveyors of bad faith, these dishonest deniers of reality, don’t reject science because they’ve found some flaw in its reasoning or evidence. No, they reject it because it holds up a mirror to their lies, their corruption, their cowardice. Science demands evidence, accountability, and integrity—qualities that are utterly alien to those who wallow in the falsehoods of superstition and metaphysical fantasies.

The deviousness, the wickedness, the sheer moral bankruptcy of these individuals is staggering. They refuse to engage with the facts, dodging every challenge to provide coherent reasons for their beliefs. Instead, they spew vitriol, mock reason, and insult those who hold a mirror to their mendacity. Is this the behavior of people grounded in truth? Of course not. It's the behavior of people so deeply entrenched in their own malevolent self-delusions that they would rather tear down reality than confront their own falseness.

Their treachery answers the question clearly: Why do they reject science while embracing the impossible? Because they cannot handle the light of truth. They are deceivers, charlatans, and moral cowards. Their defiance of science isn’t born of misunderstanding—it’s born of a willful commitment to dishonesty, a deliberate choice to shield their fraudulence behind dogma and superstition.

By their vile actions, these morally reprehensible deniers have proven the point for everyone to see. Their rejection of science isn’t intellectual; it’s a failure of character. It’s an indictment of their mendacious, corrupt, and wicked nature. No wonder they embrace the impossible—they need something as hollow and false as themselves to hide behind. Shame on them, and shame on anyone who tolerates such disingenuousness without calling it out for the vile hypocrisy that it is.

For the sake of the argument, let's clarify what exactly science is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2]

According to the definition above, science is a database of experimental test reports.

Which experimental test report exactly did any of your interlocutors in this thread unduly reject?

Furthermore, according to the definition for science, you are not doing science in this thread. If you believe that you are, in that case, where is your experimental test report?

[Immanuel Can]

'Genuine choice' has not been defined.

Then let's do that: a "genuine choice" is a choice that actually alters the possible outcome of an incident.

That's actually pretty good, but some clarification is needed about what it means to change a possibility, and also some of the other words.

It seems rather clear, actually.

Quantum physics is about interpretations, some of which are deterministic and some not.

That's a distinction without a difference, really. Whether one is pushed around like a pool ball or thrown around in an erratic washing machine, one is still not making any decisions, and Determinism applies. There's no volition, no personal choice, in either scenario.

Determinism insists there is only ever one possible outcome to everything, and since "choice" requires a minimum of two possibilities, no genuine choice ever exists under Determinism.

Choice exists under any view.

Not under Determinism. It can only ever be a chimera, a mirage, a phony seeming, if Determinism of any kind is true. The word "choice" can exist, like the word "unicorn" can exist. Even the concept "choice" can exist, just as the concept "unicorn," can exist. But at least a unicorn could potentially exist, in that there's nothing absurd or contradictory about a horse with a horn. Under Determinism, there isn't even the possibility that a choice could exist...just the delusion of one.

But the 'choice' made here is not deliberate.

Then it isn't actually a "choice." A "choice" requires a chooser, a sentient being capable of volition. Hammers don't have that quality.

Causal Determinism has to insist that volition is not a factor

This seems completely wrong since volition is just a connection between will and action, and that connection very much exists under any view, deterministic or not.

I think that's definitionally untrue.

Sorry about your father, though.

The Determinist is going to say, "Prove that." And you won't be able to, because for every evidence you try to give, he'll simply say, "That was predetermined."

It being determined does not mean there is no will.[/quote]Yes, it does. It means that what you think was "will" was actually the mere unintelligent byproduct of earlier forces, and no more under your jurisdiction than anything else in a predetermined universe.

But what you can neither prove not prove wrong is whether it could have been a different choice.

Nor prove that it could not have been.

Right. So it's apparent that neither side is going to be able to prove its case in that way. Determinism is not empirically falsifiable...which is not to say it's true, but that it's not subject to scientific test. It's a faith belief. But even the people who claim they have faith in it insist on acting like Determinism isn't true. In fact, one might say that behaving as if Determinism is not true is the sine qua non of being able to live at all. That, in itself, is a remarkable fact.

...careful about asserting what would be said by somebody who holds a different view than your own.

Determinism is a horribly simple machine. It does not really require much "care" to unpack what it requires.

Final note: I continue to not have read a single post in this topic except this chain between you and I. I have zero idea about what is being discussed, but I don't doubt that this is an official sidetrack. Yay notify feature, without which I would not see your replies. I enjoy the interaction because of the glorious civility of it compared to my recent interactions involving someone else. Take care, and happy holiday if it's a holiday where you are. It is here.

There's no holiday here, but I have plenty of friends who are holidaying elsewere. Happy Thanksgiving to you.

[BigMike]

Jumping into this discussion—because it’s fascinating—I’d like to challenge the framing of “choice” and bring in some neurobiology. Specifically, the idea that at the exact moment of executing a decision or action, free choice as traditionally understood is an illusion. But this doesn’t mean behavior is immutable; in fact, it’s quite the opposite when we consider how learning and memory operate at the biological level.

Here’s how it works: repeated exposure to external events, such as practicing guitar or studying Euclid's Elements, engages neuronal activity that strengthens specific synaptic connections in your brain. Over time, this repeated stimulation increases the likelihood of "choice" pathways becoming more accessible. Let’s break it down:

1. The Molecular Basis of Learning: When you experience something repeatedly—like strumming a chord or solving a geometric proof—it triggers cascades of molecular events in your neurons. For instance, activity-dependent activation of protein kinase A (PKA) can cause catalytic subunits to break off and diffuse through the cell. By Brownian motion, these subunits eventually (by chance) reach the soma (the neuron's cell body) and activate genes that lead to structural changes, like the growth of new axon terminals. This, in essence, is how the brain physically encodes memories.

2. Memory as a Deterministic Shaper of Future Behavior: These new axon terminals strengthen synaptic connections, making it more likely that certain neural pathways will fire in the future. So, while your "decision" to practice guitar today was deterministic—shaped by prior experiences, your teacher’s influence, and whatever other external causes—it also alters your brain in a way that changes your future behavior. In other words, today’s deterministic actions create tomorrow’s deterministic options.

3. Practical Implications: This means that while you cannot freely decide to suddenly master geometry today, if your teacher repeatedly exposes you to the idea that studying Euclid could improve your understanding of geometry—and if this exposure influences you deeply enough to start reading—you’re reshaping your brain to make “future-you” more inclined to engage with geometry. The same principle applies to all skill acquisition: practice lays the groundwork for better performance, not because free will is at play, but because repetition rewires your neural circuits.

4. The Key Insight: If it doesn’t occur to you today that studying Euclid is beneficial, you simply won’t pick up the book—because your current state of mind is determined by everything that has shaped you up until now. But if someone repeatedly makes you aware of the benefits, they’re effectively changing the deterministic forces acting on you by altering your synaptic structure. Eventually, this might “tip the scales” and lead to what looks like a decision to engage with geometry. It’s not free will, but it’s a highly adaptive and malleable system that gives us some influence over how we act tomorrow, based on what we learn and practice today.

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change; it merely shifts the locus of control to the forces shaping us. Want to change your future behavior? Focus on reshaping your inputs and experiences today. It’s the mechanism behind why practice truly does make perfect.

[Immanuel Can]

Jumping into this discussion—because it’s fascinating—I’d like to challenge the framing of “choice” and bring in some neurobiology. Specifically, the idea that at the exact moment of executing a decision or action, free choice as traditionally understood is an illusion. But this doesn’t mean behavior is immutable; in fact, it’s quite the opposite when we consider how learning and memory operate at the biological level.

Wait. Let's make an important distinction that's getting glossed over here.

The reason that people imagine that something like Compatibilism might be possible is that they are blending two different questions. They are:

1. What is the actual process by which things are made to happen? (Determinism/Will)

2. What do people think/know about the process? (epistemology)

It makes absolutely no difference at all to the first question what the answer to the second question is. If we are all being manipulated by pixies into doing what we do, and nobody in the world is aware of it, then we are still being manipulated by pixies. If we are predetermined and yet believe we are not, that does not go even one small step into suggesting that therefore we are not predetermined. And if we have will and responsibility for initiating causal chains, then that is exactly what is true, even if every last person on the face of the earth and down through all of history was the most ardent Determinism-believer.

None of these things shifts question 1 even an iota. That should be very clear, I think.

1. The Molecular Basis of Learning: When you experience something repeatedly—like strumming a chord or solving a geometric proof—it triggers cascades of molecular events in your neurons. For instance, activity-dependent activation of protein kinase A (PKA) can cause catalytic subunits to break off and diffuse through the cell. By Brownian motion, these subunits eventually (by chance) reach the soma (the neuron's cell body) and activate genes that lead to structural changes, like the growth of new axon terminals. This, in essence, is how the brain physically encodes memories.

This does not impinge on the question in any way.

2. Memory as a Deterministic Shaper of Future Behavior:

Wait. Is "memory," as you are conceiving it, a personal faculty, one that is permitted to act with the cognitions of an agent who is human? Or is it merely a word for whatever neural patterns have been printed on the cerebral cortex, with only physical causality in play? If your answer is the first, you're advocating some sort of free will; if it's the latter, you're merely channelling physiological Determinism.

And in that second case, in the case of Determinism, the word "memory" is doing no work in explaining anything. For what it means is that "memory" is not interacting with a human percipient who can "gatekeep" responses, but is only a synonym for "dent on the brain" or "synaptic link." It's a meaningless placeholder.

For memory to have a meaningful role in the causal explanation of action, you would need to incorporate into your story a human being as agent who chooses his/her response from the stock of memories available. But that's not Determinism. Under Determinism, human beings aren't actually "agents" of anything, but rather mere "conduits" of the physical prerequisite forces that issue in their actions. They're merely like the electrical cord that runs between your wall socket and your appliance: a mere conduit for forces that actually do all the work of both generating and serving as the proper explanation of the action of the appliance.

In other words, today’s deterministic actions create tomorrow’s deterministic options.

This does not address that problem. All it does is suggest that not all actions are open to all people. And we know that. It's merely trite to say so, because NOBODY thinks anybody gets to select from a completely unrestricted range of possibilities. But "memory" then is merely an awkward way of saying nothing more than "limited options."

..if this exposure influences you deeply enough to start reading...

See, this is yet another example of lapsing into non-Determinist language, even while trying to defend Determinism. In Determinism, there are no "ifs," no alternate possibilities or "other ways things could have been." There is only inevitability. And what "influences" you merely means that some physical cause compels you to do what you inevitably had to do anyway.

4. The Key Insight: If it doesn’t occur to you today that studying Euclid is beneficial...

Again, there are no "ifs" a Determinist can implicate in his defense of Determinism. What you would have to say is that you were predestined or fated or predetermined by the physical or quantum preconditions to not have it occur to you. And the "occurring" really did no work at all in that explanation, because there was no "human agent" to which the desire could "occur." There was only that passive "electrical cord" we call a human being, which was induced by the physical preconditions and issued the inevitable response. Nothing more than that.

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change;

If all you mean by this is, "Determinism doesn't mean things don't morph from one state to another," then it's true, but completely trivial here. If you mean that "Determinism doesn't eliminate inevitability," then it's simply wrong. Either way, it's not profound, and, according to Determinism, there is no personal agent to wield any such "tool" as you hope it offers.

This isn't a Determinist explanation. It's another example of somebody who thinks he believes in Determinism lapsing into free will concepts and terms, because consistent commitment to Determinist terms makes all explanations reductional and unhelpful.

But if you really believe in Determinism, again, why participate in this debate? Whatever you are going to think is fated by preconditions anyway, and whatever I or Noax is going to think is fated by our preconditions. Even if you imagine we "change" our views, we will only again be playing out a neural sequence generated soley by physical preconditions, not keyed to truth or rationality, and not genuinely "changing" anything, since we were fated to "change" in that way anyway. Inevitability will still hold, either way.

If you want to explain Determinism, you're going to have to give up certain terms. "If," "change," "person," "truth," "think," "choose" and "human agent" will be among those terms (along with "moral," "science" and "rational" of course). In short, no terms that imply a person can commence or volitionally alter a causal chain can be conceded to you: you're a Determinist, remember?

[phyllo]

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change; it merely shifts the locus of control to the forces shaping us. Want to change your future behavior? Focus on reshaping your inputs and experiences today. It’s the mechanism behind why practice truly does make perfect.

That means that you are not in control of what you want. And you are not in control of what you focus on.

Something external has to happen to shift your wants.

[BigMike]

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change; it merely shifts the locus of control to the forces shaping us. Want to change your future behavior? Focus on reshaping your inputs and experiences today. It’s the mechanism behind why practice truly does make perfect.

That means that you are not in control of what you want. And you are not in control of what you focus on.

Something external has to happen to shift your wants.

Exactly. We don't control what we want or focus on in the moment—it’s shaped by prior experiences and external influences. But by understanding this, we can deliberately expose ourselves to inputs today (like learning, practice, or guidance from others) that influence and shape what we want or focus on tomorrow. It’s not "free will," but it’s how change happens.

[phyllo]

But by understanding this, we can deliberately expose ourselves to inputs today (like learning, practice, or guidance from others) that influence and shape what we want or focus on tomorrow. It’s not "free will," but it’s how change happens.

We can't "deliberately expose ourselves" if we don't want to. And the want is not in our control.

[BigMike]

Jumping into this discussion—because it’s fascinating—I’d like to challenge the framing of “choice” and bring in some neurobiology. Specifically, the idea that at the exact moment of executing a decision or action, free choice as traditionally understood is an illusion. But this doesn’t mean behavior is immutable; in fact, it’s quite the opposite when we consider how learning and memory operate at the biological level.

Wait. Let's make an important distinction that's getting glossed over here.

The reason that people imagine that something like Compatibilism might be possible is that they are blending two different questions. They are:

1. What is the actual process by which things are made to happen? (Determinism/Will)

2. What do people think/know about the process? (epistemology)

It makes absolutely no difference at all to the first question what the answer to the second question is. If we are all being manipulated by pixies into doing what we do, and nobody in the world is aware of it, then we are still being manipulated by pixies. If we are predetermined and yet believe we are not, that does not go even one small step into suggesting that therefore we are not predetermined. And if we have will and responsibility for initiating causal chains, then that is exactly what is true, even if every last person on the face of the earth and down through all of history was the most ardent Determinism-believer.

None of these things shifts question 1 even an iota. That should be very clear, I think.

1. The Molecular Basis of Learning: When you experience something repeatedly—like strumming a chord or solving a geometric proof—it triggers cascades of molecular events in your neurons. For instance, activity-dependent activation of protein kinase A (PKA) can cause catalytic subunits to break off and diffuse through the cell. By Brownian motion, these subunits eventually (by chance) reach the soma (the neuron's cell body) and activate genes that lead to structural changes, like the growth of new axon terminals. This, in essence, is how the brain physically encodes memories.

This does not impinge on the question in any way.

2. Memory as a Deterministic Shaper of Future Behavior:

Wait. Is "memory," as you are conceiving it, a personal faculty, one that is permitted to act with the cognitions of an agent who is human? Or is it merely a word for whatever neural patterns have been printed on the cerebral cortex, with only physical causality in play? If your answer is the first, you're advocating some sort of free will; if it's the latter, you're merely channelling physiological Determinism.

And in that second case, in the case of Determinism, the word "memory" is doing no work in explaining anything. For what it means is that "memory" is not interacting with a human percipient who can "gatekeep" responses, but is only a synonym for "dent on the brain" or "synaptic link." It's a meaningless placeholder.

For memory to have a meaningful role in the causal explanation of action, you would need to incorporate into your story a human being as agent who chooses his/her response from the stock of memories available. But that's not Determinism. Under Determinism, human beings aren't actually "agents" of anything, but rather mere "conduits" of the physical prerequisite forces that issue in their actions. They're merely like the electrical cord that runs between your wall socket and your appliance: a mere conduit for forces that actually do all the work of both generating and serving as the proper explanation of the action of the appliance.

In other words, today’s deterministic actions create tomorrow’s deterministic options.

This does not address that problem. All it does is suggest that not all actions are open to all people. And we know that. It's merely trite to say so, because NOBODY thinks anybody gets to select from a completely unrestricted range of possibilities. But "memory" then is merely an awkward way of saying nothing more than "limited options."

..if this exposure influences you deeply enough to start reading...

See, this is yet another example of lapsing into non-Determinist language, even while trying to defend Determinism. In Determinism, there are no "ifs," no alternate possibilities or "other ways things could have been." There is only inevitability. And what "influences" you merely means that some physical cause compels you to do what you inevitably had to do anyway.

4. The Key Insight: If it doesn’t occur to you today that studying Euclid is beneficial...

Again, there are no "ifs" a Determinist can implicate in his defense of Determinism. What you would have to say is that you were predestined or fated or predetermined by the physical or quantum preconditions to not have it occur to you. And the "occurring" really did no work at all in that explanation, because there was no "human agent" to which the desire could "occur." There was only that passive "electrical cord" we call a human being, which was induced by the physical preconditions and issued the inevitable response. Nothing more than that.

So, this understanding gives us a profound tool: determinism doesn’t eliminate change;

If all you mean by this is, "Determinism doesn't mean things don't morph from one state to another," then it's true, but completely trivial here. If you mean that "Determinism doesn't eliminate inevitability," then it's simply wrong. Either way, it's not profound, and, according to Determinism, there is no personal agent to wield any such "tool" as you hope it offers.

This isn't a Determinist explanation. It's another example of somebody who thinks he believes in Determinism lapsing into free will concepts and terms, because consistent commitment to Determinist terms makes all explanations reductional and unhelpful.

But if you really believe in Determinism, again, why participate in this debate? Whatever you are going to think is fated by preconditions anyway, and whatever I or Noax is going to think is fated by our preconditions. Even if you imagine we "change" our views, we will only again be playing out a neural sequence generated soley by physical preconditions, not keyed to truth or rationality, and not genuinely "changing" anything, since we were fated to "change" in that way anyway. Inevitability will still hold, either way.

If you want to explain Determinism, you're going to have to give up certain terms. "If," "change," "person," "truth," "think," "choose" and "human agent" will be among those terms (along with "moral," "science" and "rational" of course). In short, no terms that imply a person can commence or volitionally alter a causal chain can be conceded to you: you're a Determinist, remember?

Immanuel Can, your response raises a thoughtful critique, but it leans on a misunderstanding of how determinism operates within the framework of neuroscience and the laws of physics. Let me address this systematically.

The laws of physics, governed by conservation and executed by the four fundamental interactions, dictate all processes, including the biochemical underpinnings of cognition and memory. When we talk about memory and learning in a deterministic sense, it’s not about a "gatekeeping agent" making volitional choices but rather about how repeated exposure to stimuli changes the brain's structure and behavior over time.

For example, the activation of molecular pathways, such as protein kinase A breaking off subunits that influence gene expression and neuronal connections, creates a deterministic but dynamic system. This system reshapes synaptic links, effectively altering the brain's "response repertoire." It doesn't introduce free will but provides a mechanistic basis for how deterministic inputs today shape deterministic outputs tomorrow.

Now, on your critique of "ifs" and "change": Determinism allows for conditional inevitability. If a particular stimulus is presented repeatedly (e.g., a teacher encouraging Euclid’s study), the molecular and neural changes it triggers can make the student more likely to study Euclid in the future. It’s not about free will or agency but about altering causal conditions to influence future outcomes.

Finally, why participate in this debate under determinism? Because understanding deterministic processes—like how learning and environmental inputs shape behavior—gives us practical tools to influence outcomes. It's not about free will but about harnessing the inevitability of cause and effect to produce desired changes. The debate itself, from this view, is just another node in the causal web, inevitably influencing future thought and behavior.

[Noax]

It seems rather clear, actually.

To you maybe, but if you are to attempt to justify your view to others, it needs to be clear to those others, and you have a big tendency to make up your own alternate definitions for words that are clearly defined. Using the standard definitions, your arguments don't make sense at all. For example, 'determinism', 'choice' and 'volition': You seem to assume completely different meanings to these words:

Quantum physics is about interpretations, some of which are deterministic and some not.

That's a distinction without a difference, really. Whether one is pushed around like a pool ball or thrown around in an erratic washing machine, one is still not making any decisions, and Determinism applies. There's no volition, no personal choice, in either scenario.[/quote]
Determinism applies only to the pool ball interpretation. That's what the word means. A closed system in a given state will always evolve in the exact same way. This is not true under the washing machine interpretation, but you group that interpretation under that term anyway. This is wrong. The word you want to describe both together is probably naturalism. Naturalism is what applies in both cases. Your view is a denial of naturalism, something you need to justify by first getting the terminology correct.

Volition: From oxford: "the faculty or power of using one's will". This requires a connection between will and the means to use it, which almost always involves motor response. Naturalism explains volition very well since only a spine is required to connect the two. Focus on this term does your stance little good because volition has never been explained in it. But you seem to assert some weird alternate definition of it and then assert that it can only exist in your view. This definition is never given, and I can't think of one that meets your requirements for it.

Choice: You seem to use the term 'choice' in a way that is in no way distinct from 'free choice'. This destroys your case. If you assert that only under your own view do people have free choice, your assertion is not even wrong since the phrase is rendered meaningless by the lack of distinction between it and not it.


This is why you should comply with requests for clear definitions instead of brushing off the request with "seems clear to me".

But the 'choice' made here [particle decay detector] is not deliberate.

Then it isn't actually a "choice."

Your definition, not mine. I did put 'choice' in scare quotes, but I described a device that makes a decision based on a measurement, which fundamentally is what a person does under naturalism. Given a naturalist description of something, one must use naturalist definitions for words, else you are begging an inapplicable view.

Sorry about your father, though.

Thank you. Everybody has his time, and he got a wish granted at exactly the right time. It's a happy story, but the point of it was to illustrate the loss of volition, the dictionary definition of the word.

It being determined does not mean there is no will.

Yes, it does.

We can add to the list another begging definition then, yet again unstated. A quick google says "used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness". The last word seems circular, but the others are fine, and are entirely applicable in a deterministic view. It seems you equate the word to 'free will' just like you do with 'choice', hence rendering your assertions not even wrong by the same argument given above. You need to distinguish will from free will to have an argument.

Determinism is not empirically falsifiable...which is not to say it's true, but that it's not subject to scientific test. It's a faith belief.

Nothing in science is proved, but faith is a belief in absence of evidence. I agree that there is thin evidence of determinism (standard definition of that word), but significant evidence of determinism (your private definition of that word).

But even the people who claim they have faith in it insist on acting like Determinism isn't true.

This implies that there is a more correct way to act if determinism is true You seem to equate it to a belief in fatalism, that the future is not a function of our choices at all. I would agree that a belief in fatalism would ironically cause one to behave differently.