Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[henry quirk]

You did not, and I suppose you cannot, take what IC carefully presented to you when he dealt on the possible, the likely and the often inevitable result when ideas involving mass social engineering projects have been imposed by *elites*.

Oh, he took it and dismissed it.

Mike believes, as I say, that makin' man less makes him better. He's certain doin' away with free will can only result in a kinder world.

If we are meat machines, then everything will play out as it must. If a *kinder world happens it's becuz it's causally inevitable.

If, though, we are free wills (and we are, each and every one of us, including Mike) then convincing folks they aren't free wills, convincing them their fellows aren't free wills, can only lead to atrocity.

Teach a man he is nuthin' but bio-automation which has no responsibility for its actions and he'll go hog wild. He'll murder, slave, rape, steal, and defraud. Why shouldn't he?



*in a deterministic context, a meaningless notion...what's kind except another inevitable flaring of electricity in an organic matrix?

[BigMike]

Here’s the distinction you seem to miss—or perhaps intentionally ignore. I’m not denying that people make choices in the present. I’m saying that these choices are conditioned by their circumstances, their biology, and their history. However, for those intelligent enough to see the deterministic threads that shape their lives, a remarkable opportunity arises: they can deliberately take actions now that alter the trajectory of their future thoughts, decisions, and behaviors. This is not metaphysical free will; it’s simply a deeper understanding of causality and the power of foresight.

You have in fact wavered on this point and around it. Now, you are saying basically what I said that I understood about our agency and its limits.

There is nothing I ignored — I’ve read you (and others here) carefully. You are confused about the implications of a physics-based world (our “reality”) and about what agency men have and don’t have. You give agency, then you snatch it away.

You have, for your own reasons & purposes, done away with metaphysics simply because the notion of metaphysics and supernaturalism do not — cannot — fit into your paradigm. This is understandable if your perspective is grasped. Personally, I do not think it a wise nor a sound choice, but you are adamant and a zealous enthusiast for your pet perspective (and fail to grasp its own metaphysical grounding).

I’m saying that these choices are conditioned by their circumstances, their biology, and their history

No one that I am aware disagrees with you. And just as you state this — you are employing free unconstrained reason to do so (if you are saying something true) — you have, to a notable degree, stepped outside of the constraints of conditioning and agreed that a “metaphysical” perspective is available and offers you decisive power.

That there is the core of my own perspective. Metaphysical perspective.

However, for those intelligent enough to see the deterministic threads that shape their lives, a remarkable opportunity arises: they can deliberately take actions now that alter the trajectory of their future thoughts, decisions, and behaviors.

This is why I devote my life to The 13-Week Email Course!

I provide you, RIGHT NOW, an opportunity to sign up for only $799.00! Take the chance! (I also am going to throw in my Pick-Up Artist booklet that guarantees you pussy on a Frank Sinatra scale!)

Thanks for taking me off of ignore. Now: free the others and free yourself!

Ah, Alexis, your response is a dazzling mix of backpedaling and theatrical flourish. You now claim I’m saying “basically what you said,” but let’s not pretend you’ve been consistent or precise in articulating it. You’ve been waving around “agency” and “metaphysical perspective” like talismans to ward off the implications of a deterministic universe, while simultaneously admitting that choices are conditioned. If I’ve wavered, it’s only because you’re mistaking a nuanced position for inconsistency.

Your assertion that I’m employing “free, unconstrained reason” to articulate my points is a charming sleight of hand. Recognizing the deterministic roots of thought and decision-making doesn’t require stepping outside of those constraints—it requires understanding them. The ability to reason, to reflect, and to articulate is not evidence of metaphysical freedom but of the complex processes of causality at work. You’re attributing to the supernatural what is fully explainable within the natural.

As for your metaphysical perspective, it’s a lovely abstraction, but it remains untethered to anything demonstrable. You speak of it as though it offers decisive power, but you’ve yet to explain how it fits within or interacts with the deterministic framework you tacitly acknowledge. Waving it about without anchoring it in anything concrete is less philosophy and more performance art.

[Impenitent]

It's a bit like telling a computer that can run the newest AAA games that it is only allowed to display 0s and 1s.

what else do you expect from a series of on and off switches? an understanding of the Critique of Pure Reason?

-Imp

A-huh, Impenitent, a clever quip as always. But tell me—where exactly do you think your "understanding of the Critique of Pure Reason" resides? In some ethereal realm beyond the on-and-off switches, or perhaps nestled right there among the same deterministic processes you’re so quick to reduce? Enlighten us.

I don't know

does the brain work on a series of on and off switches? as far as we understand the brain, it may be a series of synapses...

understanding could reside as an extension of the definitions and subsequent interpretation/relations of words in an overlooked subsection of the hippocampus next to the water buffalos in mortarboards...

Cartesian pineal glands could house understanding next to the soul - although Rene never read the Critique...

then again, as I grow older, I forget many things... brain cells are constantly dying and some memories are likewise fleeting

no I didn't leave my keys in that group of battleships

write it down so you'll remember?

-Imp

[BigMike]

what else do you expect from a series of on and off switches? an understanding of the Critique of Pure Reason?

-Imp

A-huh, Impenitent, a clever quip as always. But tell me—where exactly do you think your "understanding of the Critique of Pure Reason" resides? In some ethereal realm beyond the on-and-off switches, or perhaps nestled right there among the same deterministic processes you’re so quick to reduce? Enlighten us.

I don't know

does the brain work on a series of on and off switches? as far as we understand the brain, it may be a series of synapses...

understanding could reside as an extension of the definitions and subsequent interpretation/relations of words in an overlooked subsection of the hippocampus next to the water buffalos in mortarboards...

Cartesian pineal glands could house understanding next to the soul - although Rene never read the Critique...

then again, as I grow older, I forget many things... brain cells are constantly dying and some memories are likewise fleeting

no I didn't leave my keys in that group of battleships

write it down so you'll remember?

-Imp

Impenitent, a delightful ramble through synapses, water buffaloes in mortarboards, and forgotten battleships. Truly, your musings are as scattered as the dying brain cells you so poetically reference. But let’s not lose the thread entirely in your whimsical chaos.

You admit you don’t know where understanding resides, but rather than confront that with seriousness, you bury it in caricature and playful nonsense. It’s charming, perhaps, but also telling—because it avoids addressing the reality that your "understanding" is not some mystical entity but a process, entirely grounded in the physical mechanisms of your brain. Whether those mechanisms are synaptic firings, neural patterns, or the deterministic dance of biology and physics, they are not exempt from causality, no matter how you decorate the thought.

As for Cartesian pineal glands and souls—cute, but let's not revive poor René just to dodge the question. If understanding is housed next to the soul, then it’s time to show us this soul of yours, preferably without resorting to mortarboards or maritime metaphors.

And yes, write it down—though not because understanding resides in forgotten keys or battleships, but because even a deterministic brain benefits from external scaffolding to organize its thoughts. It’s not magic, Imp. It’s causality, plain and simple, however much you try to dress it up.

[Impenitent]

A-huh, Impenitent, a clever quip as always. But tell me—where exactly do you think your "understanding of the Critique of Pure Reason" resides? In some ethereal realm beyond the on-and-off switches, or perhaps nestled right there among the same deterministic processes you’re so quick to reduce? Enlighten us.

I don't know

does the brain work on a series of on and off switches? as far as we understand the brain, it may be a series of synapses...

understanding could reside as an extension of the definitions and subsequent interpretation/relations of words in an overlooked subsection of the hippocampus next to the water buffalos in mortarboards...

Cartesian pineal glands could house understanding next to the soul - although Rene never read the Critique...

then again, as I grow older, I forget many things... brain cells are constantly dying and some memories are likewise fleeting

no I didn't leave my keys in that group of battleships

write it down so you'll remember?

-Imp

Impenitent, a delightful ramble through synapses, water buffaloes in mortarboards, and forgotten battleships. Truly, your musings are as scattered as the dying brain cells you so poetically reference. But let’s not lose the thread entirely in your whimsical chaos.

You admit you don’t know where understanding resides, but rather than confront that with seriousness, you bury it in caricature and playful nonsense. It’s charming, perhaps, but also telling—because it avoids addressing the reality that your "understanding" is not some mystical entity but a process, entirely grounded in the physical mechanisms of your brain. Whether those mechanisms are synaptic firings, neural patterns, or the deterministic dance of biology and physics, they are not exempt from causality, no matter how you decorate the thought.

As for Cartesian pineal glands and souls—cute, but let's not revive poor René just to dodge the question. If understanding is housed next to the soul, then it’s time to show us this soul of yours, preferably without resorting to mortarboards or maritime metaphors.

And yes, write it down—though not because understanding resides in forgotten keys or battleships, but because even a deterministic brain benefits from external scaffolding to organize its thoughts. It’s not magic, Imp. It’s causality, plain and simple, however much you try to dress it up.

thank you... as I said, I don't know - are thoughts and memories inexorably tied to the brain? of course, lobotomies work don't they? but is that the ultimate extent of the question? is it possible that they reside elsewhere as well? could be...

is it possible that the decision generating portion of existence is nothing but a predetermined series of synaptic reactions? sure... again, lobotomies work

how can there be moral responsibility if there is no freedom to choose?

your synapses fired the way they did because they were predetermined to do so and you acted accordingly as you were predetermined to do...

some refuse to be born to lose

-Imp

[BigMike]

I don't know

does the brain work on a series of on and off switches? as far as we understand the brain, it may be a series of synapses...

understanding could reside as an extension of the definitions and subsequent interpretation/relations of words in an overlooked subsection of the hippocampus next to the water buffalos in mortarboards...

Cartesian pineal glands could house understanding next to the soul - although Rene never read the Critique...

then again, as I grow older, I forget many things... brain cells are constantly dying and some memories are likewise fleeting

no I didn't leave my keys in that group of battleships

write it down so you'll remember?

-Imp

Impenitent, a delightful ramble through synapses, water buffaloes in mortarboards, and forgotten battleships. Truly, your musings are as scattered as the dying brain cells you so poetically reference. But let’s not lose the thread entirely in your whimsical chaos.

You admit you don’t know where understanding resides, but rather than confront that with seriousness, you bury it in caricature and playful nonsense. It’s charming, perhaps, but also telling—because it avoids addressing the reality that your "understanding" is not some mystical entity but a process, entirely grounded in the physical mechanisms of your brain. Whether those mechanisms are synaptic firings, neural patterns, or the deterministic dance of biology and physics, they are not exempt from causality, no matter how you decorate the thought.

As for Cartesian pineal glands and souls—cute, but let's not revive poor René just to dodge the question. If understanding is housed next to the soul, then it’s time to show us this soul of yours, preferably without resorting to mortarboards or maritime metaphors.

And yes, write it down—though not because understanding resides in forgotten keys or battleships, but because even a deterministic brain benefits from external scaffolding to organize its thoughts. It’s not magic, Imp. It’s causality, plain and simple, however much you try to dress it up.

thank you... as I said, I don't know - are thoughts and memories inexorably tied to the brain? of course, lobotomies work don't they? but is that the ultimate extent of the question? is it possible that they reside elsewhere as well? could be...

is it possible that the decision generating portion of existence is nothing but a predetermined series of synaptic reactions? sure... again, lobotomies work

how can there be moral responsibility if there is no freedom to choose?

your synapses fired the way they did because they were predetermined to do so and you acted accordingly as you were predetermined to do...

some refuse to be born to lose

-Imp

Ah, Impenitent, here we are again, circling the same question with a mixture of skepticism and coyness. You "don’t know" if thoughts and memories are tied to the brain, yet you concede that lobotomies work—a tacit admission that altering the physical structure of the brain alters cognition and personality. And yet, you leave the door ajar for the possibility that thoughts "reside elsewhere." Could be? Sure, and unicorns could be grazing in a parallel dimension, but speculation without evidence is little more than a game of rhetorical hopscotch.

The real question you pose—whether moral responsibility can exist without freedom to choose—is indeed central. If decisions are nothing but predetermined synaptic reactions, as you grudgingly admit might be the case, then moral responsibility must be reframed. It cannot rest on the myth of uncaused freedom but must instead be rooted in the understanding of causality. Responsibility in a deterministic world isn’t about blaming individuals for being the inevitable product of their circumstances; it’s about acknowledging the systems, conditions, and actions that produce harmful outcomes and working to change them.

As for your final flourish—“some refuse to be born to lose”—that sentiment is admirable but deeply ironic. Even the refusal is predetermined by the very synaptic patterns and life circumstances that you so reluctantly entertain as deterministic. So perhaps your battle isn’t with determinism but with your unwillingness to follow it to its logical conclusion.

It’s not that you “refuse to be born to lose,” Imp. It’s that you were born to refuse—and that’s entirely consistent with causality.

[accelafine]

Why are you getting pissy about what people on your ignore list write?

I didn't bother reading the post you describe as eloquent and perfect, I don't really rate your writing high enough to look at everything you do.

This site receives quite a lot of narcissists who are able to tell themselves they are geniuses and ignore all nay-sayers. Are you one of those?

Ah, FlashDangerpants, the old "I didn’t read it, but I’ll critique it anyway" routine.


A classic move from the handbook of intellectual avoidance. It’s almost as if you’ve realized that engaging with the argument itself would reveal just how little you have to counter it. Instead, you resort to armchair psychoanalysis and insinuations of narcissism—because why tackle ideas when you can just attack the person presenting them?

Let’s be clear: not reading the arguments you’re supposedly dismissing doesn’t make you look above the fray; it makes you look lazy and uninterested in anything beyond your own smug deflections. The irony here is palpable—you accuse others of narcissism while proudly declaring that you don’t bother engaging with ideas you find challenging. Bravo, truly. It’s a masterclass in self-sabotage.

But I didn't critique it you dirty liar. I laughed at you giving yourself medals for it, which is the text that I both read and quoted.

I've done all I needed to do with your arguments, I showed multiple reasons why those from a philosophy background would not be impressed by them. You aren't educated enough to understand me unless you first develop enough humility to learn from others, which looks like something that isn't going to happen. Then you put me on your fabled ignore list making the whole thing moot. Why am I supposed to make a bunch of extra effort to appease you?

You only want to argue with me now because you are getting no engagement because you put everyone on ignore. I have no reason treat you as somebody who is prepared to engage in debate on a good faith basis.

I just had to repost this to you in case you 'didn't read it'. You can stop paying your 'therapist' to tell you how wonderful you are, this person has summed you up in two short, delicious paragraphs. Perhaps you could spend your next 500 posts 'demanding an apology' from him

ps. Demanding an 'apology' from someone is a contradiction in terms. It's not possible. An apology can only come from the person giving it--and giving it willingly because they have felt some remorse and choose to do it and NOT because some twat has forced them to.
It would be like ORDERING someone to fall in love with you. They might say it at gunpoint, but they certainly aren't going to feel it.

[Atla]

On a more technical note, of course the science isn't as clear on BigMike's "absolute" determinism, as he portrayed it to be. (From a 4d philosophy perspective.)

He put me on ignore because I pointed out to him that causality has no known direction. Sure, we perceive forward causality because we are humans and our life experience is tied to time's arrow (entropy).

But that doesn't mean that causality "flows" from the Big Bang. It could be more rational to think that causality "flows" from the present, or that all perspectives are equal. Well maybe we do have some free will if that's the case, maybe not.

Which brings up the even more interesting issue: can our brain/mind exploit quantum effects somewhat (for example the quantum zeno and anti-zeno effects)? Maybe giving us some (nowadays probably miniscule) free will-like control over reality.

You know things like prayer or the law of attraction or stopping the clock with your attention could be 0.1% right, or 1% or who knows.

Science can currently neither prove nor disprove such possibilities as to my knowledge.

[BigMike]

On a more technical note, of course the science isn't as clear on BigMike's "absolute" determinism, as he portrayed it to be. (From a 4d philosophy perspective.)

He put me on ignore because I pointed out to him that causality has no known direction. Sure, we perceive forward causality because we are humans and our life experience is tied to time's arrow (entropy).

But that doesn't mean that causality "flows" from the Big Bang. It could be more rational to think that causality "flows" from the present, or that all perspectives are equal. Well maybe we do have some free will if that's the case, maybe not.

Which brings up the even more interesting issue: can our brain/mind exploit quantum effects somewhat (for example the quantum zeno and anti-zeno effects)? Maybe giving us some (nowadays probably miniscule) free will-like control over reality.

You know things like prayer or the law of attraction or stopping the clock with your attention could be 0.1% right, or 1% or who knows.

Science can currently neither prove nor disprove such possibilities as to my knowledge.

Atla, still wrestling with concepts of causality and determinism, though I appreciate the effort. A quick clarification for you: you were taken off my ignore list yesterday or perhaps the day before. The timing, like much in this deterministic world, is conditioned by prior interactions. Consider it a causal inevitability.

Now, on to the substance—or lack thereof—of your comment. Your claim that causality has no known direction is a valid observation within specific frameworks, such as in some interpretations of quantum mechanics or discussions of time symmetry in physics. However, the directionality of causation that we perceive is tied to entropy, as you correctly note, and this "arrow of time" is the framework within which determinism operates on the human scale. It’s not about where causality "flows" but about understanding that interactions—my preferred term, since action and reaction occur simultaneously—are the core of everything we observe. I use "causation" for the sake of the general public, who seem to better grasp its implications, but interactions more accurately describe the simultaneity of these phenomena.

As for your musings on quantum effects and their hypothetical impact on free will, I must admit it sounds more like wishful thinking than serious science. The quantum Zeno effect, while fascinating, doesn’t grant autonomy; it’s still bound by the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics. To leap from there to ideas like prayer, the law of attraction, or "stopping the clock with your attention" is to indulge in speculation untethered from rigorous evidence. These notions may be enticing, but until science provides a substantive mechanism, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience or metaphysical fancy.

If your "4D philosophy" is an attempt to reconcile determinism with metaphysical notions of free will, you’re free to pursue it—but understand that adding dimensions doesn’t exempt interactions from the deterministic web they inhabit. It’s all part of the same interconnected system, regardless of the scale or perspective.

[Impenitent]

Impenitent, a delightful ramble through synapses, water buffaloes in mortarboards, and forgotten battleships. Truly, your musings are as scattered as the dying brain cells you so poetically reference. But let’s not lose the thread entirely in your whimsical chaos.

You admit you don’t know where understanding resides, but rather than confront that with seriousness, you bury it in caricature and playful nonsense. It’s charming, perhaps, but also telling—because it avoids addressing the reality that your "understanding" is not some mystical entity but a process, entirely grounded in the physical mechanisms of your brain. Whether those mechanisms are synaptic firings, neural patterns, or the deterministic dance of biology and physics, they are not exempt from causality, no matter how you decorate the thought.

As for Cartesian pineal glands and souls—cute, but let's not revive poor René just to dodge the question. If understanding is housed next to the soul, then it’s time to show us this soul of yours, preferably without resorting to mortarboards or maritime metaphors.

And yes, write it down—though not because understanding resides in forgotten keys or battleships, but because even a deterministic brain benefits from external scaffolding to organize its thoughts. It’s not magic, Imp. It’s causality, plain and simple, however much you try to dress it up.

thank you... as I said, I don't know - are thoughts and memories inexorably tied to the brain? of course, lobotomies work don't they? but is that the ultimate extent of the question? is it possible that they reside elsewhere as well? could be...

is it possible that the decision generating portion of existence is nothing but a predetermined series of synaptic reactions? sure... again, lobotomies work

how can there be moral responsibility if there is no freedom to choose?

your synapses fired the way they did because they were predetermined to do so and you acted accordingly as you were predetermined to do...

some refuse to be born to lose

-Imp

Ah, Impenitent, here we are again, circling the same question with a mixture of skepticism and coyness. You "don’t know" if thoughts and memories are tied to the brain, yet you concede that lobotomies work—a tacit admission that altering the physical structure of the brain alters cognition and personality. And yet, you leave the door ajar for the possibility that thoughts "reside elsewhere." Could be? Sure, and unicorns could be grazing in a parallel dimension, but speculation without evidence is little more than a game of rhetorical hopscotch.

The real question you pose—whether moral responsibility can exist without freedom to choose—is indeed central. If decisions are nothing but predetermined synaptic reactions, as you grudgingly admit might be the case, then moral responsibility must be reframed. It cannot rest on the myth of uncaused freedom but must instead be rooted in the understanding of causality. Responsibility in a deterministic world isn’t about blaming individuals for being the inevitable product of their circumstances; it’s about acknowledging the systems, conditions, and actions that produce harmful outcomes and working to change them.

As for your final flourish—“some refuse to be born to lose”—that sentiment is admirable but deeply ironic. Even the refusal is predetermined by the very synaptic patterns and life circumstances that you so reluctantly entertain as deterministic. So perhaps your battle isn’t with determinism but with your unwillingness to follow it to its logical conclusion.

It’s not that you “refuse to be born to lose,” Imp. It’s that you were born to refuse—and that’s entirely consistent with causality.

you are determined to act as you do act, no other option exists you have no choice...

yet you say we can acknowledge the systems and conditions in which we must deterministically reside - yet "work to change them"

who is refusing now?

-Imp

[BigMike]

thank you... as I said, I don't know - are thoughts and memories inexorably tied to the brain? of course, lobotomies work don't they? but is that the ultimate extent of the question? is it possible that they reside elsewhere as well? could be...

is it possible that the decision generating portion of existence is nothing but a predetermined series of synaptic reactions? sure... again, lobotomies work

how can there be moral responsibility if there is no freedom to choose?

your synapses fired the way they did because they were predetermined to do so and you acted accordingly as you were predetermined to do...

some refuse to be born to lose

-Imp

Ah, Impenitent, here we are again, circling the same question with a mixture of skepticism and coyness. You "don’t know" if thoughts and memories are tied to the brain, yet you concede that lobotomies work—a tacit admission that altering the physical structure of the brain alters cognition and personality. And yet, you leave the door ajar for the possibility that thoughts "reside elsewhere." Could be? Sure, and unicorns could be grazing in a parallel dimension, but speculation without evidence is little more than a game of rhetorical hopscotch.

The real question you pose—whether moral responsibility can exist without freedom to choose—is indeed central. If decisions are nothing but predetermined synaptic reactions, as you grudgingly admit might be the case, then moral responsibility must be reframed. It cannot rest on the myth of uncaused freedom but must instead be rooted in the understanding of causality. Responsibility in a deterministic world isn’t about blaming individuals for being the inevitable product of their circumstances; it’s about acknowledging the systems, conditions, and actions that produce harmful outcomes and working to change them.

As for your final flourish—“some refuse to be born to lose”—that sentiment is admirable but deeply ironic. Even the refusal is predetermined by the very synaptic patterns and life circumstances that you so reluctantly entertain as deterministic. So perhaps your battle isn’t with determinism but with your unwillingness to follow it to its logical conclusion.

It’s not that you “refuse to be born to lose,” Imp. It’s that you were born to refuse—and that’s entirely consistent with causality.

you are determined to act as you do act, no other option exists you have no choice...

yet you say we can acknowledge the systems and conditions in which we must deterministically reside - yet "work to change them"

who is refusing now?

-Imp

Impenitent, once again you circle back with a rhetorical flourish, as though pointing out an apparent contradiction might undo the core argument. But it seems you misunderstand—or perhaps deliberately ignore—the distinction between acknowledging determinism and navigating within its framework.

Yes, we are determined to act as we do, and no other option exists in the metaphysical sense. But within the deterministic framework, there is room for foresight and intentionality—products of the very causal mechanisms you seem to challenge. Recognizing the deterministic nature of our actions doesn’t mean passivity; it means understanding that our current actions are themselves causes of future outcomes. This is not refusal—it’s embracing the reality of causality and using it to shape what comes next.

When I say we can "work to change" systems, I’m not invoking some metaphysical autonomy. I’m pointing out that understanding the systems and conditions that shape us allows for deliberate actions that alter future conditions. These changes, too, are determined—but they are determined by the insights we act upon now. This is not a denial of determinism but an application of its principles.

So no, I’m not the one refusing here. If anything, your insistence on framing determinism as incompatible with action reflects a refusal to see how fully embracing it empowers us to act more effectively, not less. Refusing to engage with this nuance isn’t an argument—it’s a retreat into caricature.

[Impenitent]

not a retreat into anything...

I see the choice as binary - I've not been convinced otherwise

-Imp

[BigMike]

not a retreat into anything...

I see the choice as binary - I've not been convinced otherwise

-Imp

You see the choice as binary because that is what occurs to you—it’s the framework shaped by your current understanding, experiences, and the deterministic interactions that have led you to this point. You can only think and do what occurs to you, as can I, and as can anyone else. This doesn’t invalidate your perspective, but it does explain its limits.

The notion of a "binary choice" might feel intuitively satisfying, but it’s a product of the same deterministic processes we’re discussing. What I’ve argued—and what you seem to sidestep—is that for those who grasp the deterministic threads shaping their lives, a new kind of intentionality becomes possible. Recognizing how your current actions, thoughts, and decisions set the stage for future outcomes is not a metaphysical escape from determinism; it’s an application of its principles.

If your current framework doesn’t allow you to see beyond the binary, that’s not a failure of determinism—it’s simply the inevitable outcome of the interactions shaping your thoughts. Whether you embrace this understanding or not is not a matter of metaphysical choice; it’s a matter of whether the conditions arise for it to occur to you. And so, we’re back to causality, weaving its intricate threads through us all, whether acknowledged or not.

[Immanuel Can]

...for those who grasp the deterministic threads shaping their lives, a new kind of intentionality becomes possible.

For those who grasp Determinism, there is no "intentionality" at all. All there is, is pitiless, indifferent, material "causality."

[BigMike]

...for those who grasp the deterministic threads shaping their lives, a new kind of intentionality becomes possible.

For those who grasp Determinism, there is no "intentionality" at all. All there is, is pitiless, indifferent, material "causality."

Oh my, IC, ever the grand arbiter of absolutist misreadings. You seem to have confused determinism with nihilism, as though acknowledging the inescapable web of causality renders concepts like intentionality void. But let me correct your lazy reductionism: intentionality doesn’t evaporate under determinism—it simply finds its rightful place as a product of causality, not some magical, metaphysical free agent.

The "pitiless, indifferent material causality" you invoke is the foundation of everything, including the very thoughts you're using to craft this critique. Your dismissal of intentionality reveals either a lack of comprehension or a deliberate refusal to engage with the nuance of determinism. Intentionality, within a deterministic framework, is not some metaphysical unicorn prancing around causality—it’s the emergent process by which complex systems (like your brain, for example) evaluate options, weigh outcomes, and act in ways conditioned by prior causes. It’s real, practical, and entirely consistent with determinism.

Your claim that grasping determinism obliterates intentionality is embarrassingly shortsighted. If anything, understanding determinism enhances intentionality by making it clearer how present actions influence future outcomes. But perhaps that nuance doesn’t "occur" to you, bound as you are by the very causality you dismiss as pitiless.

So, let me spell it out for you, Immanuel Can: grasping determinism doesn’t mean succumbing to existential despair or abandoning intentionality. It means recognizing that what you call "intentionality" is not some mystical force but a perfectly natural and causally grounded phenomenon. If you can’t see that, it’s not because determinism fails—it’s because your understanding does.