Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Belinda]

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true. Then this...

we are driven by causality, but understanding that causality allows us to act with foresight, planting the seeds for future changes.

...is not.

But determinism does not imply prediction. For instance events in your past determined what your personality is , and events have determined that your persona on the forum is as it is. But events in your past have not made you able to predict your, or any, future; the world is far too complicated for such a possibility.
If you were even as simple as your car engine you could, if you were a skilled mechanic , predict fairly well whether or no it would start tomorrow. You however are a lot more complicated than your car.

[BigMike]

Either there is determinism or there isn't. You can't say we are deterministic BUT, we can make decisions based on our neurons responding to our knowledge of 'determinism', and thus create a more caring and loving world based on our knowledge (that was determined from the big bang) changing our neurons to create a more 'caring and loving world'. If we do this, then it was determined at the big bang. Oh FFS. This is getting ridiculous.

Accelafine, your frustration is palpable, but it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of determinism. Yes, if determinism is true, then everything we do—including recognizing determinism and acting on that recognition—was ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe. This doesn’t make the process “ridiculous”; it simply underscores that causality operates at every level, including the ones where we process knowledge, form intentions, and take actions.

Here’s where your critique falters: acknowledging determinism doesn’t mean we stop acting or deciding; it means we understand that those actions and decisions are caused. Your neurons firing in response to knowledge of determinism are part of the deterministic chain. The fact that this understanding can lead to more compassionate or rational behavior doesn’t contradict determinism—it demonstrates it.

Saying "it was determined at the Big Bang" doesn’t make the present irrelevant. It’s through the causal chain, mediated by physical processes like brain activity, that we arrive at this point. If this causes us to strive for a more "caring and loving world," it’s not a contradiction; it’s a direct consequence of deterministic processes.

The alternative? Pretend we’re somehow unbound by causality? Now that would be ridiculous. Determinism isn’t about dismissing human experience—it’s about understanding it in its full causal complexity. Whether that irritates you or not is, of course, also determined.

I didn't say the 'process was ridiculous'. I was saying you can't have it both ways. You put a lot of words in my mouth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself into knots trying to reconcile 'determinism' with 'non determinism'. I don't see any difference between your 'better world' scenario and 'free will'.

Accelafine, I didn’t put words in your mouth; I clarified your apparent misunderstanding. If you think I’m “tying myself into knots,” it’s only because you’re struggling to grasp the distinction between determinism and the experience of making decisions within it.

There’s no reconciliation of determinism with "non-determinism" here because I am not arguing for any form of metaphysical free will. The "better world" scenario you mention is entirely deterministic. Here’s how: understanding that our choices and actions are caused doesn’t mean those actions disappear—it means they are part of the causal chain. Recognizing this allows us to work within that chain to influence future outcomes. That influence isn’t free in a metaphysical sense; it’s causally determined by our understanding, intentions, and circumstances.

The difference between determinism and free will lies in the source of our actions. Free will suggests actions originate independently of causation, which is nonsense. Determinism shows that all actions—including those aimed at creating a "better world"—are driven by prior causes. There’s no contradiction, no knot, no sleight of hand.

Your inability to see this distinction is not an indictment of determinism; it’s evidence of its explanatory power. You can’t "choose" to see the point until the necessary conditions—experience, understanding, perhaps a bit more reflection—cause it to occur to you. That’s determinism, in action, whether you like it or not.

[henry quirk]

neuroplasticity.

How can new neuronal connections make any difference if our brains are just deterministic machines, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill?

If this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

... is true, then it doesn't matter how plastic our brains are. All the new neuronal connections in the world won't make a meat machine anything other than a more complex meat machine.

[promethean75]

Henry's trying to trick you into agreeing with him, Mike B. Pay no attention to it and keep your eye on the meat machine.

[Age]

Dubious, while your poetic flourish about "emergence" and its cosmic grandeur is colorful, it doesn’t align with the reality of causation. If agency or intentionality has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property, then it cannot cause anything. Causation requires physical interactions, not metaphysical musings.

Do you have any proof that 'agency' does not have mass, electric charge, spin, nor any other conserved physical property?

If yes, then where and what is that proof, exactly?

Agency emerges as a pattern of behavior resulting from physical processes in the brain—processes that actually cause thoughts and actions.

So, where and what is 'agency', exactly?

Emergence is not magic; it’s a descriptor for the complexity arising from simpler systems interacting according to physical laws.

But there is absolutely NO complexity here at all.

Why did you assume or believe that there was?

But let’s not confuse the map for the territory. The brain’s physical mechanisms—neuronal firings, chemical gradients, and electrical impulses—are the actual causal agents. What we call “agency” is the story we tell about those processes, not some independent force capable of driving causality.

WHY would people like you tell "yourselves" 'that story'?

By the way, and just out of curiosity, do thoughts and/or emotions have mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property?

As I’ve said before, Schopenhauer’s insight—"a man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills"—gets close but doesn’t go far enough. I prefer: a man can’t do what he wills; he wills what he does. Our desires, intentions, and choices are not free-floating phenomena; they arise entirely from prior causes—your biology, your experiences, and even random molecular processes.

Only A FOOL would think or believe that your desires, intentions, and choices arose without prior experiences/events. But, this CERTAINLY does NOT mean that 'free will' does not exist.

OBVIOUSLY "bigmike's" OWN version of 'free will' could not, and does NOT, exist. There is not a human being who refute this, so WHY the continual 'battle', here, makes one wonder HOW and WHY these people were SO BLIND.

Although the ANSWER is OBVIOUS, these ones could not even BEGIN to SEE it.

These are what determine your "wants," and by extension, your actions.

So while it’s tempting to imbue emergence with an air of metaphysical mystery, let’s stay grounded in reality. Intentionality and agency are emergent properties of physical systems, but they do not escape the deterministic web. They are results of it, not drivers of it. That distinction is not only important—it’s the key to understanding why everything we think and do is fully, irrevocably caused.

So, ONCE AGAIN, how does 'knowing' this knowledge help in what you BELIEVE can happen, which is; CHANGING your CHOICES?

Where to begin with this scattered barrage of skepticism and rhetorical confusion?

Do you usually talk to "your" 'self' out aloud?

Also, so far it appears that you will, AGAIN, not seek out ANY clarification and clarity AT ALL, and instead just make ANOTHER PRESUMPTION, and then work from 'there' on. Which, OBVIOUSLY, and AGAIN if you NEVER seek out to find out if your PRESUMPTION is ACTUALLY True and Correct from 'the beginning', then you will only lead "your" 'self' ASTRAY, ONCE MORE.

Let’s untangle this one thread at a time, starting with your demand for "proof" that agency has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved property.

LOL From the VERY OUTSET this one has, ONCE AGAIN, made ANOTHER Truly False CLAIM. I NEVER EVER demanded' absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, here. I just asked you are CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY, INSTEAD.

See, either you have proof, or you do not. I just asked you, 'If you did', ONLY. So, your FIRST PRESUMPTION, above here, is Wrong.

you have SHOWN to be SO DELUSIONAL, and Wrong, from the OUTSET.

The burden here is on you to demonstrate that agency does possess such physical characteristics if you believe it causes anything.

ONCE MORE for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING, 'I' do NOT have ANY such BELIEFS.

I suggest you STOP 'trying to' DEFLECT, and to DECEIVE, here. you made the statement and claim that if agency, and intentionality, has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property, then it cannot cause anything

So, AGAIN, do you have ANY proof that 'agency' has no mass, electric charge, spin, or any other conserved physical property?

To HELP you out here, the answer is either 'Yes', OR, 'No'. Surely this is not to hard nor complex for you to comprehend and understand.

Now, are you ABLE TO FOCUS on ONLY the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION being asked to you WITHOUT ANY of your 'current' PRESUMPTIONS or BELIEFS LEADING you COMPLETELY ASTRAY, here?

Causation in the physical world requires measurable, interacting properties—mass, charge, energy transfer, etc. If agency lacks these, it cannot cause anything directly but emerges as a descriptor for physical processes.

SO WHAT?

you, AGAIN, appear to have some completely DELUSIONAL PRESUMPTION that I am SAYING and CLAIMING some thing, here.

As for your question, "Where and what is agency, exactly?" Agency isn’t a "thing" in the sense of a physical object. It’s a label we assign to patterns of behavior and decision-making, arising from complex neural processes in the brain.

Who are this 'we' that, supposedly, does this?

'We' KNOW that you may well assign 'this label' to what you call 'patterns of behavior and decision-making'. But I KNOW that I and others CERTAINLY DO NOT DO what you say and CLAIM, here.

Also, and AGAIN, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMPLEX about what happens in those tiny little brains within those tiny little human bodies.

It’s an emergent property—a shorthand for describing what happens when neurons fire, chemicals flow, and electrical impulses interact to produce coordinated actions and thoughts.

That may well be, to 'you', but it is CERTAINLY NOT, to 'us'.

So, ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' are left with is "bigmike" USING definitions, which do NOT apply to 'us'.

And, the very REASON I do NOT USE the definitions that "bigmike" USES is BECAUSE of the CONFUSION that those definitions have CAUSED, and CREATED, WITHIN you human beings.

To demand its physical location or mass is akin to asking for the weight of a symphony—it misses the point entirely.

LOL
LOL
LOL

1. I NEVER EVER 'demanded' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, here.

2. I JUST ASKED you if you had proof of whether 'the thing' that you call 'agency' had mass, or NOT.

See if you do NOT have proof EITHER WAY, then talking about IF 'it' does or does not is just a WASTE OF TIME.

But, and OBVIOUSLY, you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the word that you 'assign' to what is, essentially, just BEHAVIOR, and/or to the very 'thing' that CAUSES ALL MIS/BEHAVIOR has no mass, although you OBVIOUSLY have ABSOLUTELY NO proof AT ALL for this BELIEF of yours, here.

Regarding your claim that there’s "no complexity here," that’s laughable.

ONLY for those like you who, STILL, have NOT YET DISCOVERED, nor LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD HOW the brain ACTUALLY WORKS.

See, you are like those who thought and believed that the digestive system of the body was 'complex'.

Absolutely EVERY thing, in Life, is SIMPLE, and EASY, ONCE one has discovered, or learned, and understood HOW things ACTUALLY WORK. There is absolutely NOTHING 'complex' with 'Existence', 'Life', and even with just 'living', Itself.

The ONLY 'thing' that makes 'Life', and living, seem 'complex' and/or 'hard' is you older human beings, "yourselves".

The human brain, with its approximately 86 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections, is among the most complex systems known to science.

EVERY thing is so-called 'complex' to so-called 'science' BECAUSE 'science' only delves into what is NOT YET KNOWN, and UNDERSTOOD.

LOL When how things WORK becomes KNOWN, 'science' becomes REDUNDANT.

Complexity doesn’t vanish because you wave it away; it’s an observable fact of the system generating the thoughts you’re using to deny it.

HOW the human brain WORKS, EXACTLY, is ONLY 'complex', to you, BECAUSE you do NOT YET UNDERSTAND how 'it' WORKS.

Once you ALSO comet to UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, then you WILL, ALSO, SEE how 'it' is NOT 'complex' AT ALL.

And about telling “ourselves” stories: the idea that agency is a narrative doesn’t mean it’s false—it means it’s a useful conceptual tool for navigating the deterministic web of causality.

ONCE AGAIN, you have made a completely False PRESUMPTION, so 'you' have LED "your" 'self' ASTRAY, AGAIN, here.

Thoughts and emotions themselves don’t have mass or charge,

AGAIN, do you have PROOF for this statement, CLAIM, and BELIEF of yours, here?

but they are the result of physical processes—neuronal activity, chemical gradients, and electrical signals—all of which are measurable and causally significant.

Just so you BECOME AWARE, it are these types of CLAIMS of yours 'WHERE you WILL BECOME COMPLETELY UNSTUCK', as some would say, here.

As for your jab about "only a fool" believing desires arise without prior causes—thank you for restating my argument in different words.

LOL I have NEVER EVER even DISAGREED with you, here. Although you are, STILL, NOT YET COMPLETELY ABLE TO SEE this Fact.

you have just BELIEVED, ABSOLUTELY, that I have been arguing AGAINST you, BECAUSE you have FAILED TO SEE and HEAR what I have ACTUALLY been SAYING and POINTING OUT, here.

That doesn’t mean free will exists;

ONCE MORE you have been ABSOLUTELY BLINDED and DEAFENED by your OWN BELIEFS, here.

it means exactly what I’ve been saying: everything we want, think, and do is caused by prior events, leaving no room for the metaphysical “freedom” you seem to cling to.

LOL
LOL
LOL

POINT OUT absolutely ANYWHERE where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, been clinging to some so-called 'metaphysical freedom'.

SHOW the readers, here, that you are ABLE TO DO 'this', AT LEAST.

Finally, regarding how this knowledge helps us "change our choices": it’s not about changing choices as though we are metaphysically free. It’s about understanding the deterministic processes that shape our choices,

ONCE MORE, and I do not know HOW MANY MORE TIMES I HAVE TO INFORM you of this, but it is an IRREFUTABLE Fact that 'past experiences' or 'deterministic processes' shape you human beings AND 'your choices'.

And, LOL HOW has you, FINALLY, coming to UNDERSTAND that deterministic processes have shaped 'your choices', HELP in absolutely ANY WAY, here?

allowing us to influence future outcomes more effectively.

Even "accelafine" has picked you UP on this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS Fact, which, AGAIN, you have FAILED TO SEE and HEAR, COMPLETELY.

What you call, 'allowing you to influence future outcomes', according to your OWN so-called 'logic', would HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY ALL DEPENDED UPON your OWN 'past experiences' or previous deterministic processes.

LOL you can NOT have 'this' BOTH WAYS. That is; it is ALL 'deterministic process', then, ALL OF A SUDDEN, once you REALIZE that it is ALL 'deterministic process', you are then, magically, ALLOWED to INFLUENCE 'future outcomes' in ANY way, or MORE EFFECTIVELY.

ONE DAY you might RECOGNIZE your OWN CONTRADICTION/S, here. But, then again, you will HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic processes' to ALLOW you to SEE and HEAR the CONTRADICTIONS that you have been MAKING, here.

For example, if you understand that repetition shapes neuronal pathways (thank you, neuroplasticity), you can deliberately engage in behaviors or study that alter those pathways.

BUT, 'you' can NOT 'deliberately engage' in ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL. you have, well according to 'your OWN logic', NO CHOICE AT ALL in the matter.

According to 'YOU' you can ONLY 'engage' in what has been PRE-DETERMINED FOR 'you' to ENGAGE IN. According to you although you may well think, believe, or feel that you are 'deliberately engaging' in some thing, this is ALL because of 'deterministic processes', right?

Now, if you just FOCUSED on 'this', ACKNOWLEDGE what is, and has been, POINTED OUT and EXPRESSED, here, then 'we' CAN MOVE ALONG, here. But, UNTIL you DO, then 'deterministic processes' will NOT ALLOW you TO SEE your OWN CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES, here.

This is not "free will"—it’s determinism in action, and it’s exactly how understanding causality empowers us to act.

ONCE AGAIN for the Truly PRE-DETERMINED SLOW LEARNERS, here, your OWN personal definition for the words and phrase 'free will' could NEVER EVER exist, ANYWAY. So, there is NO 'free will', EVER, under "bigmike's" definition and version of 'free will'.

How MANY TIMES do you have to be INFORMED OF 'this' BEFORE you COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this'?

Which, by the way, is AN ANSWER that you will ONLY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE once the 'deterministic processes' have PRE-DETERMINED WHEN you WILL BE ALLOWED to COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and PROVIDE 'that answer'.

See, you, LITERALLY, have ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE, AT ALL, when you CAN and WILL LEARN, SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW 'things', right?

So, Age, if you’d like to deny the deterministic framework or misunderstand emergence, by all means, continue.

LOL EVEN AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME you, STILL, are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY LOST and CONFUSED, here. Which, OBVIOUSLY, you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AT ALL, OVER.

you, STILL, do NOT YET even KNOW IF I DENY, or AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, the so-called 'deterministic framework'.

Which is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS considering how MANY TIMES I HAVE SAID and REPEATED what I have, here.

e But unless you can engage with these concepts meaningfully, your objections remain as causally determined as everything else—and just as irrelevant to the argument at hand.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What 'OBJECTIONS'?

LOL "bigmike" what OBJECTIONS do you think or BELIEVE I have even made, here?

I suggest you, FIRST, WORK OUT if I DENY 'deterministic processes' or NOT, and then WORK OUT if I am OBJECTING TO ANY thing, here.

And, if I am OBJECTING to ANY thing AT ALL, here, then WORK OUT what 'that' is, EXACTLY.

I can ONLY 'guide' you in the Right direction, I can NOT, nor would I, MAKE you SEE, HEAR, nor FOLLOW the Right DIRECTION.

[Age]

If this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true. Then this...

we are driven by causality, but understanding that causality allows us to act with foresight, planting the seeds for future changes.

...is not.

But determinism does not imply prediction. For instance events in your past determined what your personality is , and events have determined that your persona on the forum is as it is. But events in your past have not made you able to predict your, or any, future; the world is far too complicated for such a possibility.

The so-called human created 'future world', or just 'Reality', Itself, IS PREDICTABLE.

ANY one can PREDICT what human beings CAN and/or WILL DO. Which IS, EXACTLY, what CREATES and CAUSES the so-called human created 'future world'.

'The world', like 'the Universe', like 'you human beings', like 'the human brain' are NOT 'complicated' AT ALL.

In Fact HOW ALL of these 'things' ACTUALLY WORK is Truly SIMPLE, and EASY, to COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, LEARN, and TEACH.

In Fact the SIMPLICITY in and of ALL of these things is SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL in and of itself.

And, the very reason WHY you older human beings, in the days when this was being written, have completely and utterly MISSED the ABSOLUTE SIMPLICITY and BEAUTY of ALL-OF-THIS is ALSO ABSOLUTELY SO SIMPLE, and EASY, to EXPLAIN, and UNDERSTAND, in FULL, AS WELL.

One just HAS TO BE, and HAVE BEEN, PREPARED to WANT TO LISTEN, and HEAR, here.

Those PRE-DETERMINING FACTORS WILL have ALREADY DECIDED IF you have been ALREADY PRE-PARED, and READY, to LISTEN, and SEE, or NOT.

If you were even as simple as your car engine you could, if you were a skilled mechanic , predict fairly well whether or no it would start tomorrow. You however are a lot more complicated than your car.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If ONLY these people KNEW, back when this was being written.

you human beings and HOW you, the Mind, and the brain, ACTUALLY WORK IS FAR, FAR SIMPLER, and EASIER, than you OBVIOUSLY could have even IMAGINED, back in those 'olden days'.

[Age]

Either there is determinism or there isn't. You can't say we are deterministic BUT, we can make decisions based on our neurons responding to our knowledge of 'determinism', and thus create a more caring and loving world based on our knowledge (that was determined from the big bang) changing our neurons to create a more 'caring and loving world'. If we do this, then it was determined at the big bang. Oh FFS. This is getting ridiculous.

Accelafine, your frustration is palpable, but it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of determinism. Yes, if determinism is true, then everything we do—including recognizing determinism and acting on that recognition—was ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe. This doesn’t make the process “ridiculous”; it simply underscores that causality operates at every level, including the ones where we process knowledge, form intentions, and take actions.

Here’s where your critique falters: acknowledging determinism doesn’t mean we stop acting or deciding; it means we understand that those actions and decisions are caused. Your neurons firing in response to knowledge of determinism are part of the deterministic chain. The fact that this understanding can lead to more compassionate or rational behavior doesn’t contradict determinism—it demonstrates it.

Saying "it was determined at the Big Bang" doesn’t make the present irrelevant. It’s through the causal chain, mediated by physical processes like brain activity, that we arrive at this point. If this causes us to strive for a more "caring and loving world," it’s not a contradiction; it’s a direct consequence of deterministic processes.

The alternative? Pretend we’re somehow unbound by causality? Now that would be ridiculous. Determinism isn’t about dismissing human experience—it’s about understanding it in its full causal complexity. Whether that irritates you or not is, of course, also determined.

I didn't say the 'process was ridiculous'. I was saying you can't have it both ways. You put a lot of words in my mouth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself into knots trying to reconcile 'determinism' with 'non determinism'. I don't see any difference between your 'better world' scenario and 'free will'.

Than you, AGAIN.

[BigMike]

neuroplasticity.

How can new neuronal connections make any difference if our brains are just deterministic machines, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill?

If this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

... is true, then it doesn't matter how plastic our brains are. All the new neuronal connections in the world won't make a meat machine anything other than a more complex meat machine.

Look, I hear where that line of reasoning is coming from—it’s that old refrain: If it’s all physics, if it’s all cause and effect, then any sense of agency is just a fanciful story we tell ourselves. But I think it’s too quick to dismiss the importance of complexity and adaptation. Even if we grant for argument’s sake that we’re talking about a deterministic universe, what we call “determinism” can operate at so many levels of scale and structure that it becomes not just a blind, uniform chain of events, but a richly branching tapestry of possibilities. And neuroplasticity—this capacity of the brain to form and reform its connections in response to new experiences—is not some trivial afterthought. It’s an essential feature that lets us learn, remember, change behaviors, solve problems, and adapt to new environments, all of which matter immensely from the perspective of a human life.

It’s one thing to say the universe might be pinned down by underlying laws. It’s quite another to say that this makes everything feel as flat and simple as a rock’s journey downhill. The human brain, shaped by a lifetime of sensory inputs, personal encounters, cultural influences, and yes, that remarkably dynamic wiring, isn’t just a lump of matter sitting there passively. It’s an active participant in its own story, playing out incredibly subtle computations, generating goals, interpreting signals, and reconfiguring itself along the way. Even if you never fully break from the chain of causality, your brain isn’t just another rock—it’s a unique kind of system that has the extraordinary power to imagine new futures, to consider “if this, then that,” and to prepare for outcomes it hasn’t seen yet.

From the inside, what we experience as choice, deliberation, and moral responsibility all hinge on that complex adaptability. That’s why new connections aren’t meaningless. They’re part of what makes consciousness rich, flexible, and responsive rather than mechanically predictable and inert. They matter because they govern how you’ll handle the next challenge, how you’ll respond to the next idea, how you’ll move through life with some measure of direction. Even if every event were ultimately traceable to some previous cause, the unique layering and re-layering of neural circuits sets us apart in a profound way. And that difference—between a static, unthinking mass and a vibrant, ever-evolving mind—feels anything but pointless.

[Immanuel Can]

Henry's trying to trick you into agreeing with him, Mike B. Pay no attention to it and keep your eye on the meat machine.

Henry's actually trying to get Big Mike to agree with himself.

[Age]

Accelafine, your frustration is palpable, but it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of determinism. Yes, if determinism is true, then everything we do—including recognizing determinism and acting on that recognition—was ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe. This doesn’t make the process “ridiculous”; it simply underscores that causality operates at every level, including the ones where we process knowledge, form intentions, and take actions.

Here’s where your critique falters: acknowledging determinism doesn’t mean we stop acting or deciding; it means we understand that those actions and decisions are caused. Your neurons firing in response to knowledge of determinism are part of the deterministic chain. The fact that this understanding can lead to more compassionate or rational behavior doesn’t contradict determinism—it demonstrates it.

Saying "it was determined at the Big Bang" doesn’t make the present irrelevant. It’s through the causal chain, mediated by physical processes like brain activity, that we arrive at this point. If this causes us to strive for a more "caring and loving world," it’s not a contradiction; it’s a direct consequence of deterministic processes.

The alternative? Pretend we’re somehow unbound by causality? Now that would be ridiculous. Determinism isn’t about dismissing human experience—it’s about understanding it in its full causal complexity. Whether that irritates you or not is, of course, also determined.

I didn't say the 'process was ridiculous'. I was saying you can't have it both ways. You put a lot of words in my mouth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself into knots trying to reconcile 'determinism' with 'non determinism'. I don't see any difference between your 'better world' scenario and 'free will'.

Accelafine, I didn’t put words in your mouth; I clarified your apparent misunderstanding.

you did NOT CLARIFY ANY such thing, AT ALL. AND, you did 'put words in "accelafine's" mouth', as some call it.

1. you can ONLY OBTAIN and GIVE CLARIFICATION, of another's words/views, by ASKING the other CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and WAITING for THEIR RESPONSES.

2. ANY 'apparent misunderstanding' is ON 'your part', here, ONLY. And, the ONLY way you can OBTAIN and GAIN an ACTUAL True 'UNDERSTANDING', itself, is by SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING and GAINING ACTUAL CLARIFICATION FROM 'the other'.

3, It would REALLY HELP you if you just STOPPED BELIEVING that it is ALWAYS 'the other' with the MISUNDERSTANDING, here. you have, ALREADY, SHOWN and PROVEN that you do NOT YET have a FULL UNDERSTANDING of 'determinism', and 'free will', nor of your BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS in regards to your claim that after one just understands 'deterministic processes' then what one could ACTUALLY DO.

If you think I’m “tying myself into knots,” it’s only because you’re struggling to grasp the distinction between determinism and the experience of making decisions within it.

you ARE "bigmike" 'trying "yourself" into knots', as some would say, here.

And, it is you who has NOT YET GRASP the CONTRADICTION in your OWN CLAIM, here.

There’s no reconciliation of determinism with "non-determinism" here because I am not arguing for any form of metaphysical free will.

A few of the posters on this site BELIEVE that BECAUSE they are, or they are not, 'arguing' for a "side" or 'position', then this is what matters. NONE of them seem to have YET REALIZED that without having formulated a sound AND valid argument, then ALL of their arguments are NOT even worthy of being repeated ONCE, let alone MANY TIMES OVER.

Now, OBVIOUSLY you are NOT arguing for ANY form of 'metaphysical free will'. And this is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS because you BLATANTLY BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY that there is NO 'free will' AT ALL, let alone ANY so-called 'metaphysical free will'.

AND, as I have ALREADY INFORMED you, on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS ALREADY, there is NO a poster on this forum who even thinks, let alone says, that there is 'free will', WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION of and for the 'free will' words, here.

The "better world" scenario you mention is entirely deterministic. Here’s how: understanding that our choices and actions are caused doesn’t mean those actions disappear—it means they are part of the causal chain.

OF COURSE your human being choices and actions would disappear. "accelafine" NEVER even thought this, let alone said it absolutely ANYWHERE. Just like absolutely NO one else is either.

you KEEP bringing things up as though others are saying or fighting for them, but which absolutely NO one IS.

I suggest you STOP doing this, that is; if you EVER want to MOVE ALONG, here.

Recognizing this allows us to work within that chain to influence future outcomes.

LOL
LOL
LOL

HOW could you human beings 'work within' 'that' which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL NOR INFLUENCE ON, AT ALL?

EXPLAIN the VERY 'things' that you IMAGINE could BE DONE.

That influence isn’t free in a metaphysical sense; it’s causally determined by our understanding, intentions, and circumstances.

WHY do you KEEP BRINGING the 'metaphysical' word INTO 'this', here?

If 'that influence' is NOT 'free' in a 'metaphysical sense' NOR in absolutely 'ANY sense' AT ALL, according TO YOU, then 'that influence' IS, and WAS, PRE-DETERMINED by 'deterministic processes', which, AGAIN, according to you is ABSOLUTELY OUT OF ANY of your human being's CONTROL.

If 'that influence' is CAUSALLY DETERMINED, by PAST EVENTS, then you can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but WAIT.

The difference between determinism and free will lies in the source of our actions.

Just so you BECOME AWARE, your USE of the 'actions' word, along with the 'behavior' word, is MISPLACED. But, you are, STILL, a VERY LONG WAY off from LEARNING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING WHY, EXACTLY.

Free will suggests actions originate independently of causation, which is nonsense.

ONCE AGAIN, and some thing that you WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE, it is ONLY 'your version' of 'free will' that is NONSENSE, here. OBVIOUSLY, 'your version' could NEVER exist, so CONTINUALLY WANTING TO CLAIM that 'free will' suggests actions originated independently of 'causation' is what is Truly NONSENSICAL.

1. 'Free will' has NEVER suggested such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS NONSENSICAL CLAIM.

2. you PRESENT some thing that could NEVER exist, from the beginning, and them SPEND SO MUCH TIME 'arguing' and 'fighting' OVER that 'that thing' does NOT exist. AGAIN, 'that thing' or 'that version' could NEVER even have EXISTED, EVER.

Determinism shows that all actions—including those aimed at creating a "better world"—are driven by prior causes. There’s no contradiction, no knot, no sleight of hand.

GREAT. So, what 'we' have here, now, is ANOTHER VERSION of 'God's PLAN', of EVERY one living together, as One.

Your inability to see this distinction is not an indictment of determinism; it’s evidence of its explanatory power. You can’t "choose" to see the point until the necessary conditions—experience, understanding, perhaps a bit more reflection—cause it to occur to you.

GREAT. So, HOPEFULLY, NOW you WILL ADMIT that you can NOT have INFLUENCE OVER 'the future' UNTIL the 'necessary conditions' ALLOW 'you' to SEE, and HEAR, here.

LOL you can NOT successfully ARGUE absolutely EVERY thing is in a 'deterministic process', HOWEVER, when you FIND OUT that absolutely EVERY thing is in a 'deterministic process' you WILL BE, all of a sudden, just ALLOWED to CHANGE 'the future' in 'the way' that you WANT, and DESIRE, but you will NOT have ANY CHOICE AT ALL OVER 'this'.

That’s determinism, in action, whether you like it or not.

Absolutely NO one in this forum has even 'TRIED TO' argue AGAINST you ABOUT 'determinism'.

'We' have, however, just SEEN the BLATANT CONTRADICTION in 'your claim' that absolutely NO one HAS A CHOICE, here.

What you have FAILED TO COMPLETELY SEE and UNDERSTAND, here, is that ACTUALLY BECAUSE of 'PRE-DETERMINED PROCESSES' ALL of you older human beings DO ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE, to make 'the future world' BETTER, for absolutely EVERY one, or for just SOME ONLY.

[Age]

Henry's trying to trick you into agreeing with him, Mike B. Pay no attention to it and keep your eye on the meat machine.

"henry quirk" is JUST POINTING OUT the INCONSISTENCIES and/or CONTRADICTIONS in "bigmike's" BELIEFS and CLAIMS, here.

[promethean75]

"Henry's actually trying to get Big Mike to agree with himself."

Word around the symposium is that Mike B might be a closet compatibilist.

[BigMike]

Think about it for a moment: we don’t just exist as isolated “decision-making machines” sealed away from the world; we’re woven into a massive, living web of influences. Each one of us provides input to everyone else—through our words, our actions, the insights we choose to share. Now, when we recognize that we’re all part of each other’s external causes, a natural conclusion follows: we should be willing to speak up, to exchange viewpoints, to engage seriously and thoughtfully with one another. After all, if our thinking has even the slightest chance of shaping someone else’s trajectory, wouldn’t it be better to do so consciously, with the aim of fostering growth, understanding, and progress?

But let’s also consider the idea that everything might be determined, that all our choices simply reflect some grand chain of prior events. If we buy into that worldview too thoroughly, we might start to shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, what does it matter then? We were always going to do this, so what’s the point?” That kind of complacency is dangerous. It risks turning us passive, sapping the urgency and care from our collective conversation. Genuine advancement—cultural, intellectual, moral—requires a sense of responsibility. Without it, why strive for deeper insight or greater justice?

In this sense, even if we were to grant a fully determined universe, there’s still immense value in interacting conscientiously. By participating, by contributing our reasoning and our best ideas, we shape the environment through which all those future causes and effects must pass. Yes, our influence might be one thread among countless others, but it’s there. And if enough of us take that seriously, there’s a meaningful chance we can steer these unfolding patterns toward something better.

[Age]

neuroplasticity.

How can new neuronal connections make any difference if our brains are just deterministic machines, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill?

If this...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

... is true, then it doesn't matter how plastic our brains are. All the new neuronal connections in the world won't make a meat machine anything other than a more complex meat machine.

Look, I hear where that line of reasoning is coming from—it’s that old refrain: If it’s all physics, if it’s all cause and effect, then any sense of agency is just a fanciful story we tell ourselves. But I think it’s too quick to dismiss the importance of complexity and adaptation. Even if we grant for argument’s sake that we’re talking about a deterministic universe, what we call “determinism” can operate at so many levels of scale and structure that it becomes not just a blind, uniform chain of events, but a richly branching tapestry of possibilities.

Like, for example, if 'determinism' pre-determined that there would be a species WITH 'the ability to choose', or in other words, 'free will', then that is what WILL HAPPEN, and OCCUR, one day.

So, your BELIEF here that there is NO 'free will' is ONLY what 'you' were DETERMINED TO BELIEF, 'currently' when this is being written. But, OBVIOUSLY, which could CHANGE tomorrow, or the day after. AGAIN, all determined or dependent upon pre-existing conditions and events.

And neuroplasticity

The word 'neuroplasticity' is just a 'fanciful word' for the human brain to being just ABLE TO store and retain knowledge and/or information.

But, AGAIN, all dependent upon what has been 'fed into' the brain, or, what the brain has 'previously experienced'.

—this capacity of the brain to form and reform its connections in response to new experiences—is not some trivial afterthought.

The ACTUAL SIMPLICITY of the human brain IS and WAS NOT LOST in the absolutely UNNECESSARY WORDING of 'plasticity', 'forming and reforming its connections in response to new experiences'. Which were ONLY made up, spoken, and written by those who like to IMAGINE that they are somewhat knowledgeable.

Absolutely EVERY experience is A NEW experience. There, OBVIOUSLY, can NEVER be the EXACT SAME TWO experiences. And, so-called 'connections' within the brain are happening ALL of the time, that is; while the body is breathing and pumping blood.

It’s an essential feature that lets us learn, remember, change behaviors,

But, NOT 'freely'. Well according to "bigmike", anyway.

solve problems, and adapt to new environments, all of which matter immensely from the perspective of a human life.

LOL Absolutely EVERY plant, animal, and species HAS TO ADAPT to 'new environments' EVERY SECOND. NOTHING STAYS THE SAME, in this regard.

It’s one thing to say the universe might be pinned down by underlying laws. It’s quite another to say that this makes everything feel as flat and simple as a rock’s journey downhill.

AGAIN, you are 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT, and DECEIVE, here. Not that you are FULLY CONSCIOUS and AWARE of this, Nor do NOT worry about this as EVERY one of you adult human beings did this at one time or another, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

The human brain, shaped by a lifetime of sensory inputs, personal encounters, cultural influences, and yes, that remarkably dynamic wiring,

Notice how these people, back then, had been FOOLED, TRICKED, and DECEIVED into BELIEVING that there was some kind of 'magical wiring' ONLY available within the human brain. There is NO ACTUAL 'wiring'. When 'connections' are OBSERVED, this is just what brains DO. And, this is just HOW the some times perceived nonphysical 'agent' COMES-TO-EXIST.

isn’t just a lump of matter sitting there passively. It’s an active participant in its own story, playing out incredibly subtle computations, generating goals, interpreting signals, and reconfiguring itself along the way.

So, it, 'now', sounds like you want to ARGUE and FIGHT FOR 'the brain' having some sort of 'autonomy', 'freedom', and/or 'free will' about it.

Even if you never fully break from the chain of causality,

LOL How could one EVER 'fully' break from the chain of causality, to you?

you have been 'trying' your HARDEST the WHOLE time, here, to ARGUE and FIGHT FOR there ONLY being 'causticity', ONLY.

your brain isn’t just another rock—it’s a unique kind of system that has the extraordinary power to imagine new futures, to consider “if this, then that,” and to prepare for outcomes it hasn’t seen yet.

But, it just can NOT make CHOICES, right?

Are you AWARE that you seem to be 'now' ARGUING and FIGHTING AGAINST what you have PREVIOUSLY been ARGUING and FIGHTING FOR?

From the inside, what we experience as choice, deliberation, and moral responsibility all hinge on that complex adaptability. That’s why new connections aren’t meaningless. They’re part of what makes consciousness rich, flexible, and responsive rather than mechanically predictable and inert. They matter because they govern how you’ll handle the next challenge, how you’ll respond to the next idea, how you’ll move through life with some measure of direction. Even if every event were ultimately traceable to some previous cause, the unique layering and re-layering of neural circuits sets us apart in a profound way.

What do you mean by 'if', here, exactly?

Have you FORGOTTEN that you have been, previously, FIGHTING and ARGUING that there is ONLY 'previous causes'.

And that difference—between a static, unthinking mass and a vibrant, ever-evolving mind—feels anything but pointless.

But that EVER-EVOLVING could NEVER EVER evolve into having the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, FREELY, right "bigmike"?

[Age]

Henry's trying to trick you into agreeing with him, Mike B. Pay no attention to it and keep your eye on the meat machine.

Henry's actually trying to get Big Mike to agree with himself.

Here is ANOTHER one who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that that God had DECIDED, and DETERMINED, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, but has given "immanuel can" the CHOICE to do what OPPOSES 'the plan'.

EVERY one of these posters, here, CONTRADICTS "them" 'self'.

By the way, "immanuel can" and "henry quirk" can agree with "their" OWN 'selves', CLAIMS and BELIEFS, so WHY should "bigmike" do it?