Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Atla]

Let’s open this discussion: Is democracy failing us because it’s built on the myth of free will?

No, democracy is failing because 2 out of 3 humans are idiots, anywhere in the world and at all times. If we force them to always keep hard determinism in mind, then they'll be neurotic, plantlike idiots.

[FlashDangerpants]

What "big idea" are you referring to?

You serious? You're a salesman upselling from basic clockwork causality to the determinism diamond club for members only.

Okay, let’s take a step back and address this, because I think we’re missing something fundamental here. This isn’t about selling anything, much less some exclusive “club” or ideology. It’s about recognizing the obvious: the systems we’ve relied on—democracy included—are falling short of solving the most pressing issues we face. Inequality. Climate change. Political instability. These aren’t problems we can fix by doubling down on outdated assumptions about human behavior.

Part 1 of the sales pitch: You can't drive down Main Street in your old clunkers every day, your cars are too old and your road is full of potholes anyway.

The idea here isn’t to “surrender humanity.” It’s to embrace the tools we have—science, data, understanding—to build systems that actually reflect how the world works. If we know decisions are shaped by factors beyond individual control, shouldn’t our governance systems acknowledge that reality? Shouldn’t they aim to address root causes instead of just reacting to symptoms?

Part 2 of the sales pitch: Why not look for a new vision, one where the cars drive themselves and don't need roads? Don't be down here labouring to drive yourselves around, be up in the sky getting driven around without effort.

This isn’t an upsell. It’s an invitation to consider whether we can do better by confronting the truths we already know. And let’s be clear: ignoring these truths won’t protect humanity—it’ll just let the same failing systems continue unchecked.

Part 3: <song about a monorail>

[BigMike]

You serious? You're a salesman upselling from basic clockwork causality to the determinism diamond club for members only.

Okay, let’s take a step back and address this, because I think we’re missing something fundamental here. This isn’t about selling anything, much less some exclusive “club” or ideology. It’s about recognizing the obvious: the systems we’ve relied on—democracy included—are falling short of solving the most pressing issues we face. Inequality. Climate change. Political instability. These aren’t problems we can fix by doubling down on outdated assumptions about human behavior.

Part 1 of the sales pitch: You can't drive down Main Street in your old clunkers every day, your cars are too old and your road is full of potholes anyway.

The idea here isn’t to “surrender humanity.” It’s to embrace the tools we have—science, data, understanding—to build systems that actually reflect how the world works. If we know decisions are shaped by factors beyond individual control, shouldn’t our governance systems acknowledge that reality? Shouldn’t they aim to address root causes instead of just reacting to symptoms?

Part 2 of the sales pitch: Why not look for a new vision, one where the cars drive themselves and don't need roads? Don't be down here labouring to drive yourselves around, be up in the sky getting driven around without effort.

This isn’t an upsell. It’s an invitation to consider whether we can do better by confronting the truths we already know. And let’s be clear: ignoring these truths won’t protect humanity—it’ll just let the same failing systems continue unchecked.

Part 3: <song about a monorail>

This is a serious discussion about the foundations of our governance and the systems shaping our society, and I’d ask everyone to stop being dismissive or silly. The points being made here deserve thoughtful consideration, not reductive quips. Let’s keep the focus on addressing critical questions: Are our current systems, like democracy, equipped to deal with the complexities of the modern world? Can we improve them by acknowledging the deterministic factors that drive human behavior and decision-making? These are big issues, and they require honest, constructive dialogue—not punchlines.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, BigMike, let’s take a step back and address this, BigMike, because I think we’re missing something fundamental here, so let's get down to brass tacks, BigMike...

We've already had the guy who wanted to drill through volcanoes and fix global warming. Like you, he thought his giant plan was sensible and precious. But that was just one Big Ideas Guy among many. Every day we get new threads launched by the guy who wants to redirect evolution to create a future society of extreme conformists by propagating a program he calls "morality-proper", like you he can't understand why nobody likes his Stalinist fix for all that ails us. You are not our first misunderstood prophet, there's been other wanderers with the Big Idea that Fixes Everything before you. You aren't even the first one using determinism as his starting point, we had one who inherited a whole pseudoreligion from her dad based on determinism and the rush of freedom to be had by embracing it.

But now of course it's time for a simple change in how we look at the relation between our actions and the inputs that drive them to fix everything. For this Big Idea that Fixes Everything, we have to make an awfully large number of assumptions that, let’s take a step back and address this, BigMike, are not actually supported by any argument... You, BigMike, if we get down to the meat and two veg of the whole thing, are just insisting that the way you want everything to work out is the way that we ought to expect things to work out, which is not a convincing or important argument to get taken seriously with.

Apparently the outcome to expect is that we decide to be extra super kind to people because of determinism. The only reason given is that this apparently follows naturally from this new idea that blame is no longer a thing any more. But, here's the true chips and gravy of it BigMike.... You have offered no reason why we wouldn't just decide some people are broken, and do the cheaper thing by executing them to avoid the cost of rehabilitating them.

So, BigMike, the brass monkey is that you are not relying on evidence or argument to arrive at your conclusions, you are using sales methods to sell a vision, BigMike. That is what you are doing, and I suspect consciously too. You do that thing with the person's name in the first sentence of your reply because you got it from a book didn't you? Was it a guide to salesmanship, or just a generic NLP manual?

Your plan is badly argued, dystopian and foolish, but luckily it is destined to be ignored.

[accelafine]

If it is proven, that there is an intelligence behind the construct of REAL IT Y, one that creates alternate causal chains to that of natural deterministic causality, would you have to admit determinism is incorrect. Also, would that open your mind to free will being plausible?


Also, what about this:

No democracy is failing us because we are allowing an evil non-secular religion start to dominate in Western countries, and giving these Muslims their vote.

'No democracy is failing us'. Oh really? Is that what you wanted to say? FFS. And you have the nerve to call me a 'grammar nazi'.

[Immanuel Can]

If free will is an illusion, as growing evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics suggests...

Not only is this a hypothetical, but nothing from these disciplines suggests anything of the kind. Absurd. You can't just assume your conclusion, then demand that everybody should agree with it. You need to prove your case.

[attofishpi]

If it is proven, that there is an intelligence behind the construct of REAL IT Y, one that creates alternate causal chains to that of natural deterministic causality, would you have to admit determinism is incorrect. Also, would that open your mind to free will being plausible?


Also, what about this:

No democracy is failing us because we are allowing an evil non-secular religion start to dominate in Western countries, and giving these Muslims their vote.

'No democracy is failing us'. Oh really? Is that what you wanted to say? FFS. And you have the nerve to call me a 'grammar nazi'.

Fuck off, you know where the comma belongs (apart from up your arse).

[BigMike]

Okay, BigMike, let’s take a step back and address this, BigMike, because I think we’re missing something fundamental here, so let's get down to brass tacks, BigMike...

We've already had the guy who wanted to drill through volcanoes and fix global warming. Like you, he thought his giant plan was sensible and precious. But that was just one Big Ideas Guy among many. Every day we get new threads launched by the guy who wants to redirect evolution to create a future society of extreme conformists by propagating a program he calls "morality-proper", like you he can't understand why nobody likes his Stalinist fix for all that ails us. You are not our first misunderstood prophet, there's been other wanderers with the Big Idea that Fixes Everything before you. You aren't even the first one using determinism as his starting point, we had one who inherited a whole pseudoreligion from her dad based on determinism and the rush of freedom to be had by embracing it.

But now of course it's time for a simple change in how we look at the relation between our actions and the inputs that drive them to fix everything. For this Big Idea that Fixes Everything, we have to make an awfully large number of assumptions that, let’s take a step back and address this, BigMike, are not actually supported by any argument... You, BigMike, if we get down to the meat and two veg of the whole thing, are just insisting that the way you want everything to work out is the way that we ought to expect things to work out, which is not a convincing or important argument to get taken seriously with.

Apparently the outcome to expect is that we decide to be extra super kind to people because of determinism. The only reason given is that this apparently follows naturally from this new idea that blame is no longer a thing any more. But, here's the true chips and gravy of it BigMike.... You have offered no reason why we wouldn't just decide some people are broken, and do the cheaper thing by executing them to avoid the cost of rehabilitating them.

So, BigMike, the brass monkey is that you are not relying on evidence or argument to arrive at your conclusions, you are using sales methods to sell a vision, BigMike. That is what you are doing, and I suspect consciously too. You do that thing with the person's name in the first sentence of your reply because you got it from a book didn't you? Was it a guide to salesmanship, or just a generic NLP manual?

Your plan is badly argued, dystopian and foolish, but luckily it is destined to be ignored.

It's interesting that you dismiss this perspective so quickly, especially given that determinism is not just another “Big Idea” in a sea of ambitious proposals. It’s supported by the most foundational principles of human understanding—physics, neuroscience, biology, and beyond. Determinism underpins everything from the motion of planets to the firing of neurons in our brains. If these principles are so integral to our understanding of the universe, it should be no surprise that they affect many, if not all, aspects of human lives and existence.

The implications of determinism are vast—not because someone "wants" them to be, but because they naturally follow from accepting the reality of cause and effect. Dismissing blame as a concept isn’t an arbitrary decision; it’s the logical outcome of recognizing that human actions are the result of complex interactions of prior causes. From this understanding, ideas like rehabilitation over retribution arise—not from sentimentality, but from evidence that they work better for individuals and society.

As for the notion that this perspective would lead to dystopian outcomes like executing people to cut costs, the evidence doesn’t support that trajectory. Societies that adopt more compassionate, evidence-based approaches to justice—ones rooted in rehabilitation rather than blame—tend to have better outcomes in terms of reduced crime and improved social cohesion. That’s not utopian fantasy; it’s reality in places where these principles have been applied.

This is a serious discussion about improving governance and societal systems, and it deserves to be treated as such. Rather than projecting assumptions about motives or outcomes, why not engage with the evidence and arguments on their merits? Dismissing determinism because it challenges deeply held assumptions about human autonomy doesn’t make the challenge any less valid. Let's have a real discussion about how these principles might guide us toward better solutions—not just wave them away.

[attofishpi]

Studies show that voters’ choices are influenced by factors far beyond their control—upbringing, socioeconomic status, media exposure, and even unconscious biases. These deterministic forces challenge the premise that democratic outcomes are the "will of the people" in any meaningful sense. If our decisions are shaped by factors we don’t choose, can democracy truly reflect individual freedom or collective rationality?

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the foundation of governance itself. What if we designed systems that acknowledge the deterministic nature of human behavior? What if, instead of relying on elections and majority rule, we built governance models rooted in data, evidence, and a deep understanding of cause and effect?

I’m proposing a radical but necessary idea: replacing conventional democracy with deterministic governance.

IRONY. So you insist on replacing the determined human auto bots voting for things, with something you clearly feel is MORE deterministic?

In such a system, policies would be driven by empirical evidence, not ideology or popularity contests. Leaders would be selected based on expertise and their ability to address root causes of societal issues, not their ability to craft soundbites or win debates. Justice systems would shift from retribution to rehabilitation, acknowledging the complex factors that lead individuals to harm others. Environmental policies would be guided by predictive models, ensuring sustainability for future generations.

Honestly, why bother having humans then? Just automate all of that and let humans fester in the boring dystopia you envision.

This isn’t about handing over control to machines or eliminating human agency. It’s about creating systems that work with the realities of human behavior rather than against them.

It's about having boring mindless freaks like Starmer, instead of having engaging, interesting & intelligent men of CONSCIENCE like Nigel Farage put into places that matter.

A deterministic approach to governance could address the root causes of inequality, reduce conflict, and promote long-term stability in ways democracy never could.

IRONY. It's ALREADY deterministic, you can't make it MORE deterministic.

Let’s open this discussion: Is democracy failing us because it’s built on the myth of free will? How might deterministic governance look in practice, and what challenges would we face in transitioning to such a system?

In practice it will create humans enslaved to auto bot machinery...dull, artless crap.

Democracy is only failing where people are NOT informed of the required IN_FORM_AT_ION to base reasonable decisions on.

Thus, ALL MSM should be held accountable for their reporting biases. BBC for example should be reporting when an illegal immigrant rapes or kills someone, people should not be forced to source examples of this from other avenues and leave themselves ALWAYS scratching their heads as to HOW was this missed on the BBC!?

(just one example)

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Does you auto deterministic AI bot permit that?

[BigMike]

If free will is an illusion, as growing evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics suggests...

Not only is this a hypothetical, but nothing from these disciplines suggests anything of the kind. Absurd. You can't just assume your conclusion, then demand that everybody should agree with it. You need to prove your case.

The claim that free will is an illusion isn’t an arbitrary assumption—it’s grounded in substantial evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics. For example, neuroscience shows that decisions can be detected in the brain before individuals become consciously aware of making them, as demonstrated in Libet’s experiments and similar studies. Psychology reveals the impact of biases, priming, and environmental factors on decision-making, showing how our choices are shaped by influences outside our conscious control. Physics, meanwhile, operates on deterministic principles, leaving no room for metaphysical “uncaused” causes.

This isn't about assuming conclusions but following the evidence where it leads. If you believe these findings don’t suggest the illusion of free will, I invite you to point to alternative interpretations or evidence that contradicts this view. If we’re to engage in meaningful dialogue, we must address the science head-on, rather than dismissing it as “absurd” without engaging with its implications. Let’s discuss it rigorously, because the stakes for understanding human behavior—and building systems that reflect reality—are far too high to ignore.

[Immanuel Can]

If free will is an illusion, as growing evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics suggests...

Not only is this a hypothetical, but nothing from these disciplines suggests anything of the kind. Absurd. You can't just assume your conclusion, then demand that everybody should agree with it. You need to prove your case.

The claim that free will is an illusion isn’t an arbitrary assumption—it’s grounded in substantial evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics. For example, neuroscience shows that decisions can be detected in the brain *before* individuals become consciously aware of making them, as demonstrated in Libet’s experiments and similar studies.

That doesn't "suggest" anything of the kind. All it shows is that there are physiological symptoms associated with cognition. And we all knew that.

Psychology reveals the impact of biases, priming, and environmental factors on decision-making, showing how our choices are shaped by influences outside our conscious control.

But psychology always considers volitional factors, not merely these influences. And since free will doesn't ever imply "free from influences," that also "suggests" nothing about Determinism.

Physics, meanwhile, operates on deterministic principles, leaving no room for metaphysical “uncaused” causes.

That's a feature of physical systems. It doesn't open the question of whether or not non-physical realities exist -- and ironically, every physicists relies on invisible forces like his own intelligence, identity and cognition in order to do physics at all...which means that, far from being subject to physics, physics itself cannot be done without metaphysical entities.

But you should know these things. Everybody already does, I think.

I invite you to point to alternative interpretations or evidence that contradicts this view.

I have, multiple times, and you only ignore it and move on as if I had not.

For one obvious thing, you're contravening your own claims right now. This minute. By arguing, you're having to pretend that people can "be convinced" or "change their minds," whereas Determinism requires that they absolutely cannot. Their minds will only ever be whatever the prior physics fated them to be, at any minute in time, and regardless of all arguments, cognition and reasons.

But you act as if that's not true. You abandon Determinism, and reinstate things like reason, identity, self, cognition, science and all the things Determinism declares unreal. But on what basis do you do so? You've banished those things, by claiming Determinism in the first place. Now you just arbitrarily haul them back in, and then miraculously declare they prove your Determinism? Hogwash.

Since you clearly don't even believe what you, yourself are arguing, why should we?

If we’re to engage in meaningful dialogue, we must address the science head-on, rather than dismissing it as “absurd”

I haven't called science absurd. I've pointed out that your reasoning is absurd. That's quite a different thing.

[BigMike]

Studies show that voters’ choices are influenced by factors far beyond their control—upbringing, socioeconomic status, media exposure, and even unconscious biases. These deterministic forces challenge the premise that democratic outcomes are the "will of the people" in any meaningful sense. If our decisions are shaped by factors we don’t choose, can democracy truly reflect individual freedom or collective rationality?

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the foundation of governance itself. What if we designed systems that acknowledge the deterministic nature of human behavior? What if, instead of relying on elections and majority rule, we built governance models rooted in data, evidence, and a deep understanding of cause and effect?

I’m proposing a radical but necessary idea: replacing conventional democracy with deterministic governance.

IRONY. So you insist on replacing the determined human auto bots voting for things, with something you clearly feel is MORE deterministic?

In such a system, policies would be driven by empirical evidence, not ideology or popularity contests. Leaders would be selected based on expertise and their ability to address root causes of societal issues, not their ability to craft soundbites or win debates. Justice systems would shift from retribution to rehabilitation, acknowledging the complex factors that lead individuals to harm others. Environmental policies would be guided by predictive models, ensuring sustainability for future generations.

Honestly, why bother having humans then? Just automate all of that and let humans fester in the boring dystopia you envision.

This isn’t about handing over control to machines or eliminating human agency. It’s about creating systems that work with the realities of human behavior rather than against them.

It's about having boring mindless freaks like Starmer, instead of having engaging, interesting & intelligent men of CONSCIENCE like Nigel Farage put into places that matter.

A deterministic approach to governance could address the root causes of inequality, reduce conflict, and promote long-term stability in ways democracy never could.

IRONY. It's ALREADY deterministic, you can't make it MORE deterministic.

Let’s open this discussion: Is democracy failing us because it’s built on the myth of free will? How might deterministic governance look in practice, and what challenges would we face in transitioning to such a system?

In practice it will create humans enslaved to auto bot machinery...dull, artless crap.

Democracy is only failing where people are NOT informed of the required IN_FORM_AT_ION to base reasonable decisions on.

Thus, ALL MSM should be held accountable for their reporting biases. BBC for example should be reporting when an illegal immigrant rapes or kills someone, people should not be forced to source examples of this from other avenues and leave themselves ALWAYS scratching their heads as to HOW was this missed on the BBC!?

(just one example)

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Does you auto deterministic AI bot permit that?

It seems there’s some misunderstanding here about what deterministic governance entails. The idea isn’t about handing over humanity to “auto bot machinery” or creating a “dull, artless” world. It’s about acknowledging what already is: our decisions are shaped by countless factors—upbringing, socioeconomic conditions, cognitive biases, media narratives—most of which lie outside our conscious control. This isn’t conjecture; it’s supported by robust evidence across multiple fields.

The irony is that you suggest the system is already deterministic, yet simultaneously imply humans are exercising conscious free will through democracy. You can’t have it both ways. If our choices are already shaped by external forces, then why not design systems that leverage this understanding to create better outcomes—ones that reduce suffering, inequality, and systemic dysfunction?

The deterministic approach to governance isn’t about eliminating humanity. On the contrary, it’s about creating systems where truth, evidence, and fairness take precedence over the chaos of popularity contests and ideological battles. The question isn’t whether humanity would “fester” under such a system, but rather why we cling to systems that perpetuate avoidable harm when better alternatives exist.

Yes, media accountability is critical, as is transparency in governance. But blaming the failure of democracy solely on media biases misses the deeper issue: even with perfect information, our decisions are influenced by factors we don’t choose. Deterministic governance isn’t about taking humanity out of the equation—it’s about working with the realities of human behavior to build systems that genuinely serve everyone.

As for whether this discussion is permitted by my “auto deterministic AI bot,” I’d say this: it’s a real conversation about real ideas. If it’s not worth engaging with seriously, why respond at all? Let’s move past the ad hominem and into meaningful debate about the future of governance.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, BigMike, let’s take a step back and address this, BigMike, because I think we’re missing something fundamental here, so let's get down to brass tacks, BigMike...

We've already had the guy who wanted to drill through volcanoes and fix global warming. Like you, he thought his giant plan was sensible and precious. But that was just one Big Ideas Guy among many. Every day we get new threads launched by the guy who wants to redirect evolution to create a future society of extreme conformists by propagating a program he calls "morality-proper", like you he can't understand why nobody likes his Stalinist fix for all that ails us. You are not our first misunderstood prophet, there's been other wanderers with the Big Idea that Fixes Everything before you. You aren't even the first one using determinism as his starting point, we had one who inherited a whole pseudoreligion from her dad based on determinism and the rush of freedom to be had by embracing it.

But now of course it's time for a simple change in how we look at the relation between our actions and the inputs that drive them to fix everything. For this Big Idea that Fixes Everything, we have to make an awfully large number of assumptions that, let’s take a step back and address this, BigMike, are not actually supported by any argument... You, BigMike, if we get down to the meat and two veg of the whole thing, are just insisting that the way you want everything to work out is the way that we ought to expect things to work out, which is not a convincing or important argument to get taken seriously with.

Apparently the outcome to expect is that we decide to be extra super kind to people because of determinism. The only reason given is that this apparently follows naturally from this new idea that blame is no longer a thing any more. But, here's the true chips and gravy of it BigMike.... You have offered no reason why we wouldn't just decide some people are broken, and do the cheaper thing by executing them to avoid the cost of rehabilitating them.

So, BigMike, the brass monkey is that you are not relying on evidence or argument to arrive at your conclusions, you are using sales methods to sell a vision, BigMike. That is what you are doing, and I suspect consciously too. You do that thing with the person's name in the first sentence of your reply because you got it from a book didn't you? Was it a guide to salesmanship, or just a generic NLP manual?

Your plan is badly argued, dystopian and foolish, but luckily it is destined to be ignored.

It's interesting that you dismiss this perspective so quickly, especially given that determinism is not just another “Big Idea” in a sea of ambitious proposals. It’s supported by the most foundational principles of human understanding—physics, neuroscience, biology, and beyond. Determinism underpins everything from the motion of planets to the firing of neurons in our brains. If these principles are so integral to our understanding of the universe, it should be no surprise that they affect many, if not all, aspects of human lives and existence.

Determinism is a perfectly normal idea. I really want you to pay attention please and understand that it is not determinism that I am describing as the Big Idea. What I am criticising is the mysticism you are engaged in to turn the simple premise of determinism into a Big Important Thing that Changes Stuff. Properly understood in descriptive terms, it changes nothing at all, and the idea would be false if that were not the case.

The implications of determinism are vast—not because someone "wants" them to be, but because they naturally follow from accepting the reality of cause and effect. Dismissing blame as a concept isn’t an arbitrary decision; it’s the logical outcome of recognizing that human actions are the result of complex interactions of prior causes. From this understanding, ideas like rehabilitation over retribution arise—not from sentimentality, but from evidence that they work better for individuals and society.

The whole point of determinism is that it explains how the world is how it is. There is no logical ground for it to have these implications you speak of. Those are the product of your cult.

As for the notion that this perspective would lead to dystopian outcomes like executing people to cut costs, the evidence doesn’t support that trajectory. Societies that adopt more compassionate, evidence-based approaches to justice—ones rooted in rehabilitation rather than blame—tend to have better outcomes in terms of reduced crime and improved social cohesion. That’s not utopian fantasy; it’s reality in places where these principles have been applied.

Please, again, this has been explained already but you thought you were too important to read it...
1. You actually just talking about places like Sweden which has nicer prisons than America, or Britain which controls guns in a way you don't so we don't get shot as often as you lot do, or the whole developed world outside America where we have universal healthcare, correct?
2. None of those places has applied any principle of determinism to arrive at such policies, they are the result of politics as usual in those non-American places.
3. Determinism is therefore not a necessary precursor to arriving at these policy choices.
4. And your linkage to determinism for them is demonstrably spurious.

And on the other hand, you have nothing to offer for why there would have to be lovely nice outcomes from something like this. You are not using any form of argument at all.

This is a serious discussion about improving governance and societal systems, and it deserves to be treated as such. Rather than projecting assumptions about motives or outcomes, why not engage with the evidence and arguments on their merits? Dismissing determinism because it challenges deeply held assumptions about human autonomy doesn’t make the challenge any less valid. Let's have a real discussion about how these principles might guide us toward better solutions—not just wave them away.

This is not a serious discussion, you would present real arguments when challenged if it were. you have offered nothing but sophistry from the start and when faced with argument you just try to dismiss them using the techniques not of a philosopher, nor even of a politician, but those of a salesman.

[mickthinks]

Let’s keep the focus on addressing critical questions:
Okay.
Are our current systems, like democracy, equipped to deal with the complexities of the modern world?
Yes, I believe so.
Can we improve them by acknowledging the deterministic factors that drive human behavior and decision-making?
No.

[BigMike]

Not only is this a hypothetical, but nothing from these disciplines suggests anything of the kind. Absurd. You can't just assume your conclusion, then demand that everybody should agree with it. You need to prove your case.

The claim that free will is an illusion isn’t an arbitrary assumption—it’s grounded in substantial evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics. For example, neuroscience shows that decisions can be detected in the brain before individuals become consciously aware of making them, as demonstrated in Libet’s experiments and similar studies.

That doesn't "suggest" anything of the kind. All it shows is that there are physiological symptoms associated with cognition. And we all knew that.

Psychology reveals the impact of biases, priming, and environmental factors on decision-making, showing how our choices are shaped by influences outside our conscious control.

But psychology always considers volitional factors, not merely these influences. And since free will doesn't ever imply "free from influences," that also "suggests" nothing about Determinism.

Physics, meanwhile, operates on deterministic principles, leaving no room for metaphysical “uncaused” causes.

That's a feature of physical systems. It doesn't open the question of whether or not non-physical realities exist -- and ironically, every physicists relies on invisible forces like his own intelligence, identity and cognition in order to do physics at all...which means that, far from being subject to physics, physics itself cannot be done without metaphysical entities.

But you should know these things. Everybody already does, I think.

I invite you to point to alternative interpretations or evidence that contradicts this view.

I have, multiple times, and you only ignore it and move on as if I had not.

For one obvious thing, you're contravening your own claims right now. This minute. By arguing, you're having to pretend that people can "be convinced" or "change their minds," whereas Determinism requires that they absolutely cannot. Their minds will only ever be whatever the prior physics fated them to be, at any minute in time, and regardless of all arguments, cognition and reasons.

But you act as if that's not true. You abandon Determinism, and reinstate things like reason, identity, self, cognition, science and all the things Determinism declares unreal. But on what basis do you do so? You've banished those things, by claiming Determinism in the first place. Now you just arbitrarily haul them back in, and then miraculously declare they prove your Determinism? Hogwash.

Since you clearly don't even believe what you, yourself are arguing, why should we?

If we’re to engage in meaningful dialogue, we must address the science head-on, rather than dismissing it as “absurd”

I haven't called science absurd. I've pointed out that your reasoning is absurd. That's quite a different thing.

Your response is an exercise in willful misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation—I'm not sure which, but both are equally tiresome. You’re twisting basic concepts either out of ignorance or to score rhetorical points, and it’s exhausting to engage with someone who seems more interested in dodging than in genuine discourse.

First, your claim that Libet’s experiments “show physiological symptoms of cognition” completely misses the point. The key finding is that neural activity precedes conscious decision-making, which is a direct challenge to the idea of volition being "free" or originating in consciousness. Pretending this is some trivial observation is either dishonest or shockingly uninformed.

Second, your assertion that physics applies only to "physical systems" but not to "non-physical realities" is laughable. The burden is on you to demonstrate that these “non-physical realities” exist and have any influence. Simply asserting that intelligence or cognition is “metaphysical” doesn’t make it so. Intelligence and cognition are studied extensively within neuroscience and are understood as emergent properties of physical processes. Your insistence on inserting metaphysics into the equation is nothing more than a retreat to vague mysticism when faced with inconvenient facts.

Your accusation that determinism invalidates reasoning or argument is a textbook strawman. Recognizing determinism doesn’t mean abandoning reason—it means understanding that reasoning itself is a process driven by cause and effect. Arguments and evidence influence minds because those influences are part of the deterministic web of causes. Denying this shows either a complete failure to grasp the argument or a deliberate attempt to distort it.

Finally, your smug dismissal—“you clearly don’t believe what you’re arguing”—is a lazy ad hominem. The fact that I’m here engaging with you doesn’t undermine determinism; it’s a demonstration of it. Your attempts to derail the discussion by declaring my reasoning “absurd” without substantively addressing the evidence are nothing but intellectual laziness cloaked in feigned superiority.

If you have a coherent rebuttal grounded in evidence or logic, offer it. Otherwise, your insistence on substituting rhetoric for substance does nothing but waste everyone’s time.