Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[attofishpi]

The irony is that you suggest the system is already deterministic, yet simultaneously imply humans are exercising conscious free will through democracy.

No Mike, you are ignoring the point of the IRONY. I am NOT stating anything about 'free will' democracy, the irony is that it's deterministic voting ANYWAY!!

..then why not design systems that leverage this understanding to create better outcomes—ones that reduce suffering, inequality, and systemic dysfunction?

Yes, let's improve humans being educated and informed to make better decisions when it's time to VOTE. (with their deterministic little heads)

The deterministic approach to governance isn’t about eliminating humanity.

There's NO difference...it's all deterministic anyway!!!

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.

That's what elected governments are expected to do.

[BigMike]

The irony is that you suggest the system is already deterministic, yet simultaneously imply humans are exercising conscious free will through democracy.

No Mike, you are ignoring the point of the IRONY. I am NOT stating anything about 'free will' democracy, the irony is that it's deterministic voting ANYWAY!!

..then why not design systems that leverage this understanding to create better outcomes—ones that reduce suffering, inequality, and systemic dysfunction?

Yes, let's improve humans being educated and informed to make better decisions when it's time to VOTE. (with their deterministic little heads)

The deterministic approach to governance isn’t about eliminating humanity.

There's NO difference...it's all deterministic anyway!!!

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.

That's what elected governments are expected to do.

Your response is a showcase of either deliberate obtuseness or a refusal to engage with the argument in good faith. Claiming “it’s all deterministic anyway” as some kind of gotcha completely misses the point. Yes, all systems, including current democratic processes, are deterministic. That’s precisely why it’s worth examining how well those deterministic processes serve society. Just because something is deterministic doesn’t mean it’s optimized for reducing suffering or addressing systemic issues.

The claim that “elected governments are expected to work with the realities of human behavior to serve everyone” is laughably naive. If that’s what you think democratic governments are doing right now, you’re either willfully ignoring reality or intentionally glossing over the flaws in the current system. The fact that voter behavior is manipulated by media, money, and misinformation—deterministic factors that voters don’t consciously control—shows how far removed democracy is from the ideal you seem to think it represents.

Your call for “better education and information” to improve deterministic decisions is, ironically, a small-scale concession to the very point I’m making. If we can improve outcomes by acknowledging and addressing the deterministic influences on decision-making, why stop there? Why not overhaul the larger system itself to ensure policies are driven by evidence and designed to mitigate those influences, rather than exploiting them? That’s the heart of the argument you’re ignoring while insisting that nothing needs to change.

Claiming “there’s no difference” between current governance and a deterministic model of governance is either a sign that you don’t understand the distinction or that you’re deliberately pretending it doesn’t exist to avoid meaningful debate. The difference is that a deterministic model explicitly acknowledges how cause-and-effect relationships shape outcomes and uses that understanding to build systems that address root causes—something democracy, as it stands, fails spectacularly to do.

If you’re not interested in engaging with these ideas seriously, fine, but spare me the pretense of a clever critique when all you’re doing is recycling shallow misunderstandings and dismissals. Determinism isn’t the issue here—your refusal to grapple with its implications is.

[attofishpi]

Your response is a showcase of either deliberate obtuseness or a refusal to engage with the argument in good faith. Claiming “it’s all deterministic anyway” as some kind of gotcha completely misses the point. Yes, all systems, including current democratic processes, are deterministic. That’s precisely why it’s worth examining how well those deterministic processes serve society. Just because something is deterministic doesn’t mean it’s optimized for reducing suffering or addressing systemic issues.

Well, of course, I am observing how ridiculous things are currently.

The claim that “elected governments are expected to work with the realities of human behavior to serve everyone” is laughably naive.

It's not naive Mike, it's what we EXPECT - we don't get it, but we vote anyway.

If that’s what you think democratic governments are doing right now, you’re either willfully ignoring reality or intentionally glossing over the flaws in the current system. The fact that voter behavior is manipulated by media, money, and misinformation—deterministic factors that voters don’t consciously control—shows how far removed democracy is from the ideal you seem to think it represents.

Mike!! NO, I am not stating democracy is ideal - far from it.

Your call for “better education and information” to improve deterministic decisions is, ironically, a small-scale concession to the very point I’m making. If we can improve outcomes by acknowledging and addressing the deterministic influences on decision-making, why stop there? Why not overhaul the larger system itself to ensure policies are driven by evidence and designed to mitigate those influences, rather than exploiting them? That’s the heart of the argument you’re ignoring while insisting that nothing needs to change.

No Mike!! It's precisely what I agree with, but you are not presenting an actual concept of your intended implementation of how your NEW system will change things - government - to do what is best for the society they represent.

Claiming “there’s no difference” between current governance and a deterministic model of governance is either a sign that you don’t understand the distinction or that you’re deliberately pretending it doesn’t exist to avoid meaningful debate. The difference is that a deterministic model explicitly acknowledges how cause-and-effect relationships shape outcomes and uses that understanding to build systems that address root causes—something democracy, as it stands, fails spectacularly to do.

I think the problem thus far is that you are not presenting how your "deterministic model of governance" is to be implemented.

Determinism isn’t the issue here—your refusal to grapple with its implications is.

I think you should drop the term 'determinism' from the entire marketing campaign - it's gonna screw it Mike, b4 it gets out the stable.

[Immanuel Can]

First, your claim that Libet’s experiments “show physiological symptoms of cognition” completely misses the point.

Actually, there's no other point that comes out of psychology. No sensible psychologist opts for Determinism, because it would leave them with NOTHING TO STUDY. Psychology is the study of cognition, not of physics.

Second, your assertion that physics applies only to "physical systems" but not to "non-physical realities" is laughable.

And yet, you believe it. Because you keep trying to appeal to metaphysical properties. That's what argumentation does: it tries to appeal to reason, choice, decisions, changing minds, persuasion, truth, and all the other things Determinism makes irrelevant.

Your accusation that determinism invalidates reasoning or argument is a textbook strawman.

You're a taxicabber. You won't take your beliefs to the logical conclusion they demand of you. You jump out of the "cab," without paying the rational "fare," and run away before Determinism takes you to the place it inevitably goes.

But the empirical truth of that is easy to see on every side. How conveniently you ignore that science itself absolutely depends on our trust in things like cognition, choice, rationality, truth and will! As usual, you just pretend such arguments haven't been made.

Finally, your smug dismissal—“you clearly don’t believe what you’re arguing”—is a lazy ad hominem.

It's not ad hom. It's manifestly true, by the very process of argumentation you're using right now. YOU are the evidence of its empirical truth. Like everybody else, you're simply unable to live with Determinism.

Determinism is incompatible with life. Nobody lives as a Determinist.

[BigMike]

Your response is a showcase of either deliberate obtuseness or a refusal to engage with the argument in good faith. Claiming “it’s all deterministic anyway” as some kind of gotcha completely misses the point. Yes, all systems, including current democratic processes, are deterministic. That’s precisely why it’s worth examining how well those deterministic processes serve society. Just because something is deterministic doesn’t mean it’s optimized for reducing suffering or addressing systemic issues.

Well, of course, I am observing how ridiculous things are currently.

The claim that “elected governments are expected to work with the realities of human behavior to serve everyone” is laughably naive.

It's not naive Mike, it's what we EXPECT - we don't get it, but we vote anyway.

If that’s what you think democratic governments are doing right now, you’re either willfully ignoring reality or intentionally glossing over the flaws in the current system. The fact that voter behavior is manipulated by media, money, and misinformation—deterministic factors that voters don’t consciously control—shows how far removed democracy is from the ideal you seem to think it represents.

Mike!! NO, I am not stating democracy is ideal - far from it.

Your call for “better education and information” to improve deterministic decisions is, ironically, a small-scale concession to the very point I’m making. If we can improve outcomes by acknowledging and addressing the deterministic influences on decision-making, why stop there? Why not overhaul the larger system itself to ensure policies are driven by evidence and designed to mitigate those influences, rather than exploiting them? That’s the heart of the argument you’re ignoring while insisting that nothing needs to change.

No Mike!! It's precisely what I agree with, but you are not presenting an actual concept of your intended implementation of how your NEW system will change things - government - to do what is best for the society they represent.

Claiming “there’s no difference” between current governance and a deterministic model of governance is either a sign that you don’t understand the distinction or that you’re deliberately pretending it doesn’t exist to avoid meaningful debate. The difference is that a deterministic model explicitly acknowledges how cause-and-effect relationships shape outcomes and uses that understanding to build systems that address root causes—something democracy, as it stands, fails spectacularly to do.

I think the problem thus far is that you are not presenting how your "deterministic model of governance" is to be implemented.

Determinism isn’t the issue here—your refusal to grapple with its implications is.

I think you should drop the term 'determinism' from the entire marketing campaign - it's gonna screw it Mike, b4 it gets out the stable.

The question of how a deterministic model of governance would be implemented is the question raised in this thread, and that’s precisely why I haven’t rushed to present a fully-formed, one-size-fits-all system. Governance isn’t a monolith to be solved with a single blueprint; it’s a complex, evolving framework that must adapt to the realities of human behavior and societal needs. The point is to shift the conversation towards designing systems rooted in evidence, cause-and-effect relationships, and policies that work for the collective good—something current democratic systems fail to achieve consistently.

You accuse me of lacking a specific implementation plan, but that’s disingenuous when the thread itself is a call to explore what such a system could look like. If you’re genuinely interested in engaging with the concept, you’d recognize that identifying the flaws in current systems is a necessary first step. Only by acknowledging these flaws and the deterministic forces that drive them—like manipulation by money and media—can we start to envision a governance model that mitigates these factors rather than being beholden to them.

Let me spell it out: a deterministic governance model would prioritize evidence-based policymaking, addressing systemic causes of issues rather than treating symptoms. It would reform justice systems to focus on rehabilitation and prevention, recognizing that criminal behavior arises from conditions and influences outside an individual’s control. It would incorporate predictive modeling to inform environmental and economic policies that prioritize long-term sustainability. Implementation would require building institutions that are transparent, accountable, and guided by experts—not politicians pandering to voter manipulation.

I don’t need to present a polished, ready-to-go manual for a deterministic government here, because the process of rethinking governance itself is the point. If you agree that better education and information are steps toward improving decision-making, then you already concede the deterministic argument—because that’s precisely the principle: understanding and acting on the causes that shape outcomes.

If your actual concern is branding, not substance, then let’s not pretend you’re interested in a serious debate. Words like "determinism" may indeed provoke knee-jerk reactions, but dismissing the idea on that basis is shallow. If you genuinely agree with the underlying principles, then stop hiding behind semantic quibbles and join the discussion on how these principles could be applied. Otherwise, you’re just part of the noise that keeps meaningful change from happening.

[attofishpi]

The question of how a deterministic model of governance would be implemented is the question raised in this thread, and that’s precisely why I haven’t rushed to present a fully-formed, one-size-fits-all system. Governance isn’t a monolith to be solved with a single blueprint; it’s a complex, evolving framework that must adapt to the realities of human behavior and societal needs. The point is to shift the conversation towards designing systems rooted in evidence, cause-and-effect relationships, and policies that work for the collective good—something current democratic systems fail to achieve consistently.

You accuse me of lacking a specific implementation plan, but that’s disingenuous when the thread itself is a call to explore what such a system could look like. If you’re genuinely interested in engaging with the concept, you’d recognize that identifying the flaws in current systems is a necessary first step. Only by acknowledging these flaws and the deterministic forces that drive them—like manipulation by money and media—can we start to envision a governance model that mitigates these factors rather than being beholden to them.

Let me spell it out: a deterministic governance model would prioritize evidence-based policymaking, addressing systemic causes of issues rather than treating symptoms. It would reform justice systems to focus on rehabilitation and prevention, recognizing that criminal behavior arises from conditions and influences outside an individual’s control. It would incorporate predictive modeling to inform environmental and economic policies that prioritize long-term sustainability. Implementation would require building institutions that are transparent, accountable, and guided by experts—not politicians pandering to voter manipulation.

I don’t need to present a polished, ready-to-go manual for a deterministic government here, because the process of rethinking governance itself is the point. If you agree that better education and information are steps toward improving decision-making,..

Up to here, no issue.

..then you already concede the deterministic argument—because that’s precisely the principle: understanding and acting on the causes that shape outcomes.

I don't need to concede anything Mike. Your entire "deterministic government" idea will never get off of the ground if you INSIST on others conceding to your view of reality.

If your actual concern is branding, not substance, then let’s not pretend you’re interested in a serious debate. Words like "determinism" may indeed provoke knee-jerk reactions, but dismissing the idea on that basis is shallow. If you genuinely agree with the underlying principles, then stop hiding behind semantic quibbles and join the discussion on how these principles could be applied. Otherwise, you’re just part of the noise that keeps meaningful change from happening.

FFS Mike. It's your idea, so you present how you envision it to be implemented. (stop taking everything i say as if i am taking the piss)

[BigMike]

First, your claim that Libet’s experiments “show physiological symptoms of cognition” completely misses the point.

Actually, there's no other point that comes out of psychology. No sensible psychologist opts for Determinism, because it would leave them with NOTHING TO STUDY. Psychology is the study of cognition, not of physics.

Second, your assertion that physics applies only to "physical systems" but not to "non-physical realities" is laughable.

And yet, you believe it. Because you keep trying to appeal to metaphysical properties. That's what argumentation does: it tries to appeal to reason, choice, decisions, changing minds, persuasion, truth, and all the other things Determinism makes irrelevant.

Your accusation that determinism invalidates reasoning or argument is a textbook strawman.

You're a taxicabber. You won't take your beliefs to the logical conclusion they demand of you. You jump out of the "cab," without paying the rational "fare," and run away before Determinism takes you to the place it inevitably goes.

But the empirical truth of that is easy to see on every side. How conveniently you ignore that science itself absolutely depends on our trust in things like cognition, choice, rationality, truth and will! As usual, you just pretend such arguments haven't been made.

Finally, your smug dismissal—“you clearly don’t believe what you’re arguing”—is a lazy ad hominem.

It's not ad hom. It's manifestly true, by the very process of argumentation you're using right now. YOU are the evidence of its empirical truth. Like everybody else, you're simply unable to live with Determinism.

Determinism is incompatible with life. Nobody lives as a Determinist.

Your response is a tangled mess of willful misrepresentation and logical inconsistency, which I’ll address despite your apparent determination (pun intended) to ignore the actual arguments.

Your claim that “no sensible psychologist opts for Determinism” because it “would leave them with nothing to study” is both absurd and patently false. Psychology doesn’t require belief in free will to study cognition or behavior; it requires studying patterns, influences, and causes—which is exactly what psychologists do. Behavioral psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and fields like social psychology all investigate how external and internal factors determine behavior, often explicitly challenging the notion of uncaused “choice.” Either you’re grossly uninformed or you’re deliberately pretending this body of work doesn’t exist.

Your assertion that determinism invalidates reasoning is tiresome and wrong. Reasoning is a process—a deterministic one—that arises from causes. Arguments and evidence influence thought because human cognition operates within the deterministic framework of cause and effect. The fact that you’re engaging in this discussion doesn’t invalidate determinism; it proves it. Your thoughts, like mine, are shaped by prior conditions, knowledge, and arguments presented. If determinism made reasoning impossible, you wouldn’t be able to hold your position any more than I could hold mine. Your argument is self-refuting.

Then there’s your strawman about science depending on “choice, rationality, and will.” Science depends on observation, evidence, and repeatability—all of which fit seamlessly into a deterministic framework. Your desperate attempt to insert “will” as a metaphysical necessity is baseless and unsupported. Rationality isn’t some magical, metaphysical process; it’s a function of the brain, governed by physical laws.

Your smug declaration that “nobody lives as a Determinist” is laughable. Every time we recognize that actions have causes—whether it’s addressing trauma to understand behavior, using data to inform decisions, or adjusting policies to achieve better outcomes—we live as determinists. It’s only when people cling to the comforting myth of free will that they create incoherent systems of blame, punishment, and arbitrary moralizing that fail to solve real problems.

If you want to dismiss determinism, try engaging with the evidence instead of parroting tired, misinformed clichés. Until then, your objections amount to little more than an emotional refusal to confront uncomfortable truths. Determinism doesn’t need you to “live with it” to be true—it simply is.

[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'.

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

How would I know? You think I can read the mess that passes for a 'mind' in your 'what passes for a brain'?

[attofishpi]

'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).

How would I know? You think I can read the mess that passes for a 'mind' in your 'what passes for a brain'?

Attempt to stick to the topic at hand rather than nagging about irrelevant shit like some boring old NZ woman.

[BigMike]

The question of how a deterministic model of governance would be implemented is the question raised in this thread, and that’s precisely why I haven’t rushed to present a fully-formed, one-size-fits-all system. Governance isn’t a monolith to be solved with a single blueprint; it’s a complex, evolving framework that must adapt to the realities of human behavior and societal needs. The point is to shift the conversation towards designing systems rooted in evidence, cause-and-effect relationships, and policies that work for the collective good—something current democratic systems fail to achieve consistently.

You accuse me of lacking a specific implementation plan, but that’s disingenuous when the thread itself is a call to explore what such a system could look like. If you’re genuinely interested in engaging with the concept, you’d recognize that identifying the flaws in current systems is a necessary first step. Only by acknowledging these flaws and the deterministic forces that drive them—like manipulation by money and media—can we start to envision a governance model that mitigates these factors rather than being beholden to them.

Let me spell it out: a deterministic governance model would prioritize evidence-based policymaking, addressing systemic causes of issues rather than treating symptoms. It would reform justice systems to focus on rehabilitation and prevention, recognizing that criminal behavior arises from conditions and influences outside an individual’s control. It would incorporate predictive modeling to inform environmental and economic policies that prioritize long-term sustainability. Implementation would require building institutions that are transparent, accountable, and guided by experts—not politicians pandering to voter manipulation.

I don’t need to present a polished, ready-to-go manual for a deterministic government here, because the process of rethinking governance itself is the point. If you agree that better education and information are steps toward improving decision-making,..

Up to here, no issue.

..then you already concede the deterministic argument—because that’s precisely the principle: understanding and acting on the causes that shape outcomes.

I don't need to concede anything Mike. Your entire "deterministic government" idea will never get off of the ground if you INSIST on others conceding to your view of reality.

If your actual concern is branding, not substance, then let’s not pretend you’re interested in a serious debate. Words like "determinism" may indeed provoke knee-jerk reactions, but dismissing the idea on that basis is shallow. If you genuinely agree with the underlying principles, then stop hiding behind semantic quibbles and join the discussion on how these principles could be applied. Otherwise, you’re just part of the noise that keeps meaningful change from happening.

FFS Mike. It's your idea, so you present how you envision it to be implemented. (stop taking everything i say as if i am taking the piss)

Fair enough. I’ll lay out how a deterministic model of governance could be envisioned, but let’s drop the notion that this requires anyone to "concede" to some ideological stance. Determinism isn’t a belief system—it’s a recognition of how reality works. If you understand cause and effect, you’re already working with the principle, whether you like the term or not. Now, here’s a vision for implementation:

1. Justice System Reform
   The justice system would shift its focus from retribution to rehabilitation and prevention. Punishment would no longer be about moral blame but about reducing recidivism and addressing the causes of harmful behavior. This would involve evidence-based programs to tackle socioeconomic conditions, mental health issues, and other systemic factors that lead to crime.
2. Policy Based on Data and Predictive Models
   Governance would rely heavily on data analytics and predictive modeling to craft policies. For example, environmental laws would be informed by climate science and simulations, ensuring sustainability. Economic policies would use modeling to reduce inequality, recognizing its role in societal unrest.
3. Transparent Decision-Making and Expert Leadership
   Institutions would prioritize transparency and accountability, with decisions made based on evidence rather than ideological agendas or public whims manipulated by money and media. Leadership positions would be filled by individuals with demonstrated expertise, chosen through rigorous vetting—not popularity contests.
4. Education Reform
   Education systems would teach the basics of human behavior and decision-making, emphasizing the role of causes in shaping outcomes. This isn’t indoctrination—it’s empowering people with a clearer understanding of themselves and the world around them.
5. Gradual Transition
   This isn’t about tearing down democracy overnight. A deterministic model would evolve incrementally as people see the benefits of policies informed by evidence and causes rather than empty rhetoric. Pilot programs in justice reform, environmental sustainability, and public health could demonstrate the advantages.

Does this mean determinism solves all problems at once? Of course not. But it offers a framework to address issues more effectively than systems based on myths like “free will” or the idea that everyone starts on an equal playing field.
Now, if you think the above is unrealistic or flawed, fine—engage with it. But don’t act as though the absence of a fully realized blueprint somehow invalidates the idea. Conversations like this are part of the process, so stop waiting for perfection to descend from the heavens and join the actual discussion. Or, if you’re taking the piss, as you say—at least make it constructive.

[accelafine]

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

How would I know? You think I can read the mess that passes for a 'mind' in your 'what passes for a brain'?

Attempt to stick to the topic at hand rather than nagging about irrelevant shit like some boring old NZ woman.

Where have I mentioned a 'boring old NZ woman'? You seriously need to work on your punctuation skills you fat pommy slob. A hair transplant wouldn't go amiss either.

[accelafine]

Is BigMike AI?

[attofishpi]

How would I know? You think I can read the mess that passes for a 'mind' in your 'what passes for a brain'?

Attempt to stick to the topic at hand rather than nagging about irrelevant shit like some boring old NZ woman.

Where have I mentioned a 'boring old NZ woman'? You seriously need to work on your punctuation skills you fat pommy slob. A hair transplant wouldn't go amiss either.

Oh, very cleaver.

[attofishpi]

Is BigMike AI?

I will kill myself if it turns out it is.

You got up early, what happened? Did you shit in your bed?

[accelafine]

Is BigMike AI?

I will kill myself if it turns out it is.

You got up early, what happened? Did you shit in your bed?

It is.