Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[attofishpi]

With the greatest respect Mike, get that book written and try and forget the above, it's never going to happen and you know that.

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.

Snarky? I haven't been snarky at all..unlike you in this daft statement. TikTok? never seen even one page of that and v much doubt if any of my friends do.

That dismissive one liner was meant to be conveyed as a compliment to what you posted of your book, I thought it was well written and looked promising, even if i disagree with some of the premise being the determinism angle.

Clearly you've invested a lot of time in this deterministic governance lunacy and are upset that nobody is buying it. All I am suggesting is waste no more time on it, it's never going to happen and you KNOW that. It's not destined to be..

[BigMike]

With the greatest respect Mike, get that book written and try and forget the above, it's never going to happen and you know that.

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.

Snarky? I haven't been snarky at all..unlike you in this daft statement. TikTok? never seen even one page of that and v much doubt if any of my friends do.

That dismissive one liner was meant to be conveyed as a compliment to what you posted of your book, I thought it was well written and looked promising, even if i disagree with some of the premise being the determinism angle.

Clearly you've invested a lot of time in this deterministic governance lunacy and are upset that nobody is buying it. All I am suggesting is waste no more time on it, it's never going to happen and you KNOW that. It's not destined to be..

Fair enough, if that last comment was intended as a compliment, then I’ll take it in the spirit you say it was meant. But let’s pivot back to the core questions here, because dismissing deterministic governance as “lunacy” without engaging with the argument doesn’t move the conversation forward.

The real issue is this: Is democracy failing us because it’s built on the myth of free will? If our decisions are shaped by forces we don’t control—like upbringing, socioeconomic status, and media manipulation—then is democracy really the "will of the people," or just a reflection of who controls those influences? The premise isn’t about abandoning governance; it’s about improving it by basing systems on a deeper understanding of how decisions are made.

How might deterministic governance look in practice? It would start with policy decisions driven by evidence and expertise rather than emotional appeals and ideology. For example, tackling crime by addressing the systemic factors that lead to it, or creating economic policies that account for the deterministic factors behind inequality. Transparency and accountability would also be key—decisions should be open, data-driven, and grounded in cause-and-effect reasoning.

The question isn’t whether change is easy or even inevitable—it’s whether the current systems are equipped to address the challenges we face. If democracy isn’t working as intended, why not explore how a deeper understanding of human behavior could inform better systems? I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on that rather than focusing on dismissing the idea outright. Let’s keep it about the ideas, not the inevitability or lack thereof.

[attofishpi]

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.

Snarky? I haven't been snarky at all..unlike you in this daft statement. TikTok? never seen even one page of that and v much doubt if any of my friends do.

That dismissive one liner was meant to be conveyed as a compliment to what you posted of your book, I thought it was well written and looked promising, even if i disagree with some of the premise being the determinism angle.

Clearly you've invested a lot of time in this deterministic governance lunacy and are upset that nobody is buying it. All I am suggesting is waste no more time on it, it's never going to happen and you KNOW that. It's not destined to be..

Fair enough, if that last comment was intended as a compliment, then I’ll take it in the spirit you say it was meant. But let’s pivot back to the core questions here, because dismissing deterministic governance as “lunacy” without engaging with the argument doesn’t move the conversation forward.

I gave it an honest crack, but when I got to the little fellas about to go and play a football game with their coach insisting no matter what happens, the result was always going to be the result ever since the Big Bang - I felt demoralised by the entire concept.. it (determinism) is just stupid to me and to attempt to make some utopian way of governance to deal with the causes of thangs is somehow sickening and i can see a robot dictator eventuating! (I am being serious..bad stuff will result from disrupting democracy from natural human voting.)

Oi, I am done by the way - crack on with the others tho I might still pop in for a read.

[BigMike]

Snarky? I haven't been snarky at all..unlike you in this daft statement. TikTok? never seen even one page of that and v much doubt if any of my friends do.

That dismissive one liner was meant to be conveyed as a compliment to what you posted of your book, I thought it was well written and looked promising, even if i disagree with some of the premise being the determinism angle.

Clearly you've invested a lot of time in this deterministic governance lunacy and are upset that nobody is buying it. All I am suggesting is waste no more time on it, it's never going to happen and you KNOW that. It's not destined to be..

Fair enough, if that last comment was intended as a compliment, then I’ll take it in the spirit you say it was meant. But let’s pivot back to the core questions here, because dismissing deterministic governance as “lunacy” without engaging with the argument doesn’t move the conversation forward.

I gave it an honest crack, but when I got to the little fellas about to go and play a football game with their coach insisting no matter what happens, the result was always going to be the result ever since the Big Bang - I felt demoralised by the entire concept.. it (determinism) is just stupid to me and to attempt to make some utopian way of governance to deal with the causes of thangs is somehow sickening and i can see a robot dictator eventuating! (I am being serious..bad stuff will result from disrupting democracy from natural human voting.)

Oi, I am done by the way - crack on with the others tho I might still pop in for a read.

Fair enough if determinism isn’t for you, but dismissing it because of a football analogy or fears of “robot dictators” is hardly engaging with the actual argument. The point isn’t to disrupt democracy arbitrarily—it’s to explore whether systems built on a deeper understanding of human behavior could address its failings. If you’re done, that’s fine, but meaningful change starts with uncomfortable ideas. Pop in anytime if you want to pick it back up!

[accelafine]

Not a single typo in ANY posts. Commas sound. Spelling correct (as correct as American spelling can be). The man is a machine

[attofishpi]

Not a single typo in ANY posts. Commas sound. Spelling correct (as correct as American spelling can be). The man is a machine

OK, you can put your knickers back on now.

[BigMike]

Not a single typo in ANY posts. Commas sound. Spelling correct (as correct as American spelling can be). The man is a machine

I’ll take that as a compliment! For what it’s worth, I’m a published writer with six books under my belt. Precision in language comes with the territory—it’s a writer thing, not a machine thing.

[Belinda]

With the greatest respect Mike, get that book written and try and forget the above, it's never going to happen and you know that.

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.

Attofishpi's view is popular, and this is the argument against democracy and the argument for philosopher kings. Plato was an aristocrat -----he would like the notion of philosopher kings wouldn't he.
Presumably Attofishpi and co are not aristocrats (so few people are) and so mostly they prefer democracy if they think about the matter.

It's significant that dictators stop liberal education and information- sharing. Democratic governance should include liberal and extended education for all, regardless of wealth, social class, parents' traditions, ethnic traditions, and vested interests; especially children and youth who have longer to live and are more flexible in their thinking habits.

Liberal education is history-based i.e. history of ideas. For example if Atto had such an education he'd see how his Cartesian dualism is only one idea and there are other competing ideas, and that all ideas are enmeshed in what necessarily happened.

N,B.Concerning the accusation that determinism is fatalistic and so we can't really choose:
if we were were able to see into the future it would be true. But we cannot see into the future.

[BigMike]

With the greatest respect Mike, get that book written and try and forget the above, it's never going to happen and you know that.

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.

Attofishpi's view is popular, and this is the argument against democracy and the argument for philosopher kings. Plato was an aristocrat -----he would like the notion of philosopher kings wouldn't he.
Presumably Attofishpi and co are not aristocrats (so few people are) and so mostly they prefer democracy if they think about the matter.

It's significant that dictators stop liberal education and information- sharing. Democratic governance should include liberal and extended education for all, regardless of wealth, social class, parents' traditions, ethnic traditions, and vested interests; especially children and youth who have longer to live and are more flexible in their thinking habits.

Liberal education is history-based i.e. history of ideas. For example if Atto had such an education he'd see how his Cartesian dualism is only one idea and there are other competing ideas, and that all ideas are enmeshed in what necessarily happened.

N,B.Concerning the accusation that determinism is fatalistic and so we can't really choose:
if we were were able to see into the future it would be true. But we cannot see into the future.

Belinda, you’ve touched on some essential points here. The tension between popular opinion and philosophical governance is indeed ancient, with Plato’s philosopher kings being a famous ideal. However, the modern twist I’m proposing isn’t about aristocracy or elitism—it’s about governance that acknowledges the deterministic forces shaping human behavior and uses that understanding to craft better policies, grounded in evidence and cause-and-effect reasoning.

Your point about liberal education is crucial. A truly democratic system cannot function well without a well-informed populace. Education that fosters critical thinking and exposes people to the history of ideas, as you describe, would naturally make society more adaptable to evidence-based governance.

As for the claim that determinism leads to fatalism, you’re right to point out that not seeing into the future means we still act as though we’re making choices. This doesn’t invalidate determinism—it highlights the practical reality of working within the causal framework we exist in. Recognizing determinism is less about predicting everything and more about understanding the forces at play so we can navigate them more effectively.

[accelafine]

Not a single typo in ANY posts. Commas sound. Spelling correct (as correct as American spelling can be). The man is a machine

OK, you can put your knickers back on now.

Isn't it refreshing though? You could learn so much from him

[promethean75]

So BigMike might be a gpt eh? He does have flawless form and his excessive verbiage is just what a robot would use when trying to talk like a human intellectual. We have to run a test then.

BigMike, please tell me how you felt when Big Dan died in Where The Red Fern Grows. Describe the feelings you had.

[Atla]

Improve your writing with Grammarly. Now powered by AI.

[Belinda]

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.

Attofishpi's view is popular, and this is the argument against democracy and the argument for philosopher kings. Plato was an aristocrat -----he would like the notion of philosopher kings wouldn't he.
Presumably Attofishpi and co are not aristocrats (so few people are) and so mostly they prefer democracy if they think about the matter.

It's significant that dictators stop liberal education and information- sharing. Democratic governance should include liberal and extended education for all, regardless of wealth, social class, parents' traditions, ethnic traditions, and vested interests; especially children and youth who have longer to live and are more flexible in their thinking habits.

Liberal education is history-based i.e. history of ideas. For example if Atto had such an education he'd see how his Cartesian dualism is only one idea and there are other competing ideas, and that all ideas are enmeshed in what necessarily happened.

N,B.Concerning the accusation that determinism is fatalistic and so we can't really choose:
if we were were able to see into the future it would be true. But we cannot see into the future.

Belinda, you’ve touched on some essential points here. The tension between popular opinion and philosophical governance is indeed ancient, with Plato’s philosopher kings being a famous ideal. However, the modern twist I’m proposing isn’t about aristocracy or elitism—it’s about governance that acknowledges the deterministic forces shaping human behavior and uses that understanding to craft better policies, grounded in evidence and cause-and-effect reasoning.

Your point about liberal education is crucial. A truly democratic system cannot function well without a well-informed populace. Education that fosters critical thinking and exposes people to the history of ideas, as you describe, would naturally make society more adaptable to evidence-based governance.

As for the claim that determinism leads to fatalism, you’re right to point out that not seeing into the future means we still act as though we’re making choices. This doesn’t invalidate determinism—it highlights the practical reality of working within the causal framework we exist in. Recognizing determinism is less about predicting everything and more about understanding the forces at play so we can navigate them more effectively.

"----causal framework----".
Causal chains such as a billiard ball knocking into another one, then repeat ,and repeat, and repeat ,and.

Plus causal circumstances such as if you are black or latino in the US you have fewer choices.

Plus laws of nature such as the law of gravity.

Put all three sorts of causes together and you have determinism.

[BigMike]

Attofishpi's view is popular, and this is the argument against democracy and the argument for philosopher kings. Plato was an aristocrat -----he would like the notion of philosopher kings wouldn't he.
Presumably Attofishpi and co are not aristocrats (so few people are) and so mostly they prefer democracy if they think about the matter.

It's significant that dictators stop liberal education and information- sharing. Democratic governance should include liberal and extended education for all, regardless of wealth, social class, parents' traditions, ethnic traditions, and vested interests; especially children and youth who have longer to live and are more flexible in their thinking habits.

Liberal education is history-based i.e. history of ideas. For example if Atto had such an education he'd see how his Cartesian dualism is only one idea and there are other competing ideas, and that all ideas are enmeshed in what necessarily happened.

N,B.Concerning the accusation that determinism is fatalistic and so we can't really choose:
if we were were able to see into the future it would be true. But we cannot see into the future.

Belinda, you’ve touched on some essential points here. The tension between popular opinion and philosophical governance is indeed ancient, with Plato’s philosopher kings being a famous ideal. However, the modern twist I’m proposing isn’t about aristocracy or elitism—it’s about governance that acknowledges the deterministic forces shaping human behavior and uses that understanding to craft better policies, grounded in evidence and cause-and-effect reasoning.

Your point about liberal education is crucial. A truly democratic system cannot function well without a well-informed populace. Education that fosters critical thinking and exposes people to the history of ideas, as you describe, would naturally make society more adaptable to evidence-based governance.

As for the claim that determinism leads to fatalism, you’re right to point out that not seeing into the future means we still act as though we’re making choices. This doesn’t invalidate determinism—it highlights the practical reality of working within the causal framework we exist in. Recognizing determinism is less about predicting everything and more about understanding the forces at play so we can navigate them more effectively.

"----causal framework----".
Causal chains such as a billiard ball knocking into another one, then repeat ,and repeat, and repeat ,and.

Plus causal circumstances such as if you are black or latino in the US you have fewer choices.

Plus laws of nature such as the law of gravity.

Put all three sorts of causes together and you have determinism.

Exactly, Belinda. Determinism is the interplay of all these layers—causal chains, circumstances like socioeconomic conditions, and the immutable laws of nature. It’s not a single, simplistic force but a complex web of interactions that shape outcomes at every level.

When we talk about governance informed by determinism, it’s about understanding and addressing these layers holistically. Policies that acknowledge structural inequalities (like racial disparities in the US) and the broader causal frameworks people exist within could lead to far more equitable and effective solutions. Rather than pretending everyone has the same opportunities or "free choices," we’d be designing systems that directly engage with these realities.

The deterministic approach doesn’t remove agency—it refines it by revealing the true factors influencing decisions. By working with those forces, we can create governance systems that don’t just react to problems but proactively shape better outcomes.

[accelafine]

So BigMike might be a gpt eh? He does have flawless form and his excessive verbiage is just what a robot would use when trying to talk like a human intellectual. We have to run a test then.

BigMike, please tell me how you felt when Big Dan died in Where The Red Fern Grows. Describe the feelings you had.

I wouldn't say 'excessive verbiage'. As far as I can tell he only uses the number of words needed to get his point across.
For 'excessive verbiage' examples you don't have to look very deeply on this site.