Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[accelafine]

People are putting a lot of faith in and overestimating the capabilities of AI and bullshit sites like 'Grammarly for American illiterates'
Ever seen AI 'art' or heard AI 'musical compositions'? Utter garbage.

[Atla]

Anyway, deterministic science tells us that only genetic engineering could possibly make the idiot 2/3 of humanity smart enough, other techniques are too ineffective. Until that happens, governments will mainly use the knowledge about the deterministic human behaviour for creating and implementing better mass manipulation, mass control techniques.

Of course anyone who isn't an autist, oblivious to human nature and living in some kind of ivory tower, already knows that having a better understanding of determinism has nothing to do with a sudden desire to create a better world for everyone. As our knowledge grows, altruism gets an upgrade, but exploitation also gets an upgrade.

And then, forcing the "hard determinist" philosophy onto the stupid people could make things worse, they could become neurotic, plantlike idiots. In my experience the stupid people can't handle the idea of determinism. It's easier to manipulate/control people when they have internalized the view that they are incapable of making decisions, when they are in a state of learned helplessness, apathy, inaction, indifference, depression.

[Dubious]

The kind of determinism which follows an event, i.e., its historicity, is not of the same type as one which creates it causing it to become historical. In any attempt to understand determinism, it's essential to know it's not merely of one type meaning if the inputs remain the same, its output is always forced to conform. It's the conscious mind which succumbs to the idea of free will in having to choose between multiple predetermined outputs. The directive of each moment is not guided by any fixed autonomous response to each of its demands which, through the imaging of free will becomes a multiplexed phenomenon demanding to be resolved.

[BigMike]

Anyway, deterministic science tells us that only genetic engineering could possibly make the idiot 2/3 of humanity smart enough, other techniques are too ineffective. Until that happens, governments will mainly use the knowledge about the deterministic human behaviour for creating and implementing better mass manipulation, mass control techniques.

Of course anyone who isn't an autist, oblivious to human nature and living in some kind of ivory tower, already knows that having a better understanding of determinism has nothing to do with a sudden desire to create a better world for everyone. As our knowledge grows, altruism gets an upgrade, but exploitation also gets an upgrade.

And then, forcing the "hard determinist" philosophy onto the stupid people could make things worse, they could become neurotic, plantlike idiots. In my experience the stupid people can't handle the idea of determinism. It's easier to manipulate/control people when they have internalized the view that they are incapable of making decisions, when they are in a state of learned helplessness, apathy, inaction, indifference, depression.

You’re absolutely right that deterministic insights could, and have been, abused politically. Exploiting knowledge about human behavior for mass manipulation or control is nothing new—advertising, propaganda, and authoritarian regimes have been doing it for ages, albeit with cruder tools than what we’re now capable of. The question is whether we allow this knowledge to remain a weapon in the hands of the ill-intentioned or use it transparently and responsibly for the collective good.

Transparency is key to inhibiting abuse. When decisions and policies are openly debated, and their causes and consequences made clear, it becomes much harder to use deterministic insights for selfish or exploitative purposes without public accountability. Determinism isn’t an ideology to be imposed; it’s a reality that rules us all, whether we like it or not. Ignoring it doesn’t free us—it just leaves us vulnerable to those who understand it better and are willing to use it against us.

The fear of people becoming apathetic under a deterministic framework misunderstands its potential. Determinism isn’t about telling people they are powerless; it’s about identifying and addressing the real forces shaping their lives. With the right education and transparency, it can empower people by helping them understand their circumstances and the systems they operate within. If we let this knowledge remain the province of manipulators, however, the outcomes will undoubtedly skew toward exploitation rather than collective improvement.

[BigMike]

The kind of determinism which follows an event, i.e., its historicity, is not of the same type as one which creates it causing it to become historical. In any attempt to understand determinism, it's essential to know it's not merely of one type meaning if the inputs remain the same, its output is always forced to conform. It's the conscious mind which succumbs to the idea of free will in having to choose between multiple predetermined outputs. The directive of each moment is not guided by any fixed autonomous response to each of its demands which, through the imaging of free will becomes a multiplexed phenomenon demanding to be resolved.

Yes, there are different "types" or layers of determinism. The historicity of events (understanding past causes and outcomes) differs from the real-time causal chains that bring those events into being. But both operate under the same deterministic framework—inputs create outputs, even if those inputs are extraordinarily complex.

Where the idea of free will sneaks in, as you suggest, is in the conscious mind's experience of "choosing" between multiple predetermined outputs. This perceived multiplexing is more about how the brain processes and resolves competing causal forces than about autonomous free choice. The deterministic directive of each moment isn’t fixed in the sense of being simple or linear, but it’s still bound by cause and effect.

In essence, the illusion of free will arises from our limited vantage point within the deterministic web, not from an actual escape from it. The challenge is to recognize this without falling into the trap of fatalism, understanding that deterministic processes can still be navigated and managed—whether at the personal, societal, or even governance level.

[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.

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

Have another dig woman!

I learn from everyone and everything, here I mine minds.

Why has nobody queried what books BigMike has published? Nobody ever seems interested in anyone's achievements on this "philosophy" forum...perhaps we should consider whether "intellectuals" suffer from intellejealousy (it's a real word start using it).

BigMike, please link to you published books, at least I am interested in what you have been up to. If you're too meek, humble, (there's probably a far more apt word), daft - PM me!

[accelafine]

OK, you can put your knickers back on now.

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

Have another dig woman!

I learn from everyone and everything, here I mine minds.

Why has nobody queried what books BigMike has published? Nobody ever seems interested in anyone's achievements on this "philosophy" forum...perhaps we should consider whether "intellectuals" suffer from intellejealousy (it's a real word start using it).

BigMike, please link to you published books, at least I am interested in what you have been up to. If you're too meek, humble, (there's probably a far more apt word), daft - PM me!

I assume you are referring to your own achievements. Perhaps not mentioning them was just being polite? I did compliment you on your artwork. That was genuine. I can't read something that hasn't been properly edited or proof-read and is full of grammatical/punctuation errors.
But you are correct. People who write, or fancy themselves as writers, are notoriously mean-spirited and jealous.
BigMike posted a link somewhere.

[attofishpi]

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

Have another dig woman!

I learn from everyone and everything, here I mine minds.

Why has nobody queried what books BigMike has published? Nobody ever seems interested in anyone's achievements on this "philosophy" forum...perhaps we should consider whether "intellectuals" suffer from intellejealousy (it's a real word start using it).

BigMike, please link to you published books, at least I am interested in what you have been up to. If you're too meek, humble, (there's probably a far more apt word), daft - PM me!

I assume you are referring to your own achievements. Perhaps not mentioning them was just being polite? I did compliment you on your artwork. That was genuine.

Don't take it personally, I wasn't directing at you - only everyone.

I can't read something that hasn't been properly edited or proof-read and is full of grammatical/punctuation errors.

If you're talking about my cyberpunk novel Alpha Two, it has been professionally proof-read & edited - one paid for with going over at least 3 times, and another from a friend that's a journalist and assisted for free. Admittedly, even today I occasionally pick up the odd error - but it is not enough that detracts from a bloody good read. Everyone that's read it has loved the story, although one person admitted he liked it, but it's not the type of genre that he's really into.

Nobody's gone on like a Nazi about loads of grammatical/punctuation issues! Maybe I'll run it through GPT for analysis

I am not worried about putting myself out there, have it! - tis free now..
https://www.androcies.com/p_PHP/m_Alpha ... erpunk.php

But you are correct. People who write, or fancy themselves as writers, are notoriously mean-spirited and jealous.
BigMike posted a link somewhere.

I have asked you to share you own prose, but you are obviously too guarded for some reason.

[Dubious]

The kind of determinism which follows an event, i.e., its historicity, is not of the same type as one which creates it causing it to become historical. In any attempt to understand determinism, it's essential to know it's not merely of one type meaning if the inputs remain the same, its output is always forced to conform. It's the conscious mind which succumbs to the idea of free will in having to choose between multiple predetermined outputs. The directive of each moment is not guided by any fixed autonomous response to each of its demands which, through the imaging of free will becomes a multiplexed phenomenon demanding to be resolved.

Yes, there are different "types" or layers of determinism. The historicity of events (understanding past causes and outcomes) differs from the real-time causal chains that bring those events into being. But both operate under the same deterministic framework—inputs create outputs, even if those inputs are extraordinarily complex.

Where the idea of free will sneaks in, as you suggest, is in the conscious mind's experience of "choosing" between multiple predetermined outputs. This perceived multiplexing is more about how the brain processes and resolves competing causal forces than about autonomous free choice. The deterministic directive of each moment isn’t fixed in the sense of being simple or linear, but it’s still bound by cause and effect.

In essence, the illusion of free will arises from our limited vantage point within the deterministic web, not from an actual escape from it. The challenge is to recognize this without falling into the trap of fatalism, understanding that deterministic processes can still be navigated and managed—whether at the personal, societal, or even governance level.

History is a compilation of decisions made, its roots being thoroughly materialistic. As such it is structured subject to its limitations and to that extent, deterministic, operational only within its physical parameters. History shows itself as an act of will whose potency is manifest throughout without any endorsement in having to expound its sagas as an act of free will which explains nothing.

In that respect, determinism is the exclusion of free will without the exclusion of willing itself. What's predetermined is the process by which determinations are made.

[Atla]

You’re absolutely right that deterministic insights could, and have been, abused politically. Exploiting knowledge about human behavior for mass manipulation or control is nothing new—advertising, propaganda, and authoritarian regimes have been doing it for ages, albeit with cruder tools than what we’re now capable of. The question is whether we allow this knowledge to remain a weapon in the hands of the ill-intentioned or use it transparently and responsibly for the collective good.

Transparency is key to inhibiting abuse. When decisions and policies are openly debated, and their causes and consequences made clear, it becomes much harder to use deterministic insights for selfish or exploitative purposes without public accountability. Determinism isn’t an ideology to be imposed; it’s a reality that rules us all, whether we like it or not. Ignoring it doesn’t free us—it just leaves us vulnerable to those who understand it better and are willing to use it against us.

The fear of people becoming apathetic under a deterministic framework misunderstands its potential. Determinism isn’t about telling people they are powerless; it’s about identifying and addressing the real forces shaping their lives. With the right education and transparency, it can empower people by helping them understand their circumstances and the systems they operate within. If we let this knowledge remain the province of manipulators, however, the outcomes will undoubtedly skew toward exploitation rather than collective improvement.

We'll leave it in the hands of the ill-intentioned, the stupid 2/3 of humanity will continue to vote for who can manipulate them the best.

[Leontiskos]

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?

Perhaps it is. The foundation of governance is free will. Politics is the mediating of disagreements about which decisions should be made at the societal level. "Moving beyond the idea of free will in governance" is therefore a non-starter. Disagreements among citizens are the starting point of politics, and disagreements ultimately presuppose free will. You whole thread is but one example of this, for you think there is a better way to go about governing, and you are trying to convince others that your approach would be best (or that a better option can and should be sought). You yourself are thus presupposing free will.

[Age]

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?

Perhaps it is. The foundation of governance is free will. Politics is the mediating of disagreements about which decisions should be made at the societal level. "Moving beyond the idea of free will in governance" is therefore a non-starter. Disagreements among citizens are the starting point of politics, and disagreements ultimately presuppose free will. You whole thread is but one example of this, for you think there is a better way to go about governing, and you are trying to convince others that your approach would be best (or that a better option can and should be sought). You yourself are thus presupposing free will.

"bigmike" has, a few times already, been shown the contradiction in, freely, deciding to, willingly, change the way things are, and to 'consider' designing different systems, from the ones that had been, supposedly, absolutely deterministically decided up to 'now', but "bigmike" appears to be not able to see and comprehend its own contradictions, here.

[BigMike]

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?

Perhaps it is. The foundation of governance is free will. Politics is the mediating of disagreements about which decisions should be made at the societal level. "Moving beyond the idea of free will in governance" is therefore a non-starter. Disagreements among citizens are the starting point of politics, and disagreements ultimately presuppose free will. You whole thread is but one example of this, for you think there is a better way to go about governing, and you are trying to convince others that your approach would be best (or that a better option can and should be sought). You yourself are thus presupposing free will.

"bigmike" has, a few times already, been shown the contradiction in, freely, deciding to, willingly, change the way things are, and to 'consider' designing different systems, from the ones that had been, supposedly, absolutely deterministically decided up to 'now', but "bigmike" appears to be not able to see and comprehend its own contradictions, here.

By 'free' you mean uncaused, right? 'Cause that's what we're talking about here.

[BigMike]

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?

Perhaps it is. The foundation of governance is free will. Politics is the mediating of disagreements about which decisions should be made at the societal level. "Moving beyond the idea of free will in governance" is therefore a non-starter. Disagreements among citizens are the starting point of politics, and disagreements ultimately presuppose free will. You whole thread is but one example of this, for you think there is a better way to go about governing, and you are trying to convince others that your approach would be best (or that a better option can and should be sought). You yourself are thus presupposing free will.

You’re conflating the practical experience of deliberation and disagreement with the metaphysical concept of free will. Disagreement doesn’t require free will—it only requires that individuals process information differently based on their unique causal histories (upbringing, environment, biases, etc.). Convincing others isn’t an act of appealing to their free will; it’s an act of introducing new causal inputs that might shift their perspectives.

The foundation of governance need not be free will—it can (and arguably should) be an acknowledgment of the deterministic forces that shape human behavior. Politics as it currently operates often assumes people act independently of their circumstances, which leads to systems that punish or blame without addressing root causes. Moving beyond that assumption allows us to build governance models rooted in evidence and causality, which could mediate disagreements more effectively by addressing the factors driving them.

Your argument assumes that determinism invalidates dialogue, but that’s a misstep. Dialogue is a deterministic process: we exchange arguments, introduce new information, and let the interplay of causes determine the outcome. Recognizing this doesn’t weaken the foundation of politics—it strengthens it by grounding it in reality.

[mickthinks]

Politics as it currently operates …
Politics as it currently operates is following the laws of physics. If you believe that the laws of physics determine all operations, then, according to you, politics is currently operating in the only way possible. You describe a different way of operating, but whether your new “deterministic” politics will replace the current “non-deterministic” politics remains to be seen.

In the meantime, there’s nothing you or I can do other than what we are predetermined to do. We must just wait and see.