Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[BigMike]

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.

That’s a common but flawed interpretation of determinism. Yes, politics as it currently operates follows the laws of physics, as does everything else. But determinism doesn’t imply passive acceptance of the status quo—it explains the causes behind it. Recognizing determinism doesn’t mean we sit back and “wait and see”; it means we understand that meaningful change comes from altering the causes that lead to undesirable outcomes.

This thread itself is an example: my arguments, shaped by prior causes, are now inputs in the causal web influencing others—including you. If politics is the way it is because of current causes, then by changing those causes—introducing new evidence, refining systems, or reforming institutions—we can influence its trajectory.

Determinism doesn’t strip us of agency; it reframes agency as a function of cause and effect. The deterministic approach to governance acknowledges that while we’re all operating within this framework, we can use our understanding of it to guide change, not resign ourselves to inaction.

[BigMike]

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.

Exactly. If we simply accept that the ill-intentioned will always dominate, then yes, nothing changes. But fatalism is just as counterproductive as clinging to the myth of free will. While the "stupid 2/3," as you put it, may be manipulated today, the question is whether we can introduce systems that prioritize transparency, accountability, and evidence-based policy over exploitation.

Determinism tells us that human behavior is shaped by causes. If manipulation works now, it’s because the systems in place—education, media, political frameworks—enable it. Change those systems, and you change the outcomes. It’s not easy or quick, but dismissing it as impossible guarantees that exploitation will continue unchecked. The effort to shift power away from manipulators starts with acknowledging how manipulation works and building safeguards against it. Resignation only strengthens those who abuse the system.

[Belinda]

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.

I hope someone can adapt those three layers of determinism into graphic form , and post the picture for all the people in the forum to see. From my point of view as a former educationist I'd also dearly like to see a short dramatisation of determinism as functioning in a real life situation

Please also may we consider the useful application of determinism to the work of the international diplomat, and also to the work of criminal courts of justice.

How you apply the whole of determinism to governance is an example of how determinism is Left Wing and how the myth of absolute Free Will is Right Wing.

NB I think I ought perhaps to have credited Ted Honderich for allowing my very brief adaptation of part of his book 'How Free Are You", when I listed the three layers of determinism. Actually Honderich's third layer which he calls NOMIC CONNECTION concerns those natural laws whose definitions are intrinsically bound up in ever higher levels of connection. Typical of nomic connection are the phenomena of night and day which concern the turning of the Earth which itself concerns cosmic forces. Such connections as that are perhaps the best illustration of how determinism is defined as "what happened necessarily happened", as we all understand that night and day are aspects of another event----the turning of Earth on its axis----- which is an aspect of Solar System and so forth.

How Free Are You(Honderich) isbn : 978-0199251971

[mickthinks]

we can influence its trajectory.

No we can’t. If the trajectory is determined there can be no such thing as influencing it. What we do changes nothing, because what we do is part of the trajectory as it is determined.

All we can do is perceive it and experience it as it unfolds.

[Belinda]

we can influence its trajectory.

No we can’t. If the trajectory is determined there can be no such thing as influencing it. What we do changes nothing, because what we do is part of the trajectory as it is determined.

All we can do is perceive it and experience it as it unfolds.

But we are beings that feel ('have the attitude that ') we can choose.As beings that feel we can choose we can influence the trajectory because the trajectory is not fate, but is undetermined until it becomes actual .Once upon a time people felt they were subject to fate ('the gods) ' and religions for instance aimed to propitiate the gods. In 2024 we feel free to make our own choices albeit that there are constraints such as finality, without which our choices would be random and not reasoned.

[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.

Exactly. If we simply accept that the ill-intentioned will always dominate, then yes, nothing changes. But fatalism is just as counterproductive as clinging to the myth of free will. While the "stupid 2/3," as you put it, may be manipulated today, the question is whether we can introduce systems that prioritize transparency, accountability, and evidence-based policy over exploitation.

Determinism tells us that human behavior is shaped by causes. If manipulation works now, it’s because the systems in place—education, media, political frameworks—enable it. Change those systems, and you change the outcomes. It’s not easy or quick, but dismissing it as impossible guarantees that exploitation will continue unchecked. The effort to shift power away from manipulators starts with acknowledging how manipulation works and building safeguards against it. Resignation only strengthens those who abuse the system.

Again, who are this "we", who are supposed to implement these changes? It can't be the ones in power elected by the stupid 2/3 of humanity.

Determinism, through science, through creating the modern technological civilization, through modern psychiatry, etc., has already completely transformed the planet. Your proposed revolution that you keep opening threads about, has already mostly happened. Yet the world still seems to be determined to self-destruct within a few decades, probably.

[BigMike]

we can influence its trajectory.

No we can’t. If the trajectory is determined there can be no such thing as influencing it. What we do changes nothing, because what we do is part of the trajectory as it is determined.

All we can do is perceive it and experience it as it unfolds.

This is a misunderstanding of determinism. Influencing the trajectory doesn’t mean stepping outside of causality—it means being part of it. Our actions, thoughts, and decisions are themselves causes within the deterministic framework. What we do matters precisely because it is part of the causal chain shaping future outcomes.

Saying "we change nothing" because everything is determined ignores that the trajectory includes our input. For example, if I make an argument here, it might cause someone to reconsider their position. That’s not defying determinism—it’s determinism in action. Recognizing determinism doesn’t render our efforts meaningless; it reveals them as integral to the unfolding process. Dismissing agency under determinism is to misunderstand that we are the causes shaping the future.

[BigMike]

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.

Exactly. If we simply accept that the ill-intentioned will always dominate, then yes, nothing changes. But fatalism is just as counterproductive as clinging to the myth of free will. While the "stupid 2/3," as you put it, may be manipulated today, the question is whether we can introduce systems that prioritize transparency, accountability, and evidence-based policy over exploitation.

Determinism tells us that human behavior is shaped by causes. If manipulation works now, it’s because the systems in place—education, media, political frameworks—enable it. Change those systems, and you change the outcomes. It’s not easy or quick, but dismissing it as impossible guarantees that exploitation will continue unchecked. The effort to shift power away from manipulators starts with acknowledging how manipulation works and building safeguards against it. Resignation only strengthens those who abuse the system.

Again, who are this "we", who are supposed to implement these changes? It can't be the ones in power elected by the stupid 2/3 of humanity.

Determinism, through science, through creating the modern technological civilization, through modern psychiatry, etc., has already completely transformed the planet. Your proposed revolution that you keep opening threads about, has already mostly happened. Yet the world still seems to be determined to self-destruct within a few decades, probably.

The "we" refers to anyone participating in the causal chain of change—thinkers, educators, innovators, reformers, and yes, even policymakers influenced by shifting societal pressures. Change doesn’t come from one monolithic group suddenly deciding to act—it emerges as a result of countless interconnected causes. If the current power structures are flawed, those flaws can be addressed by changing the conditions that sustain them, like public awareness, education, and institutional frameworks.

You’re right that determinism has already shaped modern civilization through science and technology, but the transformation is incomplete. While technological advances have altered how we live, they’ve also been co-opted by those who use them for manipulation and exploitation. The "revolution" isn’t about flipping a switch—it’s about continuing to align our systems with an understanding of the deterministic forces shaping behavior, reducing exploitation, and fostering resilience.

As for the world’s apparent determination to self-destruct, that’s precisely why complacency isn’t an option. If the trajectory seems bleak, it’s because we haven’t yet shifted the causes driving that trajectory. Recognizing determinism doesn’t mean throwing up our hands—it means understanding what’s broken and addressing the underlying conditions. The outcome isn’t inevitable—it’s caused, and we’re part of those causes.

[BigMike]

"----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.

I hope someone can adapt those three layers of determinism into graphic form , and post the picture for all the people in the forum to see. From my point of view as a former educationist I'd also dearly like to see a short dramatisation of determinism as functioning in a real life situation

Please also may we consider the useful application of determinism to the work of the international diplomat, and also to the work of criminal courts of justice.

How you apply the whole of determinism to governance is an example of how determinism is Left Wing and how the myth of absolute Free Will is Right Wing.

NB I think I ought perhaps to have credited Ted Honderich for allowing my very brief adaptation of part of his book 'How Free Are You", when I listed the three layers of determinism. Actually Honderich's third layer which he calls NOMIC CONNECTION concerns those natural laws whose definitions are intrinsically bound up in ever higher levels of connection. Typical of nomic connection are the phenomena of night and day which concern the turning of the Earth which itself concerns cosmic forces. Such connections as that are perhaps the best illustration of how determinism is defined as "what happened necessarily happened", as we all understand that night and day are aspects of another event----the turning of Earth on its axis----- which is an aspect of Solar System and so forth.

How Free Are You(Honderich) isbn : 978-0199251971

Belinda, I agree that visual or dramatic representations of determinism could greatly enhance understanding, especially for those new to the concept. Illustrating the layers of determinism—causal chains, socioeconomic and structural circumstances, and natural laws—could make these abstract ideas more accessible and relatable. A short dramatization of determinism at work in real-life situations, such as courtroom decision-making or international diplomacy, could vividly demonstrate how understanding these layers leads to better outcomes.

Applying determinism to governance, diplomacy, or criminal justice isn’t just theoretical; it’s practical. Diplomats could use deterministic insights to address root causes of conflict, such as historical grievances or economic inequalities, rather than just reacting to symptoms. Similarly, criminal justice reform could focus on rehabilitation by addressing the causes of criminal behavior—poverty, mental health, and systemic inequality—rather than relying on punitive measures rooted in outdated notions of "moral blame."

Your observation about determinism aligning with left-wing ideals, while the myth of absolute free will aligns with right-wing thinking, is thought-provoking. Leftist ideologies often focus on systemic causes of inequality, aiming to address the structural and societal forces that limit individuals. Right-wing ideologies, on the other hand, tend to emphasize personal responsibility, often ignoring the broader causal web. Determinism highlights why the latter approach is inadequate for addressing complex social issues.

Lastly, crediting Ted Honderich’s work adds depth to this discussion. His concept of “nomic connection” beautifully illustrates the layered nature of determinism and its cosmic scale. It’s a reminder that what may seem like isolated events—day and night, individual choices—are deeply interconnected, governed by natural laws. This perspective can profoundly reshape how we approach governance, justice, and societal challenges. Thank you for sharing this framework and encouraging us to expand the conversation.

[henry quirk]

Just a reminder: this...

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

...is Mike's utopia-generatin' determinism.

Anyone -- *'cept Mike -- wanna tell me how we get sunshine & lollipops from that?

*cuz he can't

[henry quirk]

You never responded to this, Mike.

Quarks and photons are elementary particles. By definition, they are not "made of" anything simpler within our current understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics. They are the foundational building blocks, and their properties—mass, charge, energy, and spin—are precisely measurable and experimentally verified.

Sayin' a quark is made of quark or a photon is made of photon is no answer. You don't know what either are made of. No one does.

And a quark has never been measured, or observed, or recorded. We infer they exist (remember that -- we infer they exist -- it'll come up later, in this post or one soon after).

These are facts, not "promissory materialism."

The promissory materialism is when you assert man is meat, and only meat, without any verifiable explanation of how elementary particles create mind. Sayin' oh, that's an emergent property doesn't explain how it works. It's just you promising the answers are coming...someday. And until they do we ought just accept it.

Your insistence that I "show my work" ignores the mountains of empirical data already accumulated by neuroscience, physics, and biology. Correlations between brain activity and emotions are demonstrated through fMRI scans, electrical studies, and neurochemical analysis. Memory and thought processes have been tied to synaptic activity and neural networks. This isn’t an "assertion"; it’s evidence-based science.

Nuthin' in the empirical evidence proves man is just meat and not a free will. How's it go? Correlation does not imply causation?

And you, sir, haven't even bothered to actually pony up any of the empirical evidence. You assert, that's it, that's all.

Well, to be fair, you did foist up Libet's work a few times. But you misinterpreted the results. And when I challenged your misinterpretation with a link to Libet's own words on the work, you dismissed him without even reading what he had to say. You disregarded the thinking of the man whose work you hold out as an evidence.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... ill%3F.pdf

As for your soul, Henry, the burden of proof is on you. You’re the one proposing something beyond the physical—a ghostly puppeteer pulling the strings of your neurons. Where’s your evidence for this "soul" having any measurable property or causal influence? I’m not asserting the soul doesn’t exist; I’m simply asking you to meet the same evidentiary standards you demand from science.

I say man is a hylomorph (I've said this several times in this thread), not a soul in a meatcar or a phantom pulling meat strings. Start with Aristotle, move on to Aquinas, then look up mere hylomorphism and staunch hylomorphism for more. Educate yourself in the alternates before dismissing stuff you obviously know nuthin' about. Descartes's theater ain't the whole of it.

As I say: this is your thread, one of several, wherein you make claims about man's nature. None of us have an obligation to put up alternate ideas. You, though, have an obligation to support your assertions. You haven't done that yet.

But, okay, I'll throw you a bone (with the understanding you're not off the hook for backin' your claims).

Fact: severing the corpus callosum doesn't result in two minds. Despite all communication between the hemispheres ending, there is only one mind, identity, personality. If mind were solely the result of brain activity, with each hemisphere independent of the other, shouldn't there be a fragmented mind? Aside from some perceptual disfunction, the person remains the same.

What can we infer?

Fact: Hemispherectomies involve removing half the brain. If mind is solely brain product shouldn't this enormous loss of brain tissue dramatically affect personality, intelligence, memory, etc.? It doesn't.

What can we infer?

I already pointed out Wilder Penfield's work with epileptics. He found seizures, a brain-wide event, had no bearing on mind. He found and was never able to induce a seizure that affected purely mental faculties. Why? Also, while he was to, for example, stimulate the brain to cause a patient's arm to move, he was never able to fool the patient into thinkin' he had moved his own arm. The patient was always able to distinguish between what he did of his own accord and was Penfield induced. Why?

What can we infer?

There are other evidences, but let's start with these.

By the way: I can reference all of the above. I will if you'll actually read and consider. If, though, as before, you just dismiss it all out of hand, well, I won't waste my time.

determinism doesn’t require answers to every metaphysical question to function as a framework.

Of course not. But you have made claims, specific claims about man's nature, and it behoves you to back them. You haven't done that yet.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk:

I already pointed out Wilder Penfield's work with epileptics. He found seizures, a brain-wide event, had no bearing on mind. He found and was never able to induce a seizure that affected purely mental faculties. Why? Also, while he was to, for example, stimulate the brain to cause a patient's arm to move, he was never able to fool the patient into thinkin' he had moved his own arm. The patient was always able to distinguish between what he did of his own accord and was Penfield induced. Why?

What can we infer?

Safe to guess none of us here is a neuroscientist such as could engage properly with your "Why?". However I am sorry that you choose to explain by reference to the magical myth of 'Free Will'

[henry quirk]

Safe to guess none of us here is a neuroscientist such as could engage properly with your "Why?".

You don't need to be a neuroscientist.

Why you don't read his book...

https://ia801509.us.archive.org/33/item ... ind%20.pdf

...and see what you make of it.

However I am sorry that you choose to explain by reference to the magical myth of 'Free Will'

But you got no problem with the magic of Mike's determinism?

[Impenitent]

the affirmative Frenchman says I am the proverbial Oui...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

Anyway...

I'm still waitin' on someone to explain how this...

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

...leads to Mike's kinder, gentler world of peppermint-flavored unicorn farts.