Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[accelafine]

I suppose in the same way as your Ayn Rand wet dream one does. So the little troglodyte who refuses to explain anything is demanding an explanation?

[BigMike]

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.

Henry, if you’re looking for "peppermint-flavored unicorn farts," you’re not going to find them here. Determinism doesn’t lead to a magical utopia—it leads to a framework for understanding and addressing the real-world factors driving human behavior. It’s not about perfection; it’s about using knowledge of causality to create better systems.

If the brain operates as a deterministic machine, then harmful behaviors are the result of specific causes—poverty, trauma, lack of education, environmental influences. By addressing these causes, we can reduce suffering and improve outcomes. This isn’t fantasy; it’s how evidence-based policies have already led to progress in areas like public health, criminal justice reform, and education.

The "kinder, gentler world" comes not from denying determinism but from working with it. Recognizing that people aren’t inherently "good" or "evil" but shaped by circumstances shifts the focus from blame to solutions. If you’re still waiting for someone to sell you utopia, you’re misunderstanding the argument. Determinism isn’t a promise of paradise—it’s a tool for making the world incrementally better by working with reality rather than against it.

[attofishpi]

If the brain operates as a deterministic machine, then harmful behaviors are the result of specific causes—poverty, trauma, lack of education, environmental influences.

It makes no difference whether the brain operates as a 'deterministic machine' or not. Either way, addressing the causes of such things is what people generally attempt to do anyway. It's not rocket science mentality that requires consideration of determinism in every thought to address the causes of issues.

By addressing these causes, we can reduce suffering and improve outcomes. This isn’t fantasy; it’s how evidence-based policies have already led to progress in areas like public health, criminal justice reform, and education.

ALREADY HAPPENING, whether politicians and scientists believe in determinism or not.

[Dubious]

Simply understanding determinism isn't going to rule out all the human defects rampant in the world due to its endless lust for power, so stamped within our psyches, unsupervised by any boundaries except for those inevitably leading to catastrophe.

In light of that, to believe that by acknowledging the deterministic operations of our daily lives will somehow eventually force it into the straight and narrow seems to me rather naive and simplistic when considering human nature itself.

Put another way, explaining to an insane person why he's insane isn't going to make him any better. Humans, as a whole, have never been rational enough to be guided by its rules, even when many of them were obvious.

We've been a fuck-up on the planet since day one...or hasn't anyone noticed. If reality disallows an outcome not in our favor, we'll cancel it out and apply our own. Since when haven't we done this?

It's no-longer through mere ignorance that humans suffer the travesties of human nature but through corruption against which employing determinism as a tool of improvement is powerless.

[BigMike]

Simply understanding determinism isn't going to rule out all the human defects rampant in the world due to its endless lust for power, so stamped within our psyches, unsupervised by any boundaries except for those inevitably leading to catastrophe.

In light of that, to believe that by acknowledging the deterministic operations of our daily lives will somehow eventually force it into the straight and narrow seems to me rather naive and simplistic when considering human nature itself.

Put another way, explaining to an insane person why he's insane isn't going to make him any better. Humans, as a whole, have never been rational enough to be guided by its rules, even when many of them were obvious.

We've been a fuck-up on the planet since day one...or hasn't anyone noticed. If reality disallows an outcome not in our favor, we'll cancel it out and apply our own. Since when haven't we done this?

It's no-longer through mere ignorance that humans suffer the travesties of human nature but through corruption against which employing determinism as a tool of improvement is powerless.

You’re right that many attempts to address systemic issues like poverty, education, and trauma are already happening—but they’re often piecemeal and hampered by retributive mindsets that still dominate our justice and social systems. Determinism isn’t about reinventing the wheel—it’s about aligning efforts with the reality that behavior is shaped by causes, and addressing those causes systemically, rather than relying on outdated ideas of blame and "moral responsibility."

The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly affirmed the retributive nature of our justice system. In Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), the Court stated, “A criminal sentence must not be designed to punish criminal conduct merely for its own sake; rather, the criminal law seeks retribution as a just and deserved punishment for wrongful acts.” This shows how deeply ingrained retribution is in the legal system, which undermines efforts to focus on rehabilitation and prevention.

Believing in determinism isn’t required to enact change, but embracing its insights removes the moralistic baggage that perpetuates retributive approaches. Imagine what could be achieved if systemic reform wasn’t constantly fighting against the deeply entrenched belief in free will and the desire for punitive justice. It’s not about determinism in “every thought”; it’s about grounding policies in an accurate understanding of human behavior to make progress more consistent and effective.

[Dubious]

Believing in determinism isn’t required to enact change, but embracing its insights removes the moralistic baggage that perpetuates retributive approaches.

Why do you believe that removing the moralistic baggage by means of some supervised more rational entity called determinism compared to the high-flying blimps of free will, can prevent retributive approaches from happening? In what manner should determinism judge the perpetrators of crimes beyond any normal conception of evil. If determinism imposed the biology to grow a monster without a conscience, in what way would determinism by way of rehabilitation mend such a colossal defect? If such a complex of the pernicious were identified in the brain then, it seems to me, determinism would not seek to amend through rehabilitation but through a lobotomy or execution.

When measured against crime and the rule book of retributive justice, determinism seems nothing more than the application of an abstraction without any resolving power when considering actual cases.

Imagine what could be achieved if systemic reform wasn’t constantly fighting against the deeply entrenched belief in free will and the desire for punitive justice. It’s not about determinism in “every thought”; it’s about grounding policies in an accurate understanding of human behavior to make progress more consistent and effective.

Retributive justice is a complex subject, and on that we are also fairly divided. It's a matter of judgement who should be subject to retribution, separated from those amenable to being rehabilitated.

I also don't understand in what respect retributive approaches and systemic reform would have in direct alliance with determinism or free will as such. No amount of either will negate truly evil, sadistic or genocidal crimes and render them equal, more or less, as that which can be redirected through any of the usual protocols of rehabilitation.

But that's a separate subject and a big one to boot, too long for me!

[BigMike]

Believing in determinism isn’t required to enact change, but embracing its insights removes the moralistic baggage that perpetuates retributive approaches.

Why do you believe that removing the moralistic baggage by means of some supervised more rational entity called determinism compared to the high-flying blimps of free will, can prevent retributive approaches from happening? In what manner should determinism judge the perpetrators of crimes beyond any normal conception of evil. If determinism imposed the biology to grow a monster without a conscience, in what way would determinism by way of rehabilitation mend such a colossal defect? If such a complex of the pernicious were identified in the brain then, it seems to me, determinism would not seek to amend through rehabilitation but through a lobotomy or execution.

When measured against crime and the rule book of retributive justice, determinism seems nothing more than the application of an abstraction without any resolving power when considering actual cases.

Imagine what could be achieved if systemic reform wasn’t constantly fighting against the deeply entrenched belief in free will and the desire for punitive justice. It’s not about determinism in “every thought”; it’s about grounding policies in an accurate understanding of human behavior to make progress more consistent and effective.

Retributive justice is a complex subject, and on that we are also fairly divided. It's a matter of judgement who should be subject to retribution, separated from those amenable to being rehabilitated.

I also don't understand in what respect retributive approaches and systemic reform would have in direct alliance with determinism or free will as such. No amount of either will negate truly evil, sadistic or genocidal crimes and render them equal, more or less, as that which can be redirected through any of the usual protocols of rehabilitation.

But that's a separate subject and a big one to boot, too long for me!

You’ve raised an important point: how does determinism approach the “monsters”—those who commit acts so heinous they seem beyond rehabilitation? Determinism doesn’t deny the existence of profoundly harmful behaviors; it explains them as outcomes of causes—genetics, environment, trauma, or a combination thereof. But recognizing the causal origins of such behavior doesn’t mean excusing it. Instead, it shifts the focus from moral condemnation to pragmatic solutions.

Retribution satisfies an emotional desire to punish, but it does little to prevent future harm. Determinism seeks to understand why such behaviors arise and what interventions—if any—are possible. In extreme cases where rehabilitation isn’t feasible, like individuals with irreparable neurological defects or pathological disorders, a deterministic approach would still act practically rather than vindictively: isolation or incapacitation may be necessary to protect society, but not as a “just desert” for their actions.

This isn’t an abstraction—it’s already playing out in debates about neuroscience, criminal justice, and mental health. The deterministic lens doesn’t pretend all harmful behavior can be “mended”; it acknowledges that some cases require containment, while still rejecting the notion of moral blame. The focus becomes prevention: identifying root causes early, investing in mental health, and creating systems to reduce the emergence of “monsters” in the first place.

You also touch on the divide over retributive justice. That divide exists because of the tension between belief in free will—where blame and punishment feel righteous—and the growing evidence that behavior is caused. Determinism doesn’t promise a utopia free of evil; it promises a more rational response to it, grounded in understanding, not vengeance. And when you look at outcomes, rehabilitation-focused systems (like Norway’s) outperform punitive ones in reducing recidivism and improving safety.

You’re right—this is a vast topic. But at its core, determinism offers a framework to confront even the darkest aspects of human behavior without resorting to emotional responses that often make the problem worse. It’s not about “fixing everything”; it’s about making progress where we can, by working with reality rather than reacting to it.

[Age]

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.

But "mike's" kinder, gentler, and thus better world will never happen and occur while people like "henry quirk" REFUSE to stop fighting, and/or killing others, over its beliefs.

It is because of people like "henry quirk" WHY 'this world' remains a mean, cruel, and very ill and sick world.

[BigMike]

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.

But "mike's" kinder, gentler, and thus better world will never happen and occur while people like "henry quirk" REFUSE to stop fighting, and/or killing others, over its beliefs.

It is because of people like "henry quirk" WHY 'this world' remains a mean, cruel, and very ill and sick world.

Progress is slow, no doubt about it. Some people hold on tightly to deeply ingrained beliefs—beliefs that feel intuitive or comforting, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. Others are quicker to see and respond to that evidence, recognizing that clinging to old ways of thinking only perpetuates the very problems we’re trying to solve.

The idea that our thoughts, desires, and actions are driven by causes doesn’t sit well with everyone. It challenges the ego, the illusion of being fully “in control,” and the moral frameworks built on free will. But that discomfort doesn’t make the evidence any less valid. Slowly—generation by generation, conversation by conversation—more people are starting to understand the deterministic nature of human behavior, and with that understanding comes a shift toward more compassionate, rational solutions.

What holds us back isn’t the lack of evidence—it’s the resistance to letting go of beliefs that have been part of our cultural and philosophical fabric for centuries. Progress may be slow, but it is happening. The question is how long it will take for enough people to see that accepting determinism doesn’t strip us of meaning or morality; it gives us the tools to address the causes of suffering more effectively and move toward a world that isn’t shaped by outdated myths, but by reality.

[Belinda]

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.

But "mike's" kinder, gentler, and thus better world will never happen and occur while people like "henry quirk" REFUSE to stop fighting, and/or killing others, over its beliefs.

It is because of people like "henry quirk" WHY 'this world' remains a mean, cruel, and very ill and sick world.

Age, this is why liberal education for all is so much needed . Liberal education teaches people not bare facts alone, but how to think, judge, and evaluate.

"People like henry quirk" are good people who find it hard to review and criticise their own entrenched beliefs. Liberal education teaches how to attain an open and a flexible mind governed by ordinary everyday human sympathy.

[mickthinks]

Our actions, thoughts, and decisions are themselves causes within the deterministic framework.

… the trajectory includes our input.

There’s the contradiction and it is fatal to your thesis, I think. If something is within the system, it’s not an input. If it’s an input it must come in from outside.

[Belinda]

Our actions, thoughts, and decisions are themselves causes within the deterministic framework.

… the trajectory includes our input.

There’s the contradiction and it is fatal to your thesis, I think. If something is within the system, it’s not an input. If it’s an input it must come in from outside.

'Trajectory ' is of course a metaphor and a rather apt one for epistemological purposes. The 'outside' of the causation trajectory is not Free Will ,which if it existed would be random, but is that the future is in process of becoming.

[BigMike]

Our actions, thoughts, and decisions are themselves causes within the deterministic framework.

… the trajectory includes our input.

There’s the contradiction and it is fatal to your thesis, I think. If something is within the system, it’s not an input. If it’s an input it must come in from outside.

There’s no contradiction here; the issue lies in your misunderstanding of the term input within a deterministic system. "Input" doesn’t imply something coming from outside the system—it refers to a cause within the system that influences subsequent events. In a deterministic framework, everything—including our thoughts, actions, and decisions—is part of the causal chain. The system is closed, but that doesn’t mean causal relationships stop existing.

For example, when I make an argument and you respond, both my statement and your response are events within the deterministic system. My argument serves as an input (a cause) that influences your reaction, which in turn becomes another cause. This isn’t a contradiction—it’s causality playing out within the framework of determinism.

To say that something can’t be an input because it’s "inside" the system is to misunderstand how determinism works. Every cause is an input into what happens next, and every effect becomes a cause in turn. The trajectory isn’t something fixed in a vacuum—it unfolds through a cascade of causes and effects, including our actions, which are themselves determined by prior causes.

So no, this isn’t fatal to my thesis; it actually reinforces it. Determinism doesn’t require inputs to exist outside the system. Everything we do, say, or think is part of the system and influences its trajectory—that’s the point.

[mickthinks]

"Input" doesn’t imply something coming from outside the system

lol. Rewrite the dictionary why don’t you!

Determinism doesn’t require inputs to exist outside the system

I think you’d be better saying “ Determinism doesn’t require inputs” or even “Determinism doesn’t have inputs”.

[BigMike]

"Input" doesn’t imply something coming from outside the system

lol. Rewrite the dictionary why don’t you!

Determinism doesn’t require inputs to exist outside the system

I think you’d be better saying “ Determinism doesn’t require inputs” or even “Determinism doesn’t have inputs”.

Your smug laughter doesn’t hide the fact that you’re completely missing the point. This isn’t about “rewriting the dictionary”—it’s about understanding how causality works within a deterministic system. If you think the word input only applies to something external, then you’re stuck on semantics and ignoring substance.

In a deterministic system, everything—every cause, every action, every thought—is part of the system and feeds into what happens next. The fact that the system is closed doesn’t mean causality stops existing or that no relationships occur within it. Saying "determinism doesn’t have inputs" is a meaningless strawman and a lazy dodge of the argument.

If you can’t engage with the concept beyond nitpicking a single word while ignoring the larger framework, then you’re not here to debate—you’re here to derail the discussion. Either address the point or admit you don’t understand it.