Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[mickthinks]

lol

[BigMike]

lol

“Lol”? That’s the best you’ve got? If your contribution to this discussion boils down to smug giggles and a single dismissive syllable, then you’ve already admitted you have nothing of substance to say. Either engage like an adult or sit this one out. I’m here for ideas, not playground taunts.

[henry quirk]

As I said...

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

You can't, so stop tryin'.

Really, all I want from you is a response to this...

-----

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?

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

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.

[mickthinks]

“Lol”? That’s the best you’ve got?

Dude, you’ve been reduced to "Input" doesn’t imply something coming from outside the system. I think a lol is all you deserve.

[BigMike]

As I said...

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

You can't, so stop tryin'.

Really, all I want from you is a response to this...

-----

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?

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

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.

Henry, you’re throwing out half-baked philosophical tangents, anecdotes, and cherry-picked findings as though they’re a coherent rebuttal to determinism. You keep demanding evidence while sidestepping the mountain of it that already exists. Neuroscience, physics, and biology have been systematically uncovering how brain activity and behavior operate under physical laws. The entire framework of modern science rests on determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and the four fundamental physical interactions. It works. That’s why we can predict natural phenomena, model complex systems, and create technologies that rely on the deterministic nature of physical processes.

Your supposed “facts” about hemispherectomies and Penfield’s work are misrepresented and oversimplified. A hemispherectomy doesn’t “prove” the mind isn’t brain-dependent; it highlights the brain’s extraordinary plasticity—the ability of one hemisphere to compensate for the loss of another. That doesn’t require a soul or any ghost in the machine. As for Penfield, his inability to induce a subjective sense of agency doesn’t magically prove free will exists; it merely underscores the complexity of how the brain generates our sense of self. The brain distinguishes between internally initiated actions and external stimuli—it’s a function of its deterministic architecture, not evidence for some immaterial entity.

You call me out for not addressing alternatives while conveniently hand-waving away the foundational principles of determinism, conservation laws, and causality. Your insistence on a “hylomorphic” explanation is fine—go ahead and advocate it—but don’t pretend you’ve provided anything remotely resembling evidence for it. If you’re going to invoke metaphysical concepts, the burden of proof is on you to show they have any explanatory or predictive power comparable to the deterministic frameworks science relies upon.

The real question here is whether you actually disagree with the principles of determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and physical interactions—or if you’re just throwing out tangential anecdotes to muddy the waters. If you reject determinism outright, then this discussion is pointless because you’re denying the very foundation on which every field of science operates. Let’s build agreements brick by brick: do you accept that physical processes operate under causal laws? If not, let’s hear your reasoning. If you do, then let’s talk seriously about how those principles apply to human behavior. Until then, this endless barrage of philosophical tap-dancing is just noise.

[henry quirk]

Henry, you’re throwing out half-baked philosophical tangents, anecdotes, and cherry-picked findings as though they’re a coherent rebuttal to determinism.

No, Mike. I offered some evidence that mind is not strictly a product of brain activity, and that free will hasn't been disproven. That's all. More generally, in this thread and others, I've challenged your assertion that reforming society is possible if free will were relegated to the trash heap and if it were commonly accepted that man is a meat machine. That's all. I haven't railed against cause & effect.

You keep demanding evidence while sidestepping the mountain of it that already exists. Neuroscience, physics, and biology have been systematically uncovering how brain activity and behavior operate under physical laws.

You keep sayin' that but offer nuthin' in support of that assertion. Not a link to a study. Not a copy & paste of a paper. As I say, you can't even get Libet's...

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

...work right, but we're supposed to take your word...on anything?

The entire framework of modern science rests on determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and the four fundamental physical interactions. It works. That’s why we can predict natural phenomena, model complex systems, and create technologies that rely on the deterministic nature of physical processes.

As I say: I haven't railed against cause & effect, or the regularity of the world. All I've done is challenge you on your unsubstantiated claims about man's nature.

Your supposed “facts” about hemispherectomies and Penfield’s work are misrepresented and oversimplified.

Here's what the man himself has to say...

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

...see? I'm not afraid to back my assertions.

As for Penfield, his inability to induce a subjective sense of agency doesn’t magically prove free will exists

He doesn't say it does, and neither have I. You need to keep up, Mike.

You call me out for not addressing alternatives...

Becuz you haven't and still aren't.

...while conveniently hand-waving away the foundational principles of determinism, conservation laws, and causality

I haven't done that, Mike.

don’t pretend you’ve provided anything remotely resembling evidence for it.

My evidence, so far, has been Penfield's work, Libet's research, and some common, verifiable results of surgeries. Together, they cast serious doubt on your idea man is a meat machine. And they stand as a counter to your own evidence of...wait...hold on...you haven't actually offered any evidence. You've asserted. And made appeals to unspecified authority. And, of course, you're incapable of understanding what your own determinism entails, what the logical conclusion of that determinism is whether we're free wills or meat machines (with the former we get nuthin' but atrocity; with the later we get nuthin' at all 'cept what blind forces drive us to [not necessarily better or kinder or more just]).

The real question here is whether you actually disagree with the principles of determinism

No, Mike. The real question is: will Big Mike ever put his money were his mouth is?

this discussion is pointless

If we're the meat machines you say we are, then, yes, this causally inevitable exchange of nuthin' about nuthin' is pointless. If we're free wills, no, this conversation has merit.

But, hey, you can always stick me in your penalty box again. I certainly don't need to tussle with you directly to comment on your posts.

[BigMike]

Henry, you’re throwing out half-baked philosophical tangents, anecdotes, and cherry-picked findings as though they’re a coherent rebuttal to determinism.

No, Mike. I offered some evidence that mind is not strictly a product of brain activity, and that free will hasn't been disproven. That's all. More generally, in this thread and others, I've challenged your assertion that reforming society is possible if free will were relegated to the trash heap and if it were commonly accepted that man is a meat machine. That's all. I haven't railed against cause & effect.

You keep demanding evidence while sidestepping the mountain of it that already exists. Neuroscience, physics, and biology have been systematically uncovering how brain activity and behavior operate under physical laws.

You keep sayin' that but offer nuthin' in support of that assertion. Not a link to a study. Not a copy & paste of a paper. As I say, you can't even get Libet's...

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

...work right, but we're supposed to take your word...on anything?

The entire framework of modern science rests on determinism—conservation laws, causal relationships, and the four fundamental physical interactions. It works. That’s why we can predict natural phenomena, model complex systems, and create technologies that rely on the deterministic nature of physical processes.

As I say: I haven't railed against cause & effect, or the regularity of the world. All I've done is challenge you on your unsubstantiated claims about man's nature.

Your supposed “facts” about hemispherectomies and Penfield’s work are misrepresented and oversimplified.

Here's what the man himself has to say...

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

...see? I'm not afraid to back my assertions.

As for Penfield, his inability to induce a subjective sense of agency doesn’t magically prove free will exists

He doesn't say it does, and neither have I. You need to keep up, Mike.

You call me out for not addressing alternatives...

Becuz you haven't and still aren't.

...while conveniently hand-waving away the foundational principles of determinism, conservation laws, and causality

I haven't done that, Mike.

don’t pretend you’ve provided anything remotely resembling evidence for it.

My evidence, so far, has been Penfield's work, Libet's research, and some common, verifiable results of surgeries. Together, they cast serious doubt on your idea man is a meat machine. And they stand as a counter to your own evidence of...wait...hold on...you haven't actually offered any evidence. You've asserted. And made appeals to unspecified authority. And, of course, you're incapable of understanding what your own determinism entails, what the logical conclusion of that determinism is whether we're free wills or meat machines (with the former we get nuthin' but atrocity; with the later we get nuthin' at all 'cept what blind forces drive us to [not necessarily better or kinder or more just]).

The real question here is whether you actually disagree with the principles of determinism

No, Mike. The real question is: will Big Mike ever put his money were his mouth is?

this discussion is pointless

If we're the meat machines you say we are, then, yes, this causally inevitable exchange of nuthin' about nuthin' is pointless. If we're free wills, no, this conversation has merit.

But, hey, you can always stick me in your penalty box again. I certainly don't need to tussle with you directly to comment on your posts.

Henry, I don’t need to “put my money where my mouth is” when the entire modern scientific understanding of the universe already does that for me. Conservation laws, causal determinism, and the four fundamental forces underpin everything—physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience. The fact that you’re able to use technology to post your replies on this forum proves the deterministic nature of the physical processes that made it possible. You don’t get to cherry-pick causality when it suits your argument and reject it when it challenges your beliefs about human nature.

Let’s stop pretending you’re offering anything that resembles a meaningful rebuttal. Wilder Penfield’s observations, which you’re so eager to parade around, don’t disprove determinism or “meat machines.” They show that the brain distinguishes between self-generated and external signals, which is precisely what we’d expect in a complex, evolved neural system. That’s not evidence for free will—it’s evidence for how the brain processes inputs. And your desperate appeal to hemispherectomies misrepresents what actually happens. The fact that a person can retain personality and cognition despite losing half their brain is evidence of the brain’s redundancy and plasticity, not of some immaterial “mind” floating above it all.

As for Libet, it’s laughable that you keep linking his work while ignoring its central conclusion: conscious decisions are preceded by measurable brain activity. Libet’s own belief in “free will” was a subjective interpretation, not a scientific finding. The data still demonstrates that our sense of agency follows, rather than initiates, brain activity.

What you’re really doing is burying this discussion under philosophical hand-waving while refusing to engage with the actual principles of determinism. Do you reject conservation laws? Causality? The physical basis of the brain and behavior? If not, then everything you’re bringing up—Penfield, Libet, surgery anecdotes—is just noise. It doesn’t refute determinism, because determinism doesn’t require your approval.

If you want to defend free will, then demonstrate it. Show me a single example of an uncaused action, a decision made free of biological, environmental, or prior causal influence. You can’t—because no such evidence exists. Until you’re ready to confront that reality, this conversation is just you rearranging philosophical deck chairs while the deterministic ship sails on without you.

[henry quirk]

Henry, I don’t need to “put my money where my mouth is” when the entire modern scientific understanding of the universe already does that for me.

Please, sir, cite even one study, one research paper, that concludes this: 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.

I dare you.

If you want to defend free will

When I begin a thread called The Reality of Free Will in Life, the Universe, and Everything you can be sure I'll defend it, and I'll so a damned sight better than you've defended 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.

...til then, all I have to do is ask you to stop wastin' forum bandwidth and post your evidence.

[BigMike]

Henry, I don’t need to “put my money where my mouth is” when the entire modern scientific understanding of the universe already does that for me.

Please, sir, cite even one study, one research paper, that concludes this: 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.

I dare you.

If you want to defend free will

When I begin a thread called The Reality of Free Will in Life, the Universe, and Everything you can be sure I'll defend it, and I'll so a damned sight better than you've defended 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.

...til then, all I have to do is ask you to stop wastin' forum bandwidth and post your evidence.

You’re trying to make this about a single paper or study as though I need a neatly packaged conclusion that spells out my position word for word. That’s not how scientific knowledge works. The deterministic nature of the brain and behavior isn’t some fringe hypothesis—it’s a conclusion derived from mountains of evidence across neuroscience, physics, and biology. The burden isn’t on me to find a paper titled "Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Here’s Why"—it’s on you to explain how your cherished free will escapes the physical laws that govern everything else.

Let’s talk specifics since you’re so keen on demanding “evidence.” Studies like Libet’s and subsequent research—e.g., Soon et al. (2008) from the Nature Neuroscience journal—demonstrate that decisions can be predicted based on brain activity several seconds before the individual is consciously aware of making them. Functional MRI scans and EEG readings repeatedly show that conscious “choice” follows neural processes—it doesn’t initiate them.

If you want more evidence, look into Benjamin Libet’s experiments, Soon’s predictive studies on prefrontal cortex activity, and work like Haynes’s research on brain determinism. All of it points to the same conclusion: decisions emerge from unconscious processes that are measurable and consistent with deterministic causality. Your experience of “choosing” is just the brain registering the result of these processes.

As for your repeated attempts to hand-wave this away as “assertions,” the entire framework of science is built on causality. Every law of physics, every observation about matter and energy, every measurable phenomenon operates under deterministic principles. Your brain—an arrangement of neurons and electrochemical processes—is no exception.

What’s truly telling here is your refusal to address the challenge I posed: if you want to defend free will, provide evidence of an uncaused decision, a process free from biological, environmental, or prior influences. Instead of engaging, you’re demanding “studies” that spell out conclusions while ignoring the mountain of data already available.

I’ve shown my work. You don’t like the answer because it disrupts the illusion of your agency, so you keep sidestepping the principles of determinism. If you’re ready to have an honest discussion, address the question: how do your thoughts and decisions escape the same physical laws that govern everything else? Until then, spare me the empty “bandwidth” whining.

[Leontiskos]

Disagreement doesn’t require free will

Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.

---

"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...

Fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

Disagreement doesn’t require free will

Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.

You're right: he's wrong.

I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.

[BigMike]

Disagreement doesn’t require free will

Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.

---

"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...

Fair enough.

You’re mistaking the experience of disagreement for evidence of free will. Disagreeing doesn’t require free will; it only requires that people perceive themselves as deliberating and holding different positions—both of which are entirely consistent with determinism.

Under determinism, disagreement is just another result of prior causes: biological makeup, personal experiences, environmental influences, and information inputs. The fact that we feel like we’re freely deliberating doesn’t mean we actually are. It’s the brain running its deterministic processes—evaluating inputs, weighing outcomes, and generating an output—while creating the illusion of conscious choice.

Your “performative contradiction” argument falls apart because it assumes that experiencing something means it’s metaphysically real. Just because someone feels like they’re making an autonomous choice doesn’t make free will true. You’re conflating subjective experience with objective reality. The brain gives us the sense of agency because that’s how its processes are structured, but that doesn’t mean those processes are free from causality.

If you’re going to argue that disagreement “requires free will,” then you need to demonstrate how it escapes the causal chain of events—how decisions, beliefs, or arguments arise without being determined by prior causes. Until then, disagreement remains a perfectly natural consequence of deterministic processes running on different inputs, not proof of free deliberation.

[BigMike]

Disagreement doesn’t require free will

Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.

You're right: he's wrong.

I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.

Do you seriously believe that your “free will” is instructing your brain what to do and think? If so, are you saying that you—whatever you mean by “you” (mind, soul, free will, take your pick)—are doing the thinking before engaging your brain? If that’s the case, then you’re claiming that “you” can think without a brain.

Are you mad?

Your entire position collapses under its own incoherence. The brain is the organ that produces thought. If you strip away the brain, where exactly does your free will exist? Floating in the ether? Whispering ideas into your neurons from some mystical outside space? You’ve invoked “free will” as though it’s some magical puppeteer, while ignoring the fact that every thought, action, and belief has a physical basis—neurons firing, synapses connecting, and processes governed entirely by deterministic physical laws.

You accuse me of self-contradiction while failing to realize that your entire position is just a refusal to engage with reality. Free will isn’t something you can feel into existence—it either exists or it doesn’t. The fact that you experience “choice” doesn’t mean it’s free; it’s simply the brain running its processes and feeding you the illusion of agency.

So again, I ask: if your “you” is doing the thinking before your brain kicks in, what is this “you,” and where does it exist? Show me any evidence of thoughts or decisions happening outside of brain activity. Until you can do that, you’re the one tangled in contradictions, defending a fantasy because the truth makes you uncomfortable.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure it does, in the sense that the one who takes himself to be disagreeing is taking himself to have free will and the power of free deliberation. You are involved in a performative self-contradiction.

You're right: he's wrong.

I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.

Do you seriously believe that your “free will” is instructing your brain what to do and think?

Who are you talking to? To the causal factors which make me what I am? Or to a person, whom you hope to persuade?

Who is speaking? Is it just the sum of prior causal factors, that without regard for truth or reason make the lump of materials called "Big Mike" think what he thinks, or Big Mike the person who can understand?

That's what a "performative inconsistency" means. It means you're talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. You're pretending that Determinism is a fact, yet, yourself, acting as if it's not.

So think harder. You've missed the obvious.

[BigMike]

You're right: he's wrong.

I've been trying to point that out to him for pages and pages. He just refuses to recognize it...thus exercising his free choice to ignore the plain facts. I'm certain it's no longer his being causally predetermined to believe in Determinism, but rather his personal determination never to face the truth...even the truth of his own actions.

Do you seriously believe that your “free will” is instructing your brain what to do and think?

Who are you talking to? To the causal factors which make me what I am? Or to a person, whom you hope to persuade?

Who is speaking? Is it just the sum of prior causal factors, that without regard for truth or reason make the lump of materials called "Big Mike" think what he thinks, or Big Mike the person who can understand?

That's what a "performative inconsistency" means. It means you're talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. You're pretending that Determinism is a fact, yet, yourself, acting as if it's not.

So think harder. You've missed the obvious.

“Think harder”? Coming from you, that’s rich. The irony here is astounding—you’re literally debating me while denying that thoughts and decisions are the result of deterministic processes. So tell me, Immanuel, is your free will thinking for you without engaging your brain? Are you out here reasoning with a brainless mind, floating untethered from reality? Because by your own logic, that’s exactly what you’re claiming.

You want to accuse me of “performative inconsistency” while failing to grasp the very concept of determinism. Me debating you doesn’t disprove determinism; it proves it. My responses are the result of inputs—your arguments, my knowledge, the evidence at hand—processed by my brain and resulting in this output. That’s how causality works. Your insistence that I’m “acting as if it’s not true” shows you don’t even understand what you’re arguing against.

You’re not presenting a counterargument; you’re waving your hands and shouting “Gotcha!” while completely failing to engage with the principles of causality and the physical processes underlying thought. If you truly believe your free will exists outside of causal factors, then where is it coming from? Are you summoning thoughts from the ether, while somehow managing to bypass your own brain? If that’s the case, congratulations—you’re officially engaging in brainless thinking, just as you accuse me of.

I’ll stick with reason, evidence, and the consistent understanding of how thought and behavior arise. You can keep floating in your contradictory fantasy where thoughts magically appear, uncaused, and you somehow “think” without a brain. You’ve missed the obvious, Immanuel: you’re debating yourself into nonsense.