Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Leontiskos]

You’re mistaking the experience of disagreement for evidence of free will.

You're not following. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that your denial of free will in the context of promoting your political program is incoherent. And it is.

• BigMike: Choice does not exist, so we're going to move beyond it in government. Give me your money in the form of taxes, and I will decide what we should do with the money as your governor.
  Citizens: But isn't your decision about what to do with the tax money a choice?
  BigMike: Nevermind that question. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There are no choices, so give me your money and let's be done with it.

You are swindling them. "There are no choices.*"

* Except for mine.

---

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.

Okay, well I am glad that others are pointing it out.

[BigMike]

You’re mistaking the experience of disagreement for evidence of free will.

You're not following. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that your denial of free will in the context of promoting your political program is incoherent. And it is.

• BigMike: Choice does not exist, so we're going to move beyond it in government. Give me your money in the form of taxes, and I will decide what we should do with the money as your governor.
  Citizens: But isn't your decision about what to do with the tax money a choice?
  BigMike: Nevermind that question. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There are no choices, so give me your money and let's be done with it.

You are swindling them. "There are no choices.*"

* Except for mine.

---

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.

Okay, well I am glad that others are pointing it out.

Your attempt to turn this into a childish strawman about “choices” and tax dollars is as lazy as it is dishonest. You’re not engaging with the actual argument—you’re just performing rhetorical acrobatics to sidestep it. Let me spell this out for you: under determinism, decisions still happen. The process of weighing options, considering outcomes, and arriving at a decision is a deterministic chain of cause and effect, not evidence of some magical, metaphysical “choice.”

Your caricature of my position—“There are no choices, give me your money”—is laughable. My point is that decisions in governance should be guided by evidence, data, and a clear understanding of the deterministic forces shaping human behavior. That’s not a “choice” in the magical free will sense you’re clinging to; it’s an outcome derived from a rational process grounded in reality.

And no, there’s no contradiction here. I’m not claiming to have some privileged “choice” outside of determinism. My proposals, arguments, and ideas are just as much a product of cause and effect as anyone else’s. The difference is I acknowledge it. What you’re doing is projecting your inability to let go of free will onto me and pretending it’s a coherent criticism. It’s not.

If you want to debate determinism seriously, then confront the actual principles of causality, conservation laws, and the evidence that decisions arise from brain processes governed by physical laws. If you can’t do that, then at least stop peddling these bad-faith strawmen as though they’re insightful. They’re not—they’re just lazy.

[Leontiskos]

My point is that decisions in governance should be guided by evidence, data, and a clear understanding of the deterministic forces shaping human behavior.

And my point is that when you proffer an argument in disagreement with others you are involved in notions of free will. If someone did not believe in free will then they would not proffer arguments and disagree with others.

But I see that this has already been pointed out to you numerous times in the thread. So good luck with your contradictions.

[BigMike]

My point is that decisions in governance should be guided by evidence, data, and a clear understanding of the deterministic forces shaping human behavior.

And my point is that when you proffer an argument in disagreement with others you are involved in notions of free will. If someone did not believe in free will then they would not proffer arguments and disagree with others.

But I see that this has already been pointed out to you numerous times in the thread. So good luck with your contradictions.

Are you seriously suggesting that “when you proffer an argument in disagreement with others” the thinking involved happens outside of your brain? Does your immaterial soul, ghost, or non-physical “you” sit in the ether, arguing independently of the physical processes in your brain? Are you claiming that you can think without your brain? If so, congratulations—you’ve just declared your thoughts and arguments brainless.

Here’s the reality you’re struggling to avoid: disagreement, debate, and argument are brain functions. They’re the product of neurons firing, prior knowledge, environmental inputs, and causal processes. They don’t require free will; they require a functioning brain governed by physical laws. You can feel like you’re freely choosing your words, but that doesn’t mean the underlying processes aren’t deterministic.

The fact that you’re debating me doesn’t disprove determinism—it proves it. Your thoughts, just like mine, are a cascade of causes and effects. Clinging to the illusion of free will while sitting there typing with your brain only highlights the contradiction in your position, not mine. So again, are you seriously arguing that your mind operates without a brain? Or are you ready to accept the obvious: your arguments, like everything else, are determined by the physical processes happening inside your skull?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

...you’re literally debating me while denying that thoughts and decisions are the result of deterministic processes.

If they were simply the result of Deterministic processes, I couldn't debate you, and you couldn't debate me. There'd be nothing but what the prior causal forces had already predetermined to be the outcome. "Changing a mind" would be nothing but a total delusion in itself.

So tell me, Immanuel, is your free will thinking for you without engaging your brain?

I have never even suggested that the brain is not ALSO involved in cognition. I've just pointed out that it's by no means obvious from that that Determinism holds true. Remember: coincidence is not causality.

...failing to grasp the very concept of determinism.

I understand it. But I can see that you don't. At least, you're always taxicabbing your belief in it. That's obvious.

You’re not presenting a counterargument;

Yes, I am. And so is Henry, and Leontiskos, and everybody else who's arguing with you. I hate to tell you, but it's you that's not understanding.

I’ll stick with reason, evidence, and the consistent understanding...

None of these things would have any real existence in a Deterministic universe. They'd all be delusions. The only truth would be that Big Mike was being caused to imagine there was a "him" distinct from the causal chain, who was capable of "reason" or "understanding," or "consistency," but really, there was no such entity. There was only the universe and its inevitable causal grinding going on. And "Mike" would have no real existence at all. He should rather be known by his proper name, "delusory causal byproduct." Or "epiphenomenon," if you prefer.

But I'll bet you still don't get the problem. You're not paying attention.

There's an old saying: "If a man calls you a jackass, dismiss him. If two or three men call you a jackass, buy yourself a saddle." Well, what do you buy when everybody sees what you don't?

[BigMike]

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.

...you’re literally debating me while denying that thoughts and decisions are the result of deterministic processes.

If they were simply the result of Deterministic processes, I couldn't debate you, and you couldn't debate me. There'd be nothing but what the prior causal forces had already predetermined to be the outcome. "Changing a mind" would be nothing but a total delusion in itself.

So tell me, Immanuel, is your free will thinking for you without engaging your brain?

I have never even suggested that the brain is not ALSO involved in cognition. I've just pointed out that it's by no means obvious from that that Determinism holds true. Remember: coincidence is not causality.

...failing to grasp the very concept of determinism.

I understand it. But I can see that you don't. At least, you're always taxicabbing your belief in it. That's obvious.

You’re not presenting a counterargument;

Yes, I am. And so is Henry, and Leontiskos, and everybody else who's arguing with you. I hate to tell you, but it's you that's not understanding.

I’ll stick with reason, evidence, and the consistent understanding...

None of these things would have any real existence in a Deterministic universe. They'd all be delusions. The only truth would be that Big Mike was being caused to imagine there was a "him" distinct from the causal chain, who was capable of "reason" or "understanding," or "consistency," but really, there was no such entity. There was only the universe and its inevitable causal grinding going on. And "Mike" would have no real existence at all. He should rather be known by his proper name, "delusory causal byproduct." Or "epiphenomenon," if you prefer.

But I'll bet you still don't get the problem. You're not paying attention.

There's an old saying: "If a man calls you a jackass, dismiss him. If two or three men call you a jackass, buy yourself a saddle." Well, what do you buy when everybody sees what you don't?

So now you admit the brain is “also” involved in cognition, but somehow that still leaves room for free will? I’d love to know what you think is doing the thinking, then. If it’s not just the brain—if free will is in play—where is this magical force coming from? Does it operate outside causality? Does it produce thoughts and actions with no prior causes? Because if so, you’ve abandoned reason entirely.

Let me remind you: causality is the foundation of everything. Effects don’t just appear out of nowhere—there are always causes that precede them. If you claim free will “chooses” your thoughts or actions, then you’re saying free will causes them. But that means free will must also be part of the causal chain, subject to the same deterministic principles. You don’t escape determinism by stamping “free will” onto it; you just bury yourself in incoherence.

The brain doesn’t just coincide with cognition; it’s the source of it. Every thought you have, every decision you make, is a result of brain processes—neurons firing, synapses connecting, patterns shaped by your biology and experiences. There’s no need for an immaterial ghost pulling the strings. The evidence that brain activity precedes conscious decisions (like Libet’s experiments and subsequent studies) makes this clear.

So what exactly do you think your free will is doing? Is it thinking before your brain does? If so, you’re claiming to have thoughts without a brain. That’s absurd. Your position is nothing more than philosophical hand-waving to defend a cherished illusion, while ignoring both the principles of causality and the overwhelming evidence that thought arises from physical processes.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you admit that your brain is the causal engine of your thoughts, or you’re claiming some spooky, magical force exists outside causality to generate them. If you think your free will floats free of your brain, you’re arguing for brainless thinking—congratulations on embracing nonsense.

[Immanuel Can]

So now you admit the brain is “also” involved in cognition,

This comes as a surprise to you? You're not paying attention at all.

Does it produce thoughts and actions with no prior causes? Because if so, you’ve abandoned reason entirely.

The opposite is actually true: if you've assigned the source of thoughts and actions to nothing more than material causes, you've abandoned not just reason, but logic, evidence, humanity, morality and science as well.

Let me remind you: causality is the foundation of everything.

That's your assumption. And it's incorrect.

Effects don’t just appear out of nowhere—there are always causes that precede them.

"Causes" include cognitive and volitional "causes." You're naively addicted the proposition that all "causes" have to be material. But a person can initiate a causal chain, by deciding to do so -- just like you're pretending to do right now, actually.

So what exactly do you think your free will is doing? Is it thinking before your brain does?

Brains qua meat don't "think." Only minds can think. Minds inhabit brains, but are not identical with them. All brains can do is manifest the presence of a thought or idea. But a brain is just meat.

But you'll never see it. You'll continue to deny with your actions what you profess with your mouth, because your real reasons obviously have nothing to do facts. It has to do with the ideology that possesses you. That much, anybody can see.

[henry quirk]

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.

So 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.

...is just your subjective interpretation?

*

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.

Then postin' one measly, lil, link to research that is as definitive as 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.

...ought to be easy-peasy, yes?

*

The burden isn’t on me to find a paper titled "Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Here’s Why"

In your thread, where you make the claims, yes, Mike, it's on you.

*

it’s on you to explain how your cherished free will escapes the physical laws that govern everything else.

In my thread, where I make the claims, yes, it will be. This is not my thread.

*

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.

And what does Libet conclude?

*

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.

No sir, that is not the conclusion. But, prove me wrong. Link the work, then quote the actual conclusions.

*

provide evidence of an uncaused decision

I never said diddly about an uncaused decision, Mike. You, as a free will, cause your decision, and the action that follows.

*

free from biological, environmental, or prior influences.

I never said we weren't or aren't influenced, Mike. We aren't caused by those.

*

you’re demanding “studies” that spell out conclusions while ignoring the mountain of data already available.

I'm askin' you for sumthin' as definitive as you are when you say...

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.

[Alexiev]

The Empire of the Ants is a deterministic place. WE imagine that ants cannot make choices; they respond willy-nilly to the dictates of their biology.

Of course we don't know this. We're just guessing. The more we learn about non-human animals, the more volitional they appear.

WE do know about humans. That's because we are humans, and we know that we make choices. Whether the choices are "determined" by circumstance or biology is unclear. Nature vs. nurture is not resolvable.

There are certainly reasons for our choices. I'd suggest the reasons are sometimes influenced by culture, sometimes by biology. It's irrelevant. Why would our choices about politics, or justice, or (indeed) anything be different if we accept that the future is predetermined? Since we are unaware of this destiny, it is irrelevant to us, just as the predetermined rank of the next card to be dealt off the top of the deck is irrelevant to the gambler. We choose based on what we know, not what we don't know. We choose based on our cultural, biological and personal goals and predilections.

Lawrence Sterne wrote that "God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb." The evolutionist would claim, "The lamb must adapt to the wind". Both are wrong. Often, the wind isn't tempered, and the lamb doesn't adapt. Atropos, with her abhorred shears, takes charge. But none of this is relevant to our decision-making.

[BigMike]

So now you admit the brain is “also” involved in cognition,

This comes as a surprise to you? You're not paying attention at all.

Does it produce thoughts and actions with no prior causes? Because if so, you’ve abandoned reason entirely.

The opposite is actually true: if you've assigned the source of thoughts and actions to nothing more than material causes, you've abandoned not just reason, but logic, evidence, humanity, morality and science as well.

Let me remind you: causality is the foundation of everything.

That's your assumption. And it's incorrect.

Effects don’t just appear out of nowhere—there are always causes that precede them.

"Causes" include cognitive and volitional "causes." You're naively addicted the proposition that all "causes" have to be material. But a person can initiate a causal chain, by deciding to do so -- just like you're pretending to do right now, actually.

So what exactly do you think your free will is doing? Is it thinking before your brain does?

Brains qua meat don't "think." Only minds can think. Minds inhabit brains, but are not identical with them. All brains can do is manifest the presence of a thought or idea. But a brain is just meat.

But you'll never see it. You'll continue to deny with your actions what you profess with your mouth, because your real reasons obviously have nothing to do facts. It has to do with the ideology that possesses you. That much, anybody can see.

If brains don’t think, then why does a bottle of scotch change how someone thinks? Why does brain damage alter personality, reasoning, and memory? Why does someone become smarter, understand more, and recall better when their brain grows new synaptic connections in response to learning and repetition? These aren’t mysterious “mind” events happening apart from the brain—they’re clear examples of how cognition is rooted in the brain’s physical processes.

If thinking isn’t tied to the brain, then explain why anesthetics can render someone unconscious, removing their ability to think entirely. Is their mystical “mind” just taking a nap while the brain gets chemically hijacked? Or do these examples make it painfully clear that thought is inherently tied to the brain’s activity?

You want to dismiss the brain as "just meat" while conveniently ignoring the mountain of evidence showing how changes to the brain directly result in changes to cognition. Your vague appeal to a “mind” that somehow “inhabits” the brain is not only unsupported by evidence—it’s contradicted by the very facts you’re dodging.

If free will or this "mind" you tout actually does the thinking, then why does its performance depend entirely on the condition of the brain? And if you claim free will can initiate causal chains, you still need to explain how it influences the brain without breaking conservation laws. Does your immaterial "mind" inject energy or momentum into the physical system? Where’s the reaction to balance the equation?

Your refusal to engage with these realities isn’t an argument—it’s intellectual escapism. Clinging to an unfounded belief in a magical, non-physical mind while ignoring the brain’s proven role in thought isn’t just unscientific—it’s absurd. You can’t wave away the evidence with hand-waving about “ideology” while stubbornly refusing to confront the facts staring you in the face.

[BigMike]

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.

So 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.

...is just your subjective interpretation?

*

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.

Then postin' one measly, lil, link to research that is as definitive as 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.

...ought to be easy-peasy, yes?

*

The burden isn’t on me to find a paper titled "Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Here’s Why"

In your thread, where you make the claims, yes, Mike, it's on you.

*

it’s on you to explain how your cherished free will escapes the physical laws that govern everything else.

In my thread, where I make the claims, yes, it will be. This is not my thread.

*

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.

And what does Libet conclude?

*

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.

No sir, that is not the conclusion. But, prove me wrong. Link the work, then quote the actual conclusions.

*

provide evidence of an uncaused decision

I never said diddly about an uncaused decision, Mike. You, as a free will, cause your decision, and the action that follows.

*

free from biological, environmental, or prior influences.

I never said we weren't or aren't influenced, Mike. We aren't caused by those.

*

you’re demanding “studies” that spell out conclusions while ignoring the mountain of data already available.

I'm askin' you for sumthin' as definitive as you are when you say...

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.

Henry, you seem to be stuck in a cycle of demanding "definitive" evidence while simultaneously hand-waving away the mountain of research that aligns with determinism. Let’s break this down clearly: the deterministic nature of the brain and behavior isn’t some niche theory—it’s supported by decades of empirical data. Studies like Soon et al. (2008) in Nature Neuroscience have shown that brain activity predicts decisions seconds before individuals are consciously aware of making them. This is consistent with deterministic causality, no matter how much you twist yourself into philosophical knots trying to deny it.

Now, you ask whether my claim is a “subjective interpretation.” No, Henry, it’s not. It’s a synthesis of well-established principles in neuroscience, physics, and biology. If you can’t grasp that deterministic processes underlie our thoughts and behaviors, then your issue isn’t with my position—it’s with the entire scientific framework that makes modern medicine, technology, and understanding of the brain possible.

Your continual reliance on Libet is laughable when you haven’t even acknowledged the broader body of evidence, much less provided a coherent alternative. And let’s not pretend you’ve refuted Libet either—dismissing findings that don’t suit your narrative isn’t a counterargument. What’s more, you seem unable to grasp that a decision caused by your free will would violate physical laws. For free will to "cause" anything, it would need to alter physical processes in the brain without being part of the causal chain—and there’s zero evidence of this magical intervention.

You also keep dodging the core question: if free will exists, where is it acting? Show me the “you” that is supposedly independent of biology, environment, and prior influences. Is it injecting energy into your neurons? Manipulating brainwaves? If so, why hasn’t a single study ever detected these phantom actions? If your argument is “I just feel like I have free will,” then congratulations—you’ve just described a subjective illusion.

Stop asking for evidence that you’ll never accept and start providing a coherent explanation for how free will operates in defiance of physical laws. Until then, your objections are little more than intellectual noise, devoid of substance or rigor.

[Wizard22]

If free will is an illusion,

It's not...so kind of shooting the rest of your assertions in the foot.

as growing evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics suggests, then the systems we’ve built upon this belief are fundamentally flawed. Democracy, for instance, is predicated on the assumption that individuals can freely choose leaders and policies that align with their rational self-interest. But is this what’s really happening?

Western Republican-Democracy is premised upon English Aristocracy and English-only settlements in the New World (Colonialism). Now that they have expanded, centuries upon those premises, Western "Democracies" now resemble the corrupt, degraded, disintegrating Roman Democracy before their collapse. This is the result of adding and attempting to integrate foreign tribes, peoples, races, etc. into the original (purely Anglo) system.

Studies show that voters’ choices are influenced by factors far beyond their control—upbringing, socioeconomic status, media exposure, and even unconscious biases. These deterministic forces challenge the premise that democratic outcomes are the "will of the people" in any meaningful sense. If our decisions are shaped by factors we don’t choose, can democracy truly reflect individual freedom or collective rationality?

So "deterministic forces" is codeword for Main Steam Media MSM control?

The masses are easily dominated by the Television...they vote as the TV instructs them to vote.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the foundation of governance itself.

Good luck convincing the current Ruling classes to give it up, based on what I presume to be the rest of your persuasive post here...?

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?

You mean like...Christianity, Abrahamism, Zionism, Judaism, Messianism, already do???

I’m proposing a radical but necessary idea: replacing conventional democracy with deterministic governance. In such a system, policies would be driven by empirical evidence, not ideology or popularity contests. Leaders would be selected based on expertise and their ability to address root causes of societal issues, not their ability to craft soundbites or win debates. Justice systems would shift from retribution to rehabilitation, acknowledging the complex factors that lead individuals to harm others. Environmental policies would be guided by predictive models, ensuring sustainability for future generations.

This isn’t about handing over control to machines or eliminating human agency. It’s about creating systems that work with the realities of human behavior rather than against them. A deterministic approach to governance could address the root causes of inequality, reduce conflict, and promote long-term stability in ways democracy never could.

Let’s open this discussion: Is democracy failing us because it’s built on the myth of free will? How might deterministic governance look in practice, and what challenges would we face in transitioning to such a system?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

How old are you? I hope no older than 29. Your romantic idealism seems very naive.

Young idealists have been attempting political Revolutions...since the beginning of time. Your proposed Revolutionary system needs about 1000 more pages of changes and nuances, preferably, that haven't already been attempted hundreds of times.

[BigMike]

The Empire of the Ants is a deterministic place. WE imagine that ants cannot make choices; they respond willy-nilly to the dictates of their biology.

Of course we don't know this. We're just guessing. The more we learn about non-human animals, the more volitional they appear.

WE do know about humans. That's because we are humans, and we know that we make choices. Whether the choices are "determined" by circumstance or biology is unclear. Nature vs. nurture is not resolvable.

There are certainly reasons for our choices. I'd suggest the reasons are sometimes influenced by culture, sometimes by biology. It's irrelevant. Why would our choices about politics, or justice, or (indeed) anything be different if we accept that the future is predetermined? Since we are unaware of this destiny, it is irrelevant to us, just as the predetermined rank of the next card to be dealt off the top of the deck is irrelevant to the gambler. We choose based on what we know, not what we don't know. We choose based on our cultural, biological and personal goals and predilections.

Lawrence Sterne wrote that "God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb." The evolutionist would claim, "The lamb must adapt to the wind". Both are wrong. Often, the wind isn't tempered, and the lamb doesn't adapt. Atropos, with her abhorred shears, takes charge. But none of this is relevant to our decision-making.

Alexiev, you seem to acknowledge deterministic principles while simultaneously dismissing their relevance, and that’s where your argument falters. Let’s start with your assertion about ants and humans. The claim that we “know” humans make choices is not evidence; it’s a subjective feeling that ignores the wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that our “choices” are the end product of unconscious neural processes shaped by biology, environment, and prior experiences. To equate that with free will is to misunderstand causality.

Your gambler analogy is flawed. You say the predetermined nature of a card’s rank is irrelevant to the gambler because they are unaware of it. That’s true for a game of chance, but it’s not analogous to human decision-making. The “deck” in your analogy—the deterministic causes shaping our thoughts and actions—doesn’t operate in ignorance. The brain processes and integrates these causes to produce the illusion of choice. What you call “choosing based on what we know” is actually the brain processing inputs and generating outputs in line with deterministic laws.

Claiming that accepting determinism wouldn’t change our approach to politics or justice is shortsighted. Determinism fundamentally alters how we view responsibility, punishment, and societal structure. If our actions are products of prior causes, then retributive justice—punishing people because they “deserve” it—loses its rational basis. Instead, policies should focus on rehabilitation and addressing root causes. These aren’t just philosophical tweaks; they’re practical shifts with real-world implications.

Your Sterne and evolutionist comparison is poetic but irrelevant to the discussion. Whether the lamb adapts or the wind is tempered, determinism provides the framework for why either scenario occurs. Atropos and her shears aren’t operating outside causality; they’re part of it. Similarly, our decision-making isn’t independent of deterministic processes—it’s shaped by them entirely.

To dismiss determinism as irrelevant to decision-making is to sidestep its transformative implications. It’s not about denying the experience of choice but about understanding its underlying mechanics. Ignoring that doesn’t make it any less true—it only ensures that the systems we build remain grounded in comforting myths rather than empirical reality.

[Wizard22]

I think the lesson of this thread is:

Never begin your Political Revolution on an 'If'.

[BigMike]

If free will is an illusion,

It's not...so kind of shooting the rest of your assertions in the foot.

as growing evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and physics suggests, then the systems we’ve built upon this belief are fundamentally flawed. Democracy, for instance, is predicated on the assumption that individuals can freely choose leaders and policies that align with their rational self-interest. But is this what’s really happening?

Western Republican-Democracy is premised upon English Aristocracy and English-only settlements in the New World (Colonialism). Now that they have expanded, centuries upon those premises, Western "Democracies" now resemble the corrupt, degraded, disintegrating Roman Democracy before their collapse. This is the result of adding and attempting to integrate foreign tribes, peoples, races, etc. into the original (purely Anglo) system.

Studies show that voters’ choices are influenced by factors far beyond their control—upbringing, socioeconomic status, media exposure, and even unconscious biases. These deterministic forces challenge the premise that democratic outcomes are the "will of the people" in any meaningful sense. If our decisions are shaped by factors we don’t choose, can democracy truly reflect individual freedom or collective rationality?

So "deterministic forces" is codeword for Main Steam Media MSM control?

The masses are easily dominated by the Television...they vote as the TV instructs them to vote.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the foundation of governance itself.

Good luck convincing the current Ruling classes to give it up, based on what I presume to be the rest of your persuasive post here...?

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?

You mean like...Christianity, Abrahamism, Zionism, Judaism, Messianism, already do???

I’m proposing a radical but necessary idea: replacing conventional democracy with deterministic governance. In such a system, policies would be driven by empirical evidence, not ideology or popularity contests. Leaders would be selected based on expertise and their ability to address root causes of societal issues, not their ability to craft soundbites or win debates. Justice systems would shift from retribution to rehabilitation, acknowledging the complex factors that lead individuals to harm others. Environmental policies would be guided by predictive models, ensuring sustainability for future generations.

This isn’t about handing over control to machines or eliminating human agency. It’s about creating systems that work with the realities of human behavior rather than against them. A deterministic approach to governance could address the root causes of inequality, reduce conflict, and promote long-term stability in ways democracy never could.

Let’s open this discussion: Is democracy failing us because it’s built on the myth of free will? How might deterministic governance look in practice, and what challenges would we face in transitioning to such a system?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

How old are you? I hope no older than 29. Your romantic idealism seems very naive.

Young idealists have been attempting political Revolutions...since the beginning of time. Your proposed Revolutionary system needs about 1000 more pages of changes and nuances, preferably, that haven't already been attempted hundreds of times.

Wizard22, your response seems to revel in cynicism and thinly veiled condescension while entirely sidestepping the substantive points raised about the deterministic underpinnings of human behavior and governance systems. Let’s address your objections systematically, since clarity seems to be the only antidote to your mix of dismissal and misdirection.

You start by declaring free will an unassailable fact without offering even a shred of reasoning or evidence. Do you honestly believe your assertion alone is enough to “shoot the rest of my assertions in the foot”? If so, I’ll have to assume your idea of intellectual engagement is more about posturing than addressing ideas on their merits.

Next, your critique of Western democracy is a diatribe against diversity rather than an engagement with the actual argument. Integrating different populations doesn’t inherently lead to systemic failure. The real issue is how governance systems account—or fail to account—for the deterministic forces shaping human behavior, such as socioeconomic disparities and cultural biases. You’re pointing fingers at “foreign tribes” while ignoring the root causes of dysfunction within systems of governance that claim to be egalitarian but are manipulated by media, wealth, and entrenched power structures.

Regarding your take on media control: yes, deterministic forces like media manipulation influence voter behavior. But boiling this down to “the TV tells people what to do” grossly oversimplifies the argument. The point isn’t just that people are manipulated—it’s that these manipulations exploit deterministic vulnerabilities in human cognition, and systems that fail to acknowledge this are ripe for exploitation.

Your commentary on “Christianity, Abrahamism, Zionism, Judaism, Messianism” is a baffling detour. Governance rooted in empirical evidence and determinism is fundamentally distinct from systems based on religious doctrines. Conflating these reveals either a misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to muddle the discussion.

And finally, your question about my age—why does it matter? Does the merit of an idea depend on whether it comes from a “naive” young idealist or a jaded, middle-aged cynic? Your appeal to experience is a hollow rhetorical flourish, meant to dismiss rather than engage. If you think my ideas are idealistic or unworkable, then challenge them with reasoned arguments instead of resorting to ad hominem insinuations.

In short, your response demonstrates the very complacency and dismissal of evidence-based reform that keeps societies stuck in ineffective systems. If you want to critique deterministic governance, do it on its principles and potential—not through tired cynicism masquerading as wisdom.