Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Wizard22]

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.

My protestations aren't cyncial--I'm willing to participate in a Revolution *IF* it were a better proposal than the current system. As to your OP, I'm doubtful that is the case. You should at least offer or promise a 'better system' from the onset.

Let’s address your objections systematically, since clarity seems to be the only antidote to your mix of dismissal and misdirection.

Wonderful...just my forté.

You start by declaring free will an unassailable fact

No no...I refuted your refutation of free-will. I did not offer my personal opinion on the matter. *IF* free-will is instead the case, then your entire OP is refuted. So your political revolution seems to hinge on a hypothetical and conditional statement. That's a very, very weak argument.

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.

It's a moot-point, because political revolutions can and do happen whether or not free-will exists or not.

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.

That depends on the types of governments, imposed upon the different types of peoples.

Western Democracy is most similar now to Roman Imperial Democracy, right before it's historical decline.

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.

There have been a series of Theocratic governments in history: Catholic Church, Islam's rise and hold in Arabia and the Middle East, and any others...those are 'deterministic' forms of governments.

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.

That's for you to prove. I don't see much difference between "scientific determinism" and religious determinism though.

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.

I think there's a big difference between young idealistic optimism and middle-age cynicism when it comes to political revolution though. I'd prefer the former to the latter.

Cynicism and jadedness is not a dependable platform, and much less convincing about a 'better' future.

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.

What do you believe is sufficient "Evidence" for a scientifically deterministic government, that's hypothetically better than the one currently known to most Western nations?

[BigMike]

If you're skeptical about how deterministic governance could work better than current systems, I’d invite you to start with the introduction to Chapter 3 of one of my books. It lays out the case for evidence-based decision-making and highlights why empirical validation is crucial for effective governance. Rather than relying on ideology or tradition, deterministic governance builds policies rooted in tested, proven approaches, ensuring decisions serve long-term societal benefit. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

---

3 THE ROLE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING
EMPIRICAL VALIDATION IN POLICY-MAKING
Let’s take a step back and think about how decisions are usually made in government. Often, policy-making is portrayed as this grand process where leaders weigh facts, look at data, and then make choices based on what’s best for the people. But we know it doesn’t always happen like that. In fact, more often than not, decisions are driven by ideology, political agendas, and, frankly, a lot of guesswork. What we need—and what’s been lacking—is a system that’s rooted in empirical validation. A system that leans on evidence, not rhetoric, to make decisions that truly benefit society in the long term.
Now, imagine a scenario where every major policy decision was grounded in hard evidence. Picture lawmakers who, instead of pontificating about moral beliefs or party loyalties, turned to scientific data and factual analysis to guide their choices. That’s what empirical validation means. It’s the idea that policy should be tested and proven, just like scientific hypotheses, before it ever gets put into practice. If a policy works, it should be because the evidence shows it will work, not because it sounds good in a stump speech.
We saw a stark contrast in this kind of decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Different countries took vastly different approaches to handling the virus, and the outcomes were just as varied. On one side, we had nations like South Korea, which took a data-driven, methodical approach. They leaned on the science—on testing, contact tracing, and strict quarantine measures. Everything they did was backed by solid, empirical evidence. And what happened? South Korea managed to keep its infection rates and death tolls remarkably low, even when much of the world was struggling.
On the other side of the spectrum, we saw countries that let political agendas and ideological positions dictate their responses. Think of the rhetoric around mask mandates, for example. In many places, it wasn’t about the data showing masks slow the spread of the virus. Instead, it became a political football. Leaders downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, not because the facts supported their claims, but because it fit a certain political narrative. The results were disastrous—higher infection rates, overwhelmed healthcare systems, and far more deaths than necessary.
This brings us to the core issue: when policy-making is driven by ideology or moral beliefs, it’s detached from reality. Ideology is about what should be, not necessarily what is. It’s aspirational, sometimes even utopian. But when you’re governing a society—when you’re making decisions that affect millions of lives—you can’t afford to work in the realm of ideals alone. You have to ground yourself in what we know to be true, and that means relying on empirical evidence.
Now, let’s be clear: empirical validation doesn’t mean stripping away all values or morals from governance. It’s not about being robotic or indifferent. It’s about using evidence to check our biases and assumptions, to make sure that what we think should work actually does work. And that’s the key difference between evidence-based policy and ideologically driven policy: the former is rooted in reality; the latter is rooted in belief.
One of the best examples of how empirical validation can improve long-term outcomes in governance is the use of randomized control trials (RCTs) in social policy. These are the same types of trials used in medicine to test the effectiveness of new drugs. By applying the same rigor to social programs—whether it’s housing, education, or healthcare—we can actually see what works and what doesn’t before rolling out policies on a large scale. In places where RCTs have been used, governments have been able to avoid costly mistakes and direct resources where they’ll have the most impact. It’s a simple concept: test it, validate it, and then implement it.
So, what’s stopping us from doing this more often? Well, the answer is, in part, politics. Empirical evidence doesn’t always align neatly with political agendas. Data can be inconvenient. It can reveal flaws in long-standing policies or challenge deeply held beliefs. That’s why we often see evidence get pushed to the side when it conflicts with the narrative that politicians want to sell. But the truth is, in the long run, ignoring evidence only leads to bad policy—and bad policy has real consequences. People get hurt, resources get wasted, and trust in government erodes.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a harsh reminder of what happens when evidence is sidelined for the sake of political expediency. Countries that ignored the science suffered the most, while those that followed the data fared far better. It’s a lesson that extends beyond public health and into every area of governance. From climate change to criminal justice reform, we can’t afford to ignore the facts.
In the end, what we need is a cultural shift in how we approach policy-making. We need to embrace empirical validation as the standard, not the exception. Imagine a world where every major policy was subjected to the same rigorous testing as a new vaccine or a safety protocol in engineering. It sounds simple, but it would require a massive change in how governments operate—a shift away from ideology and toward a governance model that’s driven by evidence, reason, and a commitment to reality.
The benefits of such a system are clear. Not only would it lead to more effective policies, but it would also restore faith in government institutions. When people see that decisions are being made based on facts, not politics, they’re more likely to trust those decisions. And trust, as we’ve learned, is one of the most important ingredients in any functioning democracy. It’s time we make evidence the foundation of governance, and leave ideology where it belongs—in the realm of personal belief, not public policy.

---

If we genuinely want systems that work, we need governance aligned with reality—where evidence, not conjecture, drives outcomes. If you’re serious about exploring better options, let’s start with the data.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Because physiology and cognition are coordinated. We might ask other questions, as well, such as "Why is a brain inert without a consciousness, as when somebody is euthanized?" Or we might ask, "How does the consciousness keep operating in sleep, while the body is inert?" Or we might ask, "How can a physical event (if that's all that's happening) have 'aboutness,' (as philosophers call it) the ability to be 'about' things?" Or why do cognitive processes, such as reasoning, mathematics and logic, end up working as well as they do on the purely physical world?"

There are lots of questions, and we don't have all the answers. But what's clearly not the answer is the insistence that only one thing is going on, and one very transparent thing, physical stuff. That's clearly not right.

But don't take it from me. Read Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos." He's a short read, and he's a devout Atheist. But he at least sees the problems that you're not able to see right now...or not willing to.

If thinking isn’t tied to the brain,

Wait. Nobody's said that the two are entirely unrelated. So you'll have to ask somebody who's said that this question. I can't help you with it.

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.

The brain, considered as a merely physical entity, IS meat. It can be nothing more. But I don't consider it that way; I consider it as a physical property that manifests cognition. But whereas brains are physical, of a particular weight, size and configuration, occupy physical space, have a chemical composition, and so on, consciousness has none of these things, even though it's very real. Try putting your consciousness in a scale -- how much does it weigh? How much space does it occupy? What chemicals make up a thought? How do you hack off a piece of reasoning? Where's the location of morality?

You don't like that we don't have all the answers, and that the world's greatest neuroscientists don't, either. Sorry...that's just too bad. It does not make it sensible for us to foreclose on the evidence, reduce everything to mere physics, and simply ignore all the other very obviously real phenomena that are associated with cognition. You might wish that would work, but it just doesn't. And it stultifies the whole inquiry, making it nothing more than mindless automation, even though every one of us experiences it as meaningful.

Furthermore, it won't at all rationalize the political projects you hope it will, for many reasons. It won't get rid of guilt, which is a real thing, and something everybody experiences. It won't justify sociological manipulation of the population, because that posits two different types of humanity: one with the powers of cognition, reasoning and morality (the sociological manipulators) and one that is merely the product of prior physical causes (the masses). What will happen instead, necessarily, if people take your view to heart, is the dehumanization of all of us -- the people becoming treated as cattle, and the sociological manipulators being turned into wicked beasts. Which is exactly what Socialism has always does, and probably always will.

Your refusal to engage with these realities...

I've just engaged with a bunch of them above. I've been engaging with them all along. That I don't accept your assumptions is the problem you're having. You're bound-and-determined that only physical explanations will be allowed to count; so you're miffed that I don't provide physical-causal explanations. The problem is in your expectation, not the answers you're getting.

[BigMike]

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?

Because physiology and cognition are coordinated. We might ask other questions, as well, such as "Why is a brain inert without a consciousness, as when somebody is euthanized?" Or we might ask, "How does the consciousness keep operating in sleep, while the body is inert?" Or we might ask, "How can a physical event (if that's all that's happening) have 'aboutness,' (as philosophers call it) the ability to be 'about' things?" Or why do cognitive processes, such as reasoning, mathematics and logic, end up working as well as they do on the purely physical world?"

There are lots of questions, and we don't have all the answers. But what's clearly not the answer is the insistence that only one thing is going on, and one very transparent thing, physical stuff. That's clearly not right.

But don't take it from me. Read Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos." He's a short read, and he's a devout Atheist. But he at least sees the problems that you're not able to see right now...or not willing to.

If thinking isn’t tied to the brain,

Wait. Nobody's said that the two are entirely unrelated. So you'll have to ask somebody who's said that this question. I can't help you with it.

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.

The brain, considered as a merely physical entity, IS meat. It can be nothing more. But I don't consider it that way; I consider it as a physical property that manifests cognition. But whereas brains are physical, of a particular weight, size and configuration, occupy physical space, have a chemical composition, and so on, consciousness has none of these things, even though it's very real. Try putting your consciousness in a scale -- how much does it weigh? How much space does it occupy? What chemicals make up a thought? How do you hack off a piece of reasoning? Where's the location of morality?

You don't like that we don't have all the answers, and that the world's greatest neuroscientists don't, either. Sorry...that's just too bad. It does not make it sensible for us to foreclose on the evidence, reduce everything to mere physics, and simply ignore all the other very obviously real phenomena that are associated with cognition. You might wish that would work, but it just doesn't. And it stultifies the whole inquiry, making it nothing more than mindless automation, even though every one of us experiences it as meaningful.

Furthermore, it won't at all rationalize the political projects you hope it will, for many reasons. It won't get rid of guilt, which is a real thing, and something everybody experiences. It won't justify sociological manipulation of the population, because that posits two different types of humanity: one with the powers of cognition, reasoning and morality (the sociological manipulators) and one that is merely the product of prior physical causes (the masses). What will happen instead, necessarily, if people take your view to heart, is the dehumanization of all of us -- the people becoming treated as cattle, and the sociological manipulators being turned into wicked beasts. Which is exactly what Socialism has always does, and probably always will.

Your refusal to engage with these realities...

I've just engaged with a bunch of them above. I've been engaging with them all along. That I don't accept your assumptions is the problem you're having. You're bound-and-determined that only physical explanations will be allowed to count; so you're miffed that I don't provide physical-causal explanations. The problem is in your expectation, not the answers you're getting.

Immanuel, your argument is a jumble of half-formed notions, sprinkled with buzzwords like "consciousness" and "aboutness," yet devoid of coherence or evidence. Let’s start with your attempt to conflate open questions in neuroscience with some imagined license to insert metaphysical hand-waving wherever you feel it convenient.

Your claim that "physiology and cognition are coordinated" is the understatement of the century. It’s not just coordination—it’s causation. A bottle of scotch changes how you think because alcohol alters the brain's neurochemical activity, disrupting neurotransmitter functions and neural connectivity. Brain damage alters personality and memory because the brain is the seat of cognition. If consciousness were merely "manifested" by the brain and not causally tied to it, why would damaging or altering the brain have such a profound and consistent impact on cognition?

Your rhetorical questions about euthanasia and sleep are distractions. Consciousness "operating" in sleep? Are you conflating unconscious brain activity (e.g., dreams or memory consolidation) with some mystical force? The physical brain never ceases its activity during sleep, nor does it "turn off" unless the individual dies. Your vague appeals to “aboutness” and “why logic works” are attempts to mystify what has been repeatedly demonstrated as emergent phenomena grounded in neurobiology and physical laws.

Your statement that "the brain is just meat" is both reductive and ridiculous. By your logic, a computer is "just silicon and metal." True in the crudest sense, but it misses the entire point of structure, complexity, and function. The brain's physical processes—synaptic transmissions, neuroplasticity, and modular organization—give rise to cognition in ways that are measurable, testable, and reproducible. Dismissing these as "just meat" ignores the overwhelming evidence linking brain processes to thought, perception, and behavior.

As for your supposed "problem" with guilt, morality, or sociological manipulation under a deterministic framework, these are non-issues when you actually understand determinism. Determinism doesn’t deny the reality of subjective experiences; it explains them. Guilt arises from the interplay of brain structures like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex processing social and moral norms. It’s not a mystical phenomenon; it’s a natural one shaped by both biology and environment.

Your fearmongering about "treating people like cattle" is laughable. If anything, a deterministic framework demands that we address the causes of behavior—poverty, trauma, education—rather than assigning blame and moralistic punishment. This is the opposite of dehumanization; it’s a call to take human circumstances seriously and build systems that work with the realities of human nature.

If you’re going to argue against determinism, at least engage with its evidence and principles instead of this parade of straw men and distractions. Vague philosophical musings don’t override the hard data showing that brains think, decisions are driven by neural processes, and consciousness is a product of physical systems. You’re dodging, not debating.

[henry quirk]

the mountain of research that aligns with determinism

Does anything in that mountain definitively say...

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.

...? Please, present it.

*

Your continual reliance on Libet

Mike, you brought him up -- several times -- to support your definitive...

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.

...before I ever piped in on him and his work.

Me, I've got no beef with Libet, his findings, or his conclusion. It's your conclusion -- the readiness potential proves mind is just brain activity -- I have a problem with.

*

let’s not pretend you’ve refuted Libet

Mike, I haven't tried to refute him.

*

you seem unable to grasp that a decision caused by your free will would violate physical laws

From your material-only perspective, you, as a libertarian free will, certainly do seem to violate physical laws. From mine: not so much.

*

For free will to "cause" anything, it would need to alter physical processes in the brain without being part of the causal chain...

Yes. Becuz, you, as a free will, are a cause.

*

???and there’s zero evidence of this magical intervention.

Wrong. I offered some. You cherrypicked, focusing on the bits you could give an organic explanation to while ignoring the others.

*

Show me the “you” that is supposedly independent of biology, environment, and prior influences.

I'm right here, body and soul, co-equal. A hylomorph.

*

why hasn’t a single study ever detected these phantom actions?

Why hasn't a single study ever detected a single quark? We can't detect even one. We can only infer a quark exists. Same difference, Mike.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your argument is a jumble of half-formed notions...

No, that's your understanding that's jumbled.

... sprinkled with buzzwords like "consciousness" and "aboutness,"

"Buzzwords"? So you don't even know the basic terms of discussion in the philosophy of mind? Well, I guess that explains something.

It’s not just coordination—it’s causation.

Funny. Today's greatest neuroscientists don't know how consciousness and physiology intersect, but Big Mike has solved it! Not only has he solved it, but he's solved it so easily he doesn't even find a question anymore.

And his answer? That coinciding is causality. And that it CANNOT be the case that the thinking produces the physiological symptom...no, no...it HAS to be that the physiology is the sum-and-total of the thinking!

Brilliant. I look forward to your Nobel Prize.

I can see I'm talking to somebody who lacks even the basic equipment of understanding that would allow him to perceive the relevant questions. And I see no point in trying to look for a ruby of wisdom in this mountain of physiological rocks. Carry on as you are, I guess.

[henry quirk]

I think the lesson of this thread is:

Never begin your Political Revolution on an 'If'.

The only real take away from this thread -- and his others -- is: Big Mike is an adherent to, a slave of, Scientism.

A free will, a person, who'd rather be a meat machine, who very much wants everyone else to be meat machines.

He advocates for atrocity believing it's utopia.

[henry quirk]

Read Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos."

He won't. He'll dismiss Nagel as he did Penfield.

[Immanuel Can]

Read Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos."

He won't. He'll dismiss Nagel as he did Penfield.

I know. He's stoned on his ideology, and won't hear of anything that would cast doubt on it. The mind's just not working anymore.

[BigMike]

the mountain of research that aligns with determinism

Does anything in that mountain definitively say...

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.

...? Please, present it.

*

Your continual reliance on Libet

Mike, you brought him up -- several times -- to support your definitive...

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.

...before I ever piped in on him and his work.

Me, I've got no beef with Libet, his findings, or his conclusion. It's your conclusion -- the readiness potential proves mind is just brain activity -- I have a problem with.

*

let’s not pretend you’ve refuted Libet

Mike, I haven't tried to refute him.

*

you seem unable to grasp that a decision caused by your free will would violate physical laws

From your material-only perspective, you, as a libertarian free will, certainly do seem to violate physical laws. From mine: not so much.

*

For free will to "cause" anything, it would need to alter physical processes in the brain without being part of the causal chain...

Yes. Becuz, you, as a free will, are a cause.

*

???and there’s zero evidence of this magical intervention.

Wrong. I offered some. You cherrypicked, focusing on the bits you could give an organic explanation to while ignoring the others.

*

Show me the “you” that is supposedly independent of biology, environment, and prior influences.

I'm right here, body and soul, co-equal. A hylomorph.

*

why hasn’t a single study ever detected these phantom actions?

Why hasn't a single study ever detected a single quark? We can't detect even one. We can only infer a quark exists. Same difference, Mike.

Henry, you’re conflating the philosophical concept of free will with a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and causality. The mountain of research across physics, neuroscience, and biology confirms one consistent principle: everything is caused. The conservation laws—energy, momentum, charge, and others—demand that no atom, neuron, or electron in your brain starts, stops, or changes motion without a cause. There is no wiggle room for "magical" free will to intervene without violating these fundamental laws.

Your claim that "you, as a free will, are a cause" doesn’t hold up. A cause itself must have a prior cause; that’s what causality means. For your "free will" to be an independent cause, it would need to exist outside the physical universe, altering brain processes without contributing any counterbalancing reaction. That’s a violation of the conservation laws, and physics does not bend for metaphysical wishful thinking.

You call yourself a "hylomorph," invoking Aristotle’s outdated metaphysics, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Aristotle lived in a pre-scientific age, long before the discovery of conservation laws, relativity, or quantum mechanics. If you want to invoke ancient concepts, fine—but they need to be reconciled with modern science, not wielded as rhetorical shields against it.

As for your quark analogy, it fails spectacularly. Quarks aren’t "phantoms"; they’re part of the Standard Model of particle physics, with effects that are measurable and consistent with predictions. The difference is that quarks fit within an established framework of causality, whereas your "free will" doesn’t.

Finally, let’s address your notion that Libet’s findings—or any study, for that matter—leave room for free will. They don’t. The data consistently shows that neural processes precede conscious awareness of decisions. That’s not cherry-picking; it’s the crux of the evidence. If you have contrary evidence, produce it. Until then, the burden of proof remains on you to demonstrate how your "free will" interacts with physical systems without violating the fundamental laws of physics.

[henry quirk]

Some light entertainment...

Here's a favorite of mine, one hated by several forum members.

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

Jon Rappoport

It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.

I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?

Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.

He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.

I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:

Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: [Silence.]

Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.

Q: You and I do understand each other.

A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that would be so.

Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.

Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”

He nodded.

“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”

He pointed to the valley.

“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”

Then he laughed. He looked at me.

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”

He stood up.

“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09 ... will-will/

[BigMike]

Immanuel, your argument is a jumble of half-formed notions...

No, that's your understanding that's jumbled.

... sprinkled with buzzwords like "consciousness" and "aboutness,"

"Buzzwords"? So you don't even know the basic terms of discussion in the philosophy of mind? Well, I guess that explains something.

It’s not just coordination—it’s causation.

Funny. Today's greatest neuroscientists don't know how consciousness and physiology intersect, but Big Mike has solved it! Not only has he solved it, but he's solved it so easily he doesn't even find a question anymore.

And his answer? That coinciding is causality. And that it CANNOT be the case that the thinking produces the physiological symptom...no, no...it HAS to be that the physiology is the sum-and-total of the thinking!

Brilliant. I look forward to your Nobel Prize.

I can see I'm talking to somebody who lacks even the basic equipment of understanding that would allow him to perceive the relevant questions. And I see no point in trying to look for a ruby of wisdom in this mountain of physiological rocks. Carry on as you are, I guess.

Immanuel, your response is a masterclass in hand-waving and condescension, substituting derision for substance. Neuroscientists may not have mapped every nuance of the mind-body interaction, but what is abundantly clear—and repeatedly demonstrated—is that the brain is the source of cognition, thought, and decision-making. Dismissing this as some trivial discovery only highlights how disconnected you are from the actual science.

You scoff at the idea of causation as though the principle were invented yesterday. Conservation laws, neural activity studies, and decades of empirical evidence are not "coincidence"; they are causal chains verified through experimentation. That you find this unconvincing is not a shortcoming of the evidence—it’s a shortcoming in your grasp of it.

As for your mockery about a Nobel Prize, it’s ironic given that the people contributing to our understanding of neuroscience and cognition are Nobel laureates. They’re not debating the existence of free will in the mystical sense you’re defending because the science has moved on. The question isn’t whether free will exists in some ghostly realm; it’s how deterministic processes translate into the subjective experience we call "choice." You, however, seem more interested in dismissing the discussion than engaging with it.

Finally, your retreat into vague philosophical terms like "aboutness" isn’t impressive—it’s evasive. If you want to challenge determinism, do so with evidence and reason, not this tiresome rhetorical theater. Otherwise, you’re just stalling the conversation and embarrassing yourself in the process.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your argument is a jumble of half-formed notions...

No, that's your understanding that's jumbled.

... sprinkled with buzzwords like "consciousness" and "aboutness,"

"Buzzwords"? So you don't even know the basic terms of discussion in the philosophy of mind? Well, I guess that explains something.

It’s not just coordination—it’s causation.

Funny. Today's greatest neuroscientists don't know how consciousness and physiology intersect, but Big Mike has solved it! Not only has he solved it, but he's solved it so easily he doesn't even find a question anymore.

And his answer? That coinciding is causality. And that it CANNOT be the case that the thinking produces the physiological symptom...no, no...it HAS to be that the physiology is the sum-and-total of the thinking!

Brilliant. I look forward to your Nobel Prize.

I can see I'm talking to somebody who lacks even the basic equipment of understanding that would allow him to perceive the relevant questions. And I see no point in trying to look for a ruby of wisdom in this mountain of physiological rocks. Carry on as you are, I guess.

Neuroscientists may not have mapped every nuance of the mind-body interaction, but what is abundantly clear—and repeatedly demonstrated—is that the brain is the source of cognition, thought, and decision-making.

False. It's the location, but not the source. No such "neuroscientific" evidence exist. You're not going to bluff me out of that, and it's evident to me, and to anybody who's done even rudimentary reading in the field, that you don't know even the most basic things about what you're taking about.

"actual science"

As for your mockery about a Nobel Prize,

I'm glad you were able to detect irony. It won't be happening for you, just so you know.

Finally, your retreat into vague philosophical terms like "aboutness" isn’t impressive—it’s evasive.

Only to you, because you clearly do not even possess the basic vocabulary of the philosophy of mind. Read "Mind and Cosmos," and then let's talk about what you learn. I'll give you as much time as you need.

[Alexiev]

te]

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.

You keep repeating yourself without addressing my points. If "choices" are the end product of unconscious neural processes, why would that mean they are not "choices"? I've defined "choice" several times; I've pointed out that we can use the word in the past tense. Yet you simply repeat that we have reasons for our choices, and therefore they are not choices. That's nonsense. Martin Luther "chose" to say, "Here I stand and I can do no other." This despite the fact that he "could do no other". He probably believed that his choice was "determined" not be biology, but by his moral principles. But what difference does it make? His choice was "determined" -- but it remained a choice.

Also, I have no opinion on whether everything in the universe is "determined". I think it's irrelevant to our behaviors and beliefs.

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.

Duh! What else could a choice be, other than the brain processing inputs? These are doubtless "in line with deterministic laws" -- but that doesn't mean they are determined. Also, the gambler analogy is perfectly relevant. As I've stated many times, if we had perfect understanding of determinism, so that we could predict the future, it that might make determinism relevant, just as the gambler might benefit from marked cards. But since we don't, it's a mere red herring, irrelevant to human decision making, just as the predetermined order of the cards is irrelevant to the gambler's decision making.

[BigMike]

No, that's your understanding that's jumbled.
"Buzzwords"? So you don't even know the basic terms of discussion in the philosophy of mind? Well, I guess that explains something.


Funny. Today's greatest neuroscientists don't know how consciousness and physiology intersect, but Big Mike has solved it! Not only has he solved it, but he's solved it so easily he doesn't even find a question anymore.

And his answer? That coinciding is causality. And that it CANNOT be the case that the thinking produces the physiological symptom...no, no...it HAS to be that the physiology is the sum-and-total of the thinking!

Brilliant. I look forward to your Nobel Prize.

I can see I'm talking to somebody who lacks even the basic equipment of understanding that would allow him to perceive the relevant questions. And I see no point in trying to look for a ruby of wisdom in this mountain of physiological rocks. Carry on as you are, I guess.

Neuroscientists may not have mapped every nuance of the mind-body interaction, but what is abundantly clear—and repeatedly demonstrated—is that the brain is the source of cognition, thought, and decision-making.

False. It's the location, but not the source. No such "neuroscientific" evidence exist. You're not going to bluff me out of that, and it's evident to me, and to anybody who's done even rudimentary reading in the field, that you don't know even the most basic things about what you're taking about.

"actual science"

As for your mockery about a Nobel Prize,

I'm glad you were able to detect irony. It won't be happening for you, just so you know.

Finally, your retreat into vague philosophical terms like "aboutness" isn’t impressive—it’s evasive.

Only to you, because you clearly do not even possess the basic vocabulary of the philosophy of mind. Read "Mind and Cosmos," and then let's talk about what you learn. I'll give you as much time as you need.

Immanuel, your insistence that the brain is merely the location and not the source of cognition is an extraordinary claim—and one you have yet to substantiate with anything beyond rhetorical posturing. You may not like the overwhelming body of neuroscientific evidence, but dismissing it outright doesn’t make it disappear.

Your assertion is akin to claiming that electricity flowing through a wire doesn’t power the lightbulb, but rather some undefined "non-physical source" is doing the heavy lifting. The brain's activity produces cognition, thought, and decisions, as demonstrated by countless studies linking specific brain regions and neural processes to everything from memory formation to moral reasoning. You hand-wave this away with zero counter-evidence while smugly declaring yourself above the science. How convenient.

As for "aboutness" and other philosophical jargon, throwing around terms you think I don’t understand doesn’t make you look intellectual—it makes you look desperate. If your argument boils down to "read this book I like," it’s clear you’re out of your depth. The actual neuroscientists you so casually dismiss are working with measurable data and reproducible experiments, not vague appeals to unverified metaphysical claims.

You’ve confused confidence in empirically verified science with arrogance, and irony with substance. If you want to argue against the mountain of evidence supporting the brain as the source of cognition, I suggest you start by presenting a shred of evidence—something you’ve conspicuously failed to do thus far.