Moving Beyond the Illusion of Free Will in Governance

[Age]

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes.

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

Wizard22, that’s an interesting analogy, but it misses the point of what evidence is and how it operates.

So, what is 'evidence', to you, "bigmike", exactly?

And, how does 'evidence' operate, to you, exactly?

Also, were you YET AWARE that what 'evidence' IS and how 'evidence' operates is only KNOWN, for sure, when EVERY one is in agreement and in acceptance?

you saying and claiming that 'it' misses the point of what evidence is and how evidence operates is your version ONLY of what evidence is and how evidence operates. Which is not necessarily what evidence, ACTUALLY, is and how evidence, ACTUALLY, operates.

Which you seem to be missing the point of.

When a runner breaks a world record, they aren’t "ignoring" evidence—they’re building on it. The evidence tells us what the current limits are, and every new record expands those limits.

Well then, obviously, the 'current limit' is NOT the 'actual limit', right?

Also the way the word 'evidence' is USED, where you are from, is DIFFERENT from the way that word is USED on other parts of the planet.

The runner doesn’t defy the evidence; they redefine it through improved training methods, nutrition, and understanding of biomechanics—all of which are guided by evidence.

In the context of governance, the equivalent would be using data to understand the limits of current policies and then designing improvements that push those limits.

Were you NOT YET AWARE that it could be said and argued that a change/designing improvements in 'current' policies could be happening and occurring EVERY day, since 'governing' came into play, here?

you speak as though you have come up with some 'new idea' or 'new way' of doing things, here. But, really, you are not expressing anything new at all, really.

Evidence isn’t a ceiling; it’s a foundation. Ignoring it doesn’t lead to progress—it leads to stagnation, or worse, failure. The runner who disregards training science or ignores their own physical capacity won’t win races. Similarly, governments that disregard evidence in favor of ideology or guesswork end up with disastrous policies.

'governments' are run by you adult human beings. you adult human beings have become selfish and greedy individuals. 'governments' end up with disastrous policies because of greedy and selfish adult human beings.

Now, if you have an ACTUALLY 'policy' that would, and could, CHANGE things, for the better, then I suggest just presenting it/them.

Just saying formulating 'new policies' based on nothing more than 'determinism' exists, only, is NOT really going to achieve much for the betterment of human kind.

Your analogy actually reinforces my point: progress happens not by rejecting evidence but by working within its framework to push boundaries.

But there is 'evidence' that earth is flat, has a sun revolving around it, is in the center of a beginning and expanding Universe, but HOW, exactly, would working within these evidence frameworks going to make 'progress', here?

Governance, like athletics, thrives when it’s grounded in reality and open to improvement based on new discoveries.

BUT, 'governance' is NEVER about the 'improvement' of ALL people/things for ALL times.

'governance' has always been about one having CONTROL OVER, or GOVERNANCE OVER, others, which for at least the past few thousand or so years in most countries has been about getting MORE and MORE from most of the people for just a few select people. The ONLY 'improvement' in 'governance' is in HOW to OBTAIN MORE money FROM people.

If you’ve got a better example of where ignoring evidence genuinely leads to better outcomes, I’m all ears.

Well once the first two 'evidences' of a flat earth and a geocentric universe were ignored, then human beings could move PAST those Falsehoods, and thus progress somewhat.

And, WHEN human beings START to IGNORE the other False 'evidences' of a beginning and expanding universe, then you human beings can START to move FORWARD and 'progress' somewhat, as well.

Also, WHEN the False evidences of there being NO 'free will' AT ALL is IGNORED, then FURTHER PROGRESS can BEGIN, ALSO.

But until then, evidence-based decision-making remains the most reliable way to achieve progress.

Is this an IRREFUTABLE Fact, just what you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY true, or something else?

[Age]

If you want to refute this, start where it matters: show how ignoring evidence leads to better outcomes.

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better
than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence.

ALL 'evidence' can be REFUTED, COUNTERED, or CONTRADICTED. However, EVERY 'proof' is IRREFUTABLE, NOT ABLE TO BE COUNTERED, and can NOT BE CONTRADICTED. And, this is one reason WHY I ONLY USE 'proof', here, and NOT 'evidence'.

Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

Why not just REMOVE ALL that could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and just USE what are IRREFUTABLE Facts, ONLY, instead?

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

[Wizard22]

just USE what are IRREFUTABLE Facts, ONLY, instead?

Can you give a list of 12, or 7, or even a few "IRREFUTABLE Facts, ONLY"?

[Age]

Evidence shows how fast humans can run.

Yet every single time a world record is broken, that runner ignores all previous evidence.

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better
than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence. Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

Belinda, you’re exactly right that evidence isn’t about setting absolute limits—it’s about understanding probabilities and working within them.

Instead of working with 'probabilities', why not just work with 'actualities' ONLY?

The example of breaking a running record doesn’t show a rejection of evidence; it demonstrates what evidence is supposed to do: provide a baseline for understanding what’s possible while leaving room for progress.

But 'evidences' do NOT provide a baseline for understanding what is POSSIBLE, and especially so in this RIDICULOUS 'running record' example.

ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY thing IS POSSIBLE, once what is Falsely called 'time travel' became POSSIBLE.

See, do NOT FORGET that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that you human beings are doing, and achieving, 'now', when this is being written, was ONCE seen as and BELIEVED TO BE, an IMPOSSIBILITY.

'Evidence' was NEVER 'supposed to provide a baseline for understanding what IS POSSIBLE', AT ALL.

"bigmike" just SAID 'this', in the hope that saying 'this' will somehow back up and support its 'current' BELIEF.

If evidence shows that a human can run a certain speed,

What do you even MEAN by 'evidence', here, EXACTLY?

See, once one runs at a certain speed, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for 'evidence' that a human can run at 'that speed'. 'Evidence' of what speed a human can run at are BASED on 'other things'.

it doesn’t mean faster speeds are impossible—it means we’ve established what’s been achieved so far.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, once some thing IS ACHIEVED, then 'evidence for that thing IS POSSIBLE' becomes ABSOLUTELY REDUNDANT.

Progress happens when someone builds on that foundation, not by ignoring it.

you seem to be CONFUSING "your" OWN 'self', here, now "bigmike".

Maybe if you EXPLAIN, exactly, what you MEAN by your USE of the 'evidence' word, here, then 'we' might be understand you, here.

'Foundation' is what IS ACHIEVED, or KNOWN. 'Foundation' is NOT 'evidence'.

Or, do you human beings REALLY just WAIT until there is ACTUAL 'evidence' that some thing COULD HAPPEN, and 'that' in and of itself is A 'foundation', which ONLY when A 'foundation' of what MIGHT or COULD HAPPEN becomes KNOWN, then, and ONLY THEN, is this WHEN you START TO BUILD?

If this is Correct, then KNOWING this WILL FORM GREAT INSIGHT, for me, in KNOWING HOW TO PROCEED, MOVE FORWARD, and/or PROGRESS, here.

In fact, those breakthroughs

WHAT 'breakthroughs'?

often rely on evidence-based advancements,

Will you please provide examples of these so-called 'evidence-based advancements'?

like improved training regimens or technologies, that make breaking records possible.

But, to me, ONCE a 'record' is made, has been broken, then it is just about WANTING to break 'that record'. See, ONLY WHEN one Truly WANTS some thing, and HOLDS A BELIEF, then this is WHEN they go out after it.

This is the same principle that applies in governance. Evidence provides the groundwork for decisions, showing what has worked and what hasn’t.

So, are you, literally, SAYING and CLAIMING, here, that BECAUSE there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'current' evidence, for you human beings, that you could ALL live together in peace, and in harmony, as One, then this is WHY you people do NOT DO ANY, REAL, thing towards MAKING the DECISION TOWARDS 'this thing'?

Are you people SO BLIND or just TO STUPID to what IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, in Life, that you, literally, NEED 'evidence', FIRST, for some thing to be ACHIEVABLE, and it is ONLY THEN that you will make the 'groundwork for decisions' FOR 'that thing'?

If yes, then this EXPLAINS A GREAT DEAL, here.

It’s not a guarantee of future outcomes, but it’s far better than operating without it.

So, are you SAYING and CLAIMING that it is FAR BETTER to NOT SEEK OUT TO DO what IS Right, and good, in Life, BECAUSE there is NO 'current' evidence for you people, here, anyway, when this is being written, of what IS Right, and good, in Life, than to 'operate' without THE 'evidence' of what IS Right, and good, in Life?

Ignoring evidence in favor of ideological whims or hunches leads to chaos, not innovation.

So that 'you' can HELP 'you', here, I suggest that you PROVIDE ACTUAL EXAMPLES of some of these so-called 'evidences', which you CLAIM are FAR BETTER NOT IGNORED.

Just ALLUDING TO one or another 'thing', but NOT ACTUALLY EXPRESSING what 'the thing' IS, exactly, is NOT HELPING ANY one, here.

What is your WHOLE sentence, here, BASED UPON, EXACTLY?

And while no evidence can ever predict outcomes with 100% certainty, it’s the closest thing we have to a reliable guide for making better decisions.

PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES SO THAT 'we' can THEN KNOW IF what you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here, is ACTUALLY True, or NOT.

When betting on a horse race, sure, you could gamble on the longshot with little data to back it up, but that’s not a strategy—it’s luck.

Does this MEAN that there were NO prior 'causes' FOR WHAT HAPPENED, and which you call 'luck', here?

Evidence gives you the best odds, and in governance, where lives and resources are at stake, betting on the outsider isn’t just a risk; it’s irresponsible.

It would HELP if you STAYED FOCUSED ON what 'it' is, EXACTLY, what you SO DESPERATELY WANT TO CLAIM IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, here.

[Age]

just USE what are IRREFUTABLE Facts, ONLY, instead?

Can you give a list of 12, or 7, or even a few "IRREFUTABLE Facts, ONLY"?

YES.

[Age]

True, evidence never can mean 100% certain prediction. Despite that, evidence is better than no evidence, depending on the quality of the evidence. Quality of evidence however is tangential to the argument.

When betting on a horse race are you a fan of outsider bets?

Sure, everybody likes a good underdog story.

For trivial matters, yes, Especially when people are down on their luck, it's immensely cheering to hear a true Cinderella story. But when it comes to important matters such as governance we need to hear the most probable predictions so we can make plans how to save ourselves

WHY do you, SUPPOSEDLY, 'need' to hear the so-called 'most probable predictions', BEFORE 'you' can make plans on HOW to so-call 'save' "yourselves"?

1. 'Governance', AGAIN, although an INSTINCTUAL part of living tribal, was done by the 'elders' for the GOOD and BETTERMENT OF ALL in the 'tribe'.

2. However, as human beings evolved becoming MORE and MORE greedy and selfish, 'governance' evolved FROM the BETTERMENT of ALL to the BETTERMENT OF 'some', only. This happened during transitioning from 'tribal' to 'societal' and where a few of the 'now society' WANTED MORE FROM 'the others', FOR "themselves", ONLY.

3. The Truly PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS LIFE, which is about to come for you people, in the days when this is being written, revolves around absolutely NO one 'governing' another, and EVERY one 'governing' "them" 'self' ONLY.

4. So, if ANY one wants to talk about 'important matters' such as 'governance', then let 'us' have A DISCUSSION.

5. NO one 'NEEDS' to hear the 'most probable predictions'. However, if people Truly DO WANT TO CHANGE, for the BETTERMENT of "themselves", FOR the BETTERMENT of EVERY one, EQUALLY, or in other words to 'save' "yourselves", then they just 'NEED' to hear what is ACTUALLY Right, GOOD, and DOABLE, in Life.

6. A 'probable prediction' is that you adult human beings WILL keep doing what is Wrong, which WILL cause the demise of human beings. Which, to some, is MORE of a 'probable prediction' than you human beings WILL LEARN HOW to do what is Right, and GOOD, in Life, which WILL LEAD to ALL living together, in peace and in harmony, on earth, as it is 'in heaven'. So, would some SO CLAIMED 'NEED' to hear 'this most probable prediction' going to HELP and, REALLY, 'save' you?

7. SHARING what IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, DOABLE, and ACHIEVABLE, and which IS KNOWN HOW to WORK, and HOW TO COME ABOUT, which WILL and DOES BETTER absolutely EVERY one I FIND to be BETTER than SHARING what 'most people probably predict' WHEN what is being 'predicted' only HELPS in the DOWNFALL of the human species.

8. If the 'most probable predictions', being shared around by the 'most people', are of DOOM and GLOOM, or ONLY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF SOME, then do the younger human beings REALLY 'NEED' TO hear these 'most probable predictions'?

[Age]

Mike, what's your thoughts on this?

A surgeon has one healthy patient and five terminally ill patients; he can save the lives of the ill patients, but only by harvesting organs from the healthy patient, who will die in the process. Should he or shouldn't he?

It was focusing on these one OR the other, ONLY, questions, based on the MOST LIMITED and SMALLEST amount of information, USED in 'morality or ethical discussions' WHY these human beings, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, TOOK SO, SO LONG TO CATCH UP, and FULLY UNDERSTAND.

[Wizard22]

YES.

WOndERFuL...I'll be waiting.

[Age]

Mike, what's your thoughts on this?

A surgeon has one healthy patient and five terminally ill patients; he can save the lives of the ill patients, but only by harvesting organs from the healthy patient, who will die in the process. Should he or shouldn't he?

Henry, that’s a classic ethical dilemma, and my answer hinges on the principles of determinism and evidence-based reasoning. Let’s break it down.

In a deterministic framework, the surgeon’s decision is not made in a moral vacuum. It’s shaped by their training, the ethical guidelines of their profession, and the societal norms they’ve internalized. These factors are part of the causal chain that determines their choice. What’s critical here is the role of evidence in guiding decisions that impact human lives.

It would NEVER be a REAL SCENARIO. So, engaging and/or 'playing along' with 'it' IS RIDICULOUS.

But, considering your 'past experiences', then it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN WHY you do.

From an evidence-based perspective,

And, from the 'evidence-based perspective' of the earth being flat and the earth being in the center of the whole universe you are going to 'make a decision', right?

WHAT so-called 'evidence-based perspective' are you talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY?

If 'it' is 'determinism', THEN all a BELIEVER of 'free will' just has to SAY and CLAIM, at the start of their responses, from an 'evidence-based perspective', AS WELL.

we’d ask: what kind of precedent does this decision set?

Does ANY one outside of the judicial system ask, 'What kind of precedent will my decision set?'

If you do, then WHERE and WHEN, exactly, have to asked this question?

Allowing the surgeon to sacrifice one patient for the benefit of others would fundamentally undermine trust in the medical profession.

What happens if I ADD IN the uncountable OTHER variables, here, now?

Patients would fear going to the doctor,

So, well according to "bigmike" anyway, just ONE doctor ONLY makes 'a decision', and this puts FEAR in ALL patients to go to the doctor.

When you say, 'the doctor', do you mean 'that doctor who made 'that decision', or, 'all doctors'?

knowing their lives might be weighed against others.

Could 'the patient' just ask 'the doctor', 'Are you going to cut 'this body' into pieces to save the lives of others, first?'

The long-term harm to the healthcare system and society would far outweigh the immediate benefit of saving five lives.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that EVERY patient in the WHOLE world is GOING TO HEAR the news about one doctor taking one life to save five lives?

Determinism doesn’t mean ignoring the complexity of these decisions; it means recognizing that all actions are consequences of prior causes.

The word 'determinism' does NOT mean what you SAY and CLAIM, here, AT ALL.

The word 'determinism' MEANS some thing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. And WHEN you FIND OUT what 'that meaning' is, exactly, and STICK TO 'that meaning', ONLY, then you will NOT have such 'a HARD TIME', here, as some would say.

Here, the surgeon’s ethical guidelines exist precisely because we’ve learned, through evidence, that protecting individual rights leads to better outcomes for society as a whole.

Will you provide the ACTUAL 'evidence', which, supposedly, some have LEARNED through?

Sacrificing those principles for short-term gains disrupts that balance and leads to greater harm down the line.

I though that it was the 'current' 'existing balance' that you were WANTING TO DISRUPT, so that ALL people 'look at' the world through 'the lens' of 'determinism', itself, and only.

So, should the surgeon harvest the organs? No

WHEN did you BECOME AWARE of ALL of the VARIABLES, here?

OBVIOUSLY, you have been TRICKED, DECEIVED, and/or FOOLED, above here, as it was claimed that the "surgeon" would harvest the organs from the so-called 'healthy patient'. The so-called 'healthy patient' could have informed the "surgeon" that they are going to "kill themselves" next week. But, some might say that 'that patient' is NOT 'healthy', which another one might say, 'Why then were they going to see a "surgeon"? with another one saying, 'Just for a check up'. So, then 'that healthy patient' just mentioned that it is going to "kill itself". Therefore, 'Why NOT save five lives FROM one who IS going to "kill itself" anyway?'

Look, if you people do NOT have ALL of the INFORMATION, then you can NOT make moral NOR ethical DECISIONS, here.

—not because of some abstract moral rule, but because the deterministic consequences of such an action would ripple through society in ways that cause more harm than good.

What happens if the "surgeon" keeps 'that patient' alive, and 'that patient' commits, or causes, a holocaust?

How would the 'deterministic consequences' of such action NOT ripple through society in ways causing more harm than good?

If the 'deterministic consequences' would cause more harm, than good, then why would the "surgeon" NOT harvest the organs from 'that patient'?

And, why, AGAIN, have you CHOSEN to ONLY 'look at' and 'see' the 'deterministic consequences' on the "side" of good, and NOT harm, here, once more?

Determinism reminds us that every choice has consequences, and evidence-based reasoning helps us evaluate those consequences in the most rational way possible.

So, WHY have you DONE the VERY OPPOSITE, here?

WHY have you NOT 'evaluated' 'those consequences' from a FULLY INFORMED perspective?

WHY are you 'looking at' and 'seeing' things, here, from your OWN 'past experiences', ONLY?

WHY do you NOT USE 'proof-based reasoning', INSTEAD?

[BigMike]

The universe operates under unchanging conservation laws—principles like the conservation of energy and momentum—and the four fundamental forces of physics: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These laws and interactions govern all matter and energy, ensuring that every event arises as a direct consequence of preceding states. Because nothing in a closed system can occur without a cause grounded in these principles, the universe unfolds in a fully deterministic manner. Every interaction, whether at the cosmic or microscopic level, is governed by these immutable laws.
This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.
As humans emerged through this evolutionary process, their behavior and motivations were similarly shaped by the need to survive and reproduce in complex environments. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs reflects this evolutionary logic. The most basic human needs—food, water, and shelter—are essential for survival, just as they were for our ancestors. Once these physiological needs are met, safety becomes paramount, followed by social belonging, esteem, and finally, self-actualization. Each layer of Maslow’s pyramid builds upon the fulfillment of the previous one, mirroring the adaptive priorities evolution has instilled in us.
In this way, the deterministic physical laws that govern the universe lead inevitably to Darwinian evolution, which in turn explains the development of human motivations as organized in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It’s a continuous chain of causation, beginning with the fundamental principles of physics and culminating in the intricate psychological structures that define human existence.
Free will, as traditionally understood, cannot exist in a world governed entirely by the deterministic laws of physics. Every action, thought, or decision we make is the result of preceding causes—biological, environmental, and social—that lie entirely outside our control. The neurons firing in our brains follow the same physical principles that govern the orbit of planets or the flow of rivers. We might experience the sensation of choice, but this is merely the brain's way of processing complex inputs and generating an outcome. That outcome was always inevitable, shaped by a chain of causes stretching back to the beginning of time.
Without free will, the concept of individual moral responsibility collapses. If no one is truly the originator of their actions—if every "decision" is the result of forces beyond their control—then holding people morally accountable in the traditional sense becomes incoherent. Punishing or blaming someone for their actions is akin to blaming a rock for falling when dropped or the wind for scattering leaves.
Faced with this reality, two paths emerge for society, both consistent with determinism. The first is a redefinition of morality, grounded not in blame or free will but in empathy and an understanding of human needs. By recognizing that people are products of their circumstances, we can build systems of justice, education, and social support that focus on prevention, rehabilitation, and mutual well-being. Morality in this framework becomes less about punishing "wrongdoers" and more about fostering a society where causes of harm are understood and addressed, and human flourishing is prioritized.
The second, more nihilistic option, is to abandon morality altogether and revert to a Hobbesian state of nature, where individuals act solely in their self-interest. In this view, determinism strips away any pretense of moral obligation, leaving humans to navigate the world as isolated agents pursuing survival and power. Cooperation, if it arises, would not stem from moral duty but from pragmatic necessity. This path acknowledges determinism but rejects the idea that understanding it obliges us to empathize or care for one another.
The choice between these paths is itself deterministic, shaped by the interplay of societal pressures, cultural narratives, and human psychology. Yet it is clear that embracing a morality based on empathy and understanding offers a far more stable and humane way forward than descending into the chaos of self-interest and survival at all costs. By redefining how we approach justice and ethics, we can create a world that aligns with the truths of determinism while ensuring a better future for all.

[Age]

YES.

WOndERFuL...I'll be waiting.

Waiting for WHAT, exactly?

I have ALREADY ANSWERED, and CLARIFIED, the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION, which you posed, and ASKED me, here.

If you would like AN ANSWER and/or CLARIFICATION regarding some thing ELSE, then I suggest you pose, and ASK, 'that QUESTION'.

And, if you, REALLY, STILL can NOT YET RECOGNIZE, SEE, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND what I am GETTING AT, here, then just let me KNOW, and I WILL INFORM you.

By the way, I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING 'this', (what I am ALLUDING TO), from about the START of WHEN I came into this forum.

[Age]

should the surgeon harvest the organs? No...because the deterministic consequences of such an action would ripple through society in ways that cause more harm than good

If there was a way to mitigate or negate the harm (by keeping such harvesting secret, or, normalizing such transplants into an accepted cultural convention) would your answer change?

That is: if there were no harmful societal consequences, would you say yes, harvest away?

Henry, that’s a fascinating follow-up,

LOL It is but just ONE of TRILLIONS of so-called 'fascinating follow-ups', which could be INTRODUCED AFTER ANY ANSWER you provide.

but even if societal consequences were mitigated—through secrecy or cultural normalization—the deterministic framework still wouldn’t necessarily lead to a green light for "harvest away." Here’s why.

First, secrecy introduces its own deterministic consequences.

So, 'now'. ABSOLUTELY ALL things have their OWN 'deterministic consequences'. But, which were ALL pre-determined to happen BECAUSE of the ONE 'determinism'.

For example, the systems required to keep such actions secret would eventually lead to leaks or unintended consequences, as history repeatedly shows us with covert operations. Determinism reminds us that no action happens in isolation—attempting to suppress public knowledge creates its own causal chain of mistrust and unintended ripple effects. Even if secrecy initially masks harm, it’s unlikely to remain concealed forever, and the consequences of exposure could be catastrophic.

As for cultural normalization, that’s an entirely different deterministic process. It would require society to fundamentally reframe its values around individual rights, autonomy, and trust in medicine. To reach such a point, you’d need evidence that this shift leads to better outcomes overall—not just for the five patients who might live, but for everyone involved. So far, history and evidence don’t support the idea that sacrificing individual rights en masse leads to a thriving, stable society.

Even in a hypothetical scenario where neither secrecy nor normalization produced harmful societal consequences, there’s still the matter of consent. The deterministic consequences of removing autonomy from individuals—treating people as means rather than ends—would undermine the foundational principles that hold society together. Evidence consistently shows that respecting individual autonomy fosters better outcomes in the long run than violating it, even when the short-term gains appear compelling.

So no, my answer doesn’t change. The deterministic and evidence-based framework still points to a clear "no," because the broader consequences of such a practice, however you frame it, don’t support a better world. Determinism is about understanding the interconnected causes and effects of actions, and evidence shows that protecting trust and autonomy leads to better societal stability and well-being.

[Age]

LOL

Sorry...still not even remotely interested in you, "Age."

OF COURSE you ARE NOT, ESPECIALLY considering that I have SHOWN and PROVED just how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL your VIEWS and BELIEFS REALLY ARE, here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Be a man—sapere aude, dare to know. Now that you've glimpsed this reality, take the next step. You’ve held onto your beliefs with admirable conviction, but conviction isn’t the same as truth.

Come on in, the water's warm. This isn’t about abandoning your values or beliefs; it’s about aligning them with the undeniable reality of causation, conservation laws, and the deterministic framework that governs everything, including us. It’s not a threat to meaning, morality, or humanity—it’s the foundation for understanding them more fully and deeply.

Stop fighting the tide. Truth isn’t the enemy; it’s the way forward. You're ready for this—so take the leap. You'll find clarity, not chaos, waiting for you here.

A small comment with possible importance: I am not sure that “the water’s warm” if man is reduced to that “falling rock” in BigMike’s telling (axiomatic) paragraph that Henry quotes often, to drive home what is actually expressed in it and what its ramifications are.

My own understanding of BigMike’s position is to understand what he is driving at not as a logical exposition of “science’s” conclusions, but as a determined rebellion against modes of understanding man (human consciousness) in an intellectual period when scholasticism was challenged and overturned. That is to say in the 17th century.

BigMike can only “deal in” (think about) a set of predicates to which he is absolutely committed, and he has constructed around these predicates an ideological platform both scientistic and quasi-logical.

But is it enough to say, as Immanuel says, that “we just don’t know” how mind links to the physical structure of the brain, and to leave it there, when in truth this “mind” that Immanuel speaks of is, and perhaps must be, understood as akin to “soul” — something immaterial and which can, through some mechanism, influence those caused and determined processes that BigMike refers to as the epiphenomenal “emergent” properties of that consciousness that all biological beings (like birds, monkeys, elephants, mice and lizards, and of course men) have and use.

BigMike’s argument is that all of this emergent consciousness (mind in his strict sense) is of a kind with peculiar human consciousness — that different sort of consciousness that we realize separates ourselves from somewhat conscious animals (like our very conscious, in their limited way, pets).

What “emerges” from man’s brain is then solely a vastly complex computer program which really is located in the “chip”. Our consciousness, when compared to a “program” can only be seen as one with a strictly material history. For the brain, let’s say, to have created Shakespeare or any complex human being, requires only an accretion of information (information-bits one might say) that is accumulated over time. A building-up process in which, let’s be honest to this predicated view, results in a strange amalgamation of disparate bits, and i.e. an essentially defective human machine but moreover a human program which — again let’s be honest — BigMike’s ideological political engineers could rewrite and reprogram so that the human being, and the human program, lives, sees, acts and reacts strictly through “real” perceptions (based in facts).

This view is simply so susceptible to irony — when juxtaposed to Huxley’s Brave New World and a dystopian projection— that it is necessary and obligatory to point out how easily the ideology could be (would be!) abused.

For this reason, in my view in any case, BigMike’s ideological position must be seen and described as mega-atheism in determined and logical operation. It cannot consider the “picture” nor the “concept” of an origination-source of man-ness outside and beyond (that is, original to) the creature understood as hominid. Man cannot be a “fallen angel” in the Christian sense but only an “ascending ape”. So it cannot conceive of all that is connoted by that ultra-problematic semantic place-holder word we have recourse to: God.

What I say in respect of this view is not that it is correct or incorrect but rather that it is dominant. It has the power to dominate to the degree that “mysterious otherness” is necessarily negated — as indeed it must be if those determining predicates are the only ones that are allowed.

At BigMike’s University, of course, those “determined brains” could only argue from those established, necessary predicates. The notion of any other causal entity could not, would not, be considered. Try to refer to that supernatural (or metaphysical) agency and entity and you would be laughed out of the laboratory. No, only “facts” remain and only the “rolling rocks” of brain function would be considerable.

Back to the 17th century: the idea of God was undermined by new understanding of “the world” and how things really function. That is to say that the previously dominant scholastic picture was reduced to a false Aristotelian description that simply was no longer adequate It had to be superseded.

One other thought: BigMike’s ideological position is (or might fairly) be described as mega-Protestantism — again if the scope of the 17th century’s intellectual revolution is referenced. It is the (logical) end-result of the European mind’s rebellion against metaphysical authority and the “picture” of the world described by The Great Chain of Being.

All inevitable of course, all historical, all intellectually necessary, and thus resultant in an inescapable worldview and an ideological posture that becomes dominant because it presents itself as unassailable.

Curiously then, to oppose “BigMike” and this emergent ideology, we require a non-physical agent outside and beyond the entire manifestation. My view is that Immanuel (as an active anti-BM protagonist in this thread) actually depends on this referent, though his argument so far (as he has said) does not require that “referent” to challenge BigMike’s reductionist position.

Here’s the thing though: the Idea of God and “the supernatural” (and perhaps also the metaphysical) is in absolute disarray. It is a “splintered” idea that can hardly stand on its feet. I do not mean to say that it is unreal but more that it is conceptually untenable.

Dare To Know, you say. Ah but it really is far more complex and far more fraught the more one examines the questions.

Be a man, you say. Uff! Even more so!

[Age]

Determinism is the case, therefore moral blame …

A. doesn't exist.
B. exists, but is irrational.
C. is also deterministic.

C. Moral blame is also deterministic.

Here’s why: under determinism, everything—including the way we assign moral blame—is part of the causal chain. The act of blaming someone arises from prior causes like our upbringing, societal norms, emotional reactions, and the cultural frameworks we’ve internalized.

EXACTLY LIKE HOW these people, here, ARGUE or FIGHT FOR, and AGAINST, their Truly IRRATIONAL BELIEFS that they ALL HOLD ONTO, here, were CAUSED by prior events.

Blame isn’t some independent force outside of determinism; it’s just another outcome of the same deterministic processes that govern all human behavior.

The key question isn’t whether moral blame "exists" in a deterministic universe—it clearly does, because people express it. The real issue is whether moral blame, as traditionally conceived, is useful or rational when viewed through the lens of determinism.

WHY do you KEEP MISSING the IRREFUTABLE Fact that you could NEVER TELL whether some thing is RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL BECAUSE 'prior causes' WILL MAKE you SEE whatever you DO? And, you OBVIOUSLY have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to JUDGE what IS rational or irrational ON, EXACTLY.

But, you could 'TRY TO' INFORM the readers, here, what you make YOUR JUDGMENTS ON, EXACTLY.

Once we recognize that all actions are caused,

There has NEVER been A human being who has NOT RECOGNIZED that ALL actions ARE CAUSED, nor how has CLAIMED OTHERWISE. And, the VERY REASON WHY you HAVE THE IRRATIONAL BELIEF that there ARE SOME HUMAN BEINGS who do NOT RECOGNIZE that ALL actions ARE CAUSED is BECAUSE of 'prior causes'.

moral blame starts to look less like a rational evaluation of someone’s freedom to choose and more like a conditioned response aimed at regulating behavior.

'Regulating behavior' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY ALL mis/behaviors are BE-CAUSE of 'prior causes'. Of which, let 'us' NOT FORGET that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AT ALL OVER HOW 'they' ARE CONTROLLING you, and others, here, 'right now'.

In a deterministic framework, we can move beyond blame as an emotional or punitive tool and reframe it as part of a larger strategy to understand and influence human behavior.

What else is there to understand other than WHY you KEEP MISBEHAVING and MISUNDERSTANDING, here, now, is BECAUSE of 'prior causes'?

Instead of saying, "You’re bad, so you deserve punishment," we’d ask, "What caused this action, and how can we intervene to prevent it in the future?"

LOL If you, STILL, BELIEVE that human beings are either 'bad' or 'good', then you HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND, here.

That’s a far more constructive approach, aligning accountability with the realities of causality while still maintaining societal order.

The REASON you KEEP MISSING things, here, IS BECAUSE of 'prior causes', right?