The Power of Art and Emotion: Should We Worry About Manipulation?

[henry quirk]

Oh my, I'm out of the penalty box! Blessed be the Blind Deterministic Forces!

the question isn’t whether we can step outside the causal chain—because we can’t—but whether understanding the mechanisms of causality shifts the trajectory of those chains in meaningful ways.

Mike, what any of us find meaningful or undertstand is just as causally inevitable as the rest of our thinking. You, posing what you believe is a meaningful question, your very notions about what is meaningful, that's all causally inevitable. Me, rejecting it: causally inevitable. Where our trajectories shift, or don't: causally inevitable.

it’s about leaning into it, shaping the inputs where we can, and watching the chain of causes unfold

We lean where blind deterministic forces push us; we are vehicles for the blind deterministic forces that do the shaping; we watch what we must, what we are driven to.

I call it the beauty of cause and effect in action.

What you consider beautiful is just another causal inevitability, no better or worse than what anyone else considers beautiful.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“What’s it going to be then, eh?”

[henry quirk]

I'm thinkin', Mike, it's probably in your best interest to put me back in your penalty box.

You're gonna do it anyway so why wait?

Here's the thing: I'll never accept, or submit, to your barren, cul-de-sac, philosophy.

There's nuthin' meaningful or beautiful or true about it. It's ugly and a lie, and, as I say, can only lead to atrocity.

I oppose it. I oppose you.

If it pleases you: chalk my opposition up to causal inevitability.

[accelafine]

Normal, sane humans crave beauty and harmony. Beauty and symmetry in any medium resonates with us on a fundamental level. We live in an age of ugliness--and people wonder why 90 percent of the population is on anti-depressants. Post-modernisim and its 'everything is subjective' bullshit has a lot to answer for.

[BigMike]

I'm thinkin', Mike, it's probably in your best interest to put me back in your penalty box.

You're gonna do it anyway so why wait?

Here's the thing: I'll never accept, or submit, to your barren, cul-de-sac, philosophy.

There's nuthin' meaningful or beautiful or true about it. It's ugly and a lie, and, as I say, can only lead to atrocity.

I oppose it. I oppose you.

If it pleases you: chalk my opposition up to causal inevitability.

Granted.

[iambiguous]

Henry, you’ve articulated the deterministic perspective with precision—everything that happens, happens because it must, including our debate here.

Then the part where, in my opinion, some "free will determinists" still manage to suggest this doesn't mean that at all. Everything is determined by the laws of matter, they insist. No exceptions?

Well, at least not...theoretically?

Nothing could ever have not happened, including me typing these words in my "here and now" and you reading them in your own "here and now". But "somehow" compatibilism emerged from an understanding of any number of "internal components" that henry's meat minds embody themselves. As though there is absolutely no possibility that this is not both metaphysically and epistemologically true for all of us.

And yet, here we are, engaging in this very discussion. So the question isn’t whether we can step outside the causal chain—because we can’t—but whether understanding the mechanisms of causality shifts the trajectory of those chains in meaningful ways.

Then the part where the hard determinists insist that however we come to understand any of this, we were never free to opt otherwise. Also, the fact that individuals can "shift" their behaviors, just as we can "shift" our reactions to them, it's all part and parcel of the only possible reality unfolding in the only possible way.

Think of it this way: acknowledging that all human behavior is determined doesn’t mean that knowledge has no influence. In fact, understanding how inputs work—how emotional appeals manipulate us, for instance—becomes another input itself.

Again, this is the part that always seems to trip me up.

Knowledge influences any number of things. But that's not the point the hard determinists are compelled to argue. If what anyone here [including myself] claim to think they know about art and emotion is, in fact, all that they were [up until now] ever able to think they know...?

This new input can alter the course of the so-called "meat machine," redirecting its outputs in ways that are still deterministic but now informed by a deeper awareness of the forces at play.

Any new input might alter the way we think and feel and say and do any number of things. But if it's all put into us by nature itself, how is that not then the only possible reality?

[BigMike]

Henry, you’ve articulated the deterministic perspective with precision—everything that happens, happens because it must, including our debate here.

Then the part where, in my opinion, some "free will determinists" still manage to suggest this doesn't mean that at all. Everything is determined by the laws of matter, they insist. No exceptions?

Well, at least not...theoretically?

Nothing could ever have not happened, including me typing these words in my "here and now" and you reading them in your own "here and now". But "somehow" compatibilism emerged from an understanding of any number of "internal components" that henry's meat minds embody themselves. As though there is absolutely no possibility that this is not both metaphysically and epistemologically true for all of us.

And yet, here we are, engaging in this very discussion. So the question isn’t whether we can step outside the causal chain—because we can’t—but whether understanding the mechanisms of causality shifts the trajectory of those chains in meaningful ways.

Then the part where the hard determinists insist that however we come to understand any of this, we were never free to opt otherwise. Also, the fact that individuals can "shift" their behaviors, just as we can "shift" our reactions to them, it's all part and parcel of the only possible reality unfolding in the only possible way.

Think of it this way: acknowledging that all human behavior is determined doesn’t mean that knowledge has no influence. In fact, understanding how inputs work—how emotional appeals manipulate us, for instance—becomes another input itself.

Again, this is the part that always seems to trip me up.

Knowledge influences any number of things. But that's not the point the hard determinists are compelled to argue. If what anyone here [including myself] claim to think they know about art and emotion is, in fact, all that they were [up until now] ever able to think they know...?

This new input can alter the course of the so-called "meat machine," redirecting its outputs in ways that are still deterministic but now informed by a deeper awareness of the forces at play.

Any new input might alter the way we think and feel and say and do any number of things. But if it's all put into us by nature itself, how is that not then the only possible reality?

iambiguous, you're wrestling with some of the most profound implications of determinism, and I respect the thoroughness of your inquiry. Let me address your points directly, through the lens of determinism, and highlight a crucial element you touched on but might not have fully integrated: the brain’s physical and dynamic role in this deterministic process.

When we acquire knowledge or experience, it doesn’t just hover abstractly—it leaves a tangible mark. Everything you remember, say for more than a day or so, involves physical and nearly permanent changes in your brain. Neural pathways are reshaped, synaptic connections are strengthened or weakened, and these changes influence how you respond to similar situations in the future. That’s the mechanism by which "knowledge influences" within a deterministic framework. It's not just theoretical; it's measurable and physical.

So yes, when you type your thoughts now or read mine later, both of us are functioning within the constraints of the only possible reality. But—and this is key—new inputs like this discussion create physical changes in our neural architecture. These changes may nudge behavior or reactions in slightly different directions the next time we face similar circumstances. This doesn’t violate determinism; it demonstrates how determinism works.

Think of it this way: the deterministic chain is not static. It’s an evolving system where each new input adjusts the trajectory of the "meat machine" ever so slightly. When you acknowledge that, it reframes the apparent paradox. We aren't breaking the causal chain by integrating new knowledge—we’re extending it, rerouting it, adding new nodes to the network.

And as for compatibilism, the idea isn’t to sneak "free will" back in. It’s to emphasize that our capacity for reflection, adaptation, and growth is part of what determinism allows. If you reflect on what you’ve learned, store it in memory, and let it shape future responses, that process isn’t free will; it’s determinism doing what it does best: adjusting to inputs in a complex and dynamic system.

So when you ask how this isn’t just the only possible reality, the answer is: it is. But within that deterministic framework, there’s immense room for variation, complexity, and, yes, meaningful change. What do you think—does recognizing the brain’s plasticity within determinism help make sense of how we experience "new inputs" shaping our lives?

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

[attofishpi]

Should we be concerned about this? And if so, how can we protect ourselves..

Seriously? U must be bored out of your robot pre-programmed head.

THE ARTS - MUSIC - POETRY - POO sliding down Mohammads inner leg --> have BEEN HAPPENING for a very very long time...

SO.

Should we NOW be concerned about it? FUCK NO!

...shit happens

Atto, I get where you’re coming from—poetry, music, art, and yes, even the less savory imagery you’ve offered, have been shaping human experience for as long as we’ve been capable of stringing two thoughts together. From that perspective, you’re right—this isn’t new. But here’s the thing: the fact that something has “always been happening” doesn’t mean it’s immune from scrutiny or reflection.

In a deterministic framework, all actions—whether it’s an artist creating, an audience reacting, or a society reflecting—stem from prior causes. What we’re doing here is part of that chain: examining how these inputs influence us and asking whether a better understanding of those processes might lead to better outcomes.

Does that mean we can suddenly stop the machine, rewrite its code, and "fix" it? Of course not. But just because we’re deterministic systems doesn’t mean new inputs—like, say, conversations about manipulation in art and rhetoric—can’t alter the trajectory of those systems in meaningful ways.

And sure, “shit happens,” as you so eloquently put it. But if we know why it happens and how it shapes us, maybe we can nudge the system in directions that benefit more people. Isn’t that worth thinking about, even if the thinking itself is just part of the grand causal dance?

I ended up eating two sausage sandwiches at 2am, there's no need to talk about causality and 'shit happens' to me atm.

[attofishpi]

Normal, sane humans crave beauty and harmony. Beauty and symmetry in any medium resonates with us on a fundamental level. We live in an age of ugliness--and people wonder why 90 percent of the population is on anti-depressants. Post-modernisim and its 'everything is subjective' bullshit has a lot to answer for.

So Y don't you crave beauty and harmony?

[Alexis Jacobi]

“What’s it going to be then, eh?”

Anthony Burgess reads from A Clockwork Orange.

[promethean75]

Well, well, well, well. If it isn't fat, stinking billygoat Billy-Boy in poison. How art thou, thou globby bottle of cheap, stinking chip-oil? Come and get one in the yarbles, if you have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Listening to the violin concerto by •Geoffrey Plautus• (made up composer):

“Oh it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh. The trombones crunched redgold under my bed, and behind my gulliver the trumpets three-wise silverflamed, and there by the door the timps rolling through my guts and out again crunched like candy thunder. Oh, it was wonder of wonders. And then, a bird of like rarest spun heavenmetal, or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now, came the violin solo above all the other strings, and those strings were like a cage of silk round my bed. Then flute and oboe bored, like worms of like platinum, into the thick thick toffee gold and silver. I was in such bliss, my brothers.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

Listening to the violin concerto by •Geoffrey Plautus• (made up composer):

“Oh it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh. The trombones crunched redgold under my bed, and behind my gulliver the trumpets three-wise silverflamed, and there by the door the timps rolling through my guts and out again crunched like candy thunder. Oh, it was wonder of wonders. And then, a bird of like rarest spun heavenmetal, or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now, came the violin solo above all the other strings, and those strings were like a cage of silk round my bed. Then flute and oboe bored, like worms of like platinum, into the thick thick toffee gold and silver. I was in such bliss, my brothers.”

For fun I juxtapose BigMike’s take on music’s influence:

A Bach composition resonates because it activates specific neural circuits shaped by both our biology and our cultural contexts. The fiery rhetoric of an anti-slavery speech moves people because it strikes chords deeply rooted in shared human experiences and moral intuitions. None of this lessens their impact; it simply places their origins and effects within a causal framework.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, as for the unseen world you describe—forces outside deterministic chains—I’ll admit this diverges from my understanding. For me, introducing influences outside the causal web raises the question: how do these influences interface with the physical world? If they leave no detectable imprint within the causal network, how do we distinguish their effects from mere imagination or the emergent properties of a complex system?

What is “imagination”? In the Olden System (the older anthropology and psychology) the imagination was a sort of reflecting glass or a screen. In fact, when any of us visualize (think about, see) anything, it occurs in the realm of the imagination.

How might something “outside of the causal web” introduce •something• into the imagination, the visionary space, of man?

I know that you will refer to “memories” stored in neuronal circuits that are activated and, again, you will refer to the physical structure that must already be there …

And I am pretty sure that any depiction of an entity operating outside of physical causal chains (God, angels, disembodied intelligence) will be interpreted by you as the projection of internal (emergent, epiphenomenal) content into a picture or description that no longer reflects what is true. And in your view brain-science and neurology express a truer picture. But more than picture, rather irreducible fact.