Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[henry quirk]

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.




*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

[BigMike]

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.




*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

Henry, let me break this down clearly: all causation, all input, enters the system through our senses and afferent nervous system. These include external sensory inputs—sights, sounds, smells, and touches—as well as internal signals like hormones, neurotransmitters, and chemicals introduced into the body, such as alcohol or drugs. This input feeds into the brain, triggering neurological activity that processes the data and determines responses.

When I mention introspection, growth, or self-awareness, I’m describing processes that are caused by this chain of inputs. For example, if you hear a suggestion to self-reflect, that sound wave becomes sensory input. It travels to your auditory cortex, is processed alongside your past experiences and current state, and may or may not lead to what we call introspection. This isn’t "choice" as in uncaused free will; it’s a deterministic cascade shaped by your biology, environment, and history.

You’re right to push for clarity, but you’re mischaracterizing determinism when you say it’s "inevitable" without influence. Influence is causation. Inputs from the environment—whether words, sounds, or chemical changes—enter the system and alter its state. Your behavior, whether it’s introspection or anything else, arises because the inputs made it happen. That’s the deterministic framework, and it’s entirely consistent.

So yes, Joe introspects not because of magical decision-making but because the inputs (sensory or otherwise) and his internal state caused it. Influence and causation are the same in this context, and tightening language doesn’t change the reality of the deterministic chain at work.

[attofishpi]

Mike, you need to give it up.

GOD exists, ergo by your own standard, your premise that defines determinism is false.

(*put in words mates of mine would better under_stand: Determinism is bollocks)

[Age]

Your response is a complete deflection, and frankly, it's exhausting to see you persist in avoiding accountability for your own words by resorting to childish humor.

Although "attofishpi's" continual avoiding of responsibility, here, is not exhausting at all, to me, anyway you are absolutely Correct in "attofishpi's" response being a complete (attempt) at DEFLECTION. But this is just what "attofishpi" continually 'tries to do', along with its attempts at humor, again for DEFLECTION, DISTRACTION, and DECEPTION. But, and "attofishpi" Rightly POINTED OUT, to you, it has absolutely NO other choice. Well according to your logic, BELIEF, and CLAIM, here, anyway, correct?

Let me clarify something: this isn’t about being “upset.” It’s about pointing out behavior that derails meaningful discourse and reduces complex discussions to cheap attempts at humor that do nothing but waste time.

I never 'saw' you as being upset. I just saw a well written response by you. However, what you seem to keep MISSING is that whatever happens and whatever response you get, and write "yourself", absolutely none of you had absolutely ANY choice NOR control over, correct?

You claim that determinism absolves you of responsibility because, "since the Big Bang," you had no choice in the matter. Let’s address that, too. Determinism explains why people behave as they do based on prior causes—upbringing, environment, experiences—but it doesn’t remove the possibility of introspection, growth, or self-awareness.

This, here, is, EXACTLY, where your views and claims keep FALLING APART and FAILING, ABSOLUTELY, "bigmike".

you can NOT logically keep claiming absolutely EVERY thing is because of 'determinism' BUT people have a choice over whether they CHOOSE to introspect, grow, or become self-aware.

you are FIGHTING and ARGUING AGAINST "yourself", here, sometimes.

But, then again, you have absolutely NO choice in misbehaving 'this way', right?

Even within a deterministic framework, people have the capacity to reflect on their actions and recognize when they’re crossing boundaries.

But ONLY WHEN the pre-existing conditions have allowed them to. And, OBVIOUSLY, NO two people have had the exact same pre-existing conditions.

What’s especially troubling is your repeated insistence on introducing perverse or irrelevant commentary into what was intended to be an intellectual discussion.

LOL "bigmike" it was NEVER going to any other way, OBVIOUSLY.

The fact that this response comes so naturally to you raises serious questions about the forces that shaped your behavior.

And, what about your OWN misgivings and Wrong doings?

Are you raising serious questions about the forces that shaped your Wrong behaviors' here?

Or, are you MISSING and/or 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY FROM those 'past forces' BECAUSE those 'past forces' actually TAUGHT you to be DEFLECTIVE, DISMISSIVE, and/or DECEPTIVE of 'those forces' that have made you do Wrong and MISBEHAVE?

Are you trying to deflect attention from your inability to engage seriously,

LOL "bigmike", have you, "yourself", REALLY, been engaging 'seriously', here?

For example, you define the 'free will' words in a way that they could not exist, and so then conclude 'free will' does not exist. Which is about a silly and stupid as defining any other word/s in 'a way' that they could not exist, and then spending the rest of your time claiming that 'it' does not exist, and LOL FIGHTING and ARGUING FOR 'your claim'.

Do you want to focus on your INABILITY to engage seriously, here? Or, are you, also, trying to deflect attention from your inability to engage seriously, as well?

or are these responses simply what your mind defaults to under pressure?

Once again for the slow of learning, you human beings do BOT have your own minds

Either way, it’s a clear sign that something in your past—your environment, your social interactions, or your upbringing—has wired you to seek attention through provocation rather than meaningful contribution.

The EXACT SAME can be said and SHOWN about you, here, "bigmike".

you are not REALLY providing meaningful contribution, here. Instead you are just 'trying to' get others to accept and agree with your OWN belief/s, here.

If you truly want to continue this conversation, then drop the immaturity, stop deflecting, and engage in a way that respects the intellectual effort being put into this exchange.

LOL you want to TELL others that the 'very way' that they are is because of 'determinism', and that they have absolutely NO 'free will' to CHOOSE to CHANGE 'the way' they are, AT ALL, BUT, ALSO, CRITICIZE them for continuing to b 'the very way' that they are, and for NOT being DIFFERENT.

Could you get MORE CONTRADICTORY and/or be MORE HYPOCRITICAL, here, "bigmike"?

Otherwise, you’re just proving my earlier point: when someone can’t rise to the level of the discussion, they try to bring everyone else down to theirs. Don’t let that be the legacy of your contributions here.

'This' is EXACTLY what you, "bigmike", are DOING, here, "yourself".

Your argument seems to hinge on a fundamental misunderstanding of determinism.

'WHAT argument'?

PRESENT what you think or BELIEVE is 'my argument', so then at least 'us' readers, here, KNOW what you are talking about and referring to, exactly.

Let me spell this out clearly, once and for all.

Okay. I will be excited to SEE what 'this' is, EXACTLY, that you will, supposedly, 'spell out', here.

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

So, are you saying and claiming that 'you' have some sort of CONTROL OVER the 'causal chain'?

Also, was it NOT ALREADY BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that WHATEVER 'you' SAY and/or DO, ANYWHERE, is just going to be a PART OF 'the causal chain', anyway?

Now, OF COURSE your suggestions and your ideas BECOME A PART OF 'the causal chain'. Just like others suggestions and others ideas BECOME A PART OF 'the causal chain'. But, just like you CHOOSING NOT TO FOLLOW others suggestions or others ideas SO TO do they CHOOSE to just NOT FOLLOW your suggestions and your ideas.

AGAIN, this is ALL just a PART OF 'the causal chain', HERE.

you seem to have a fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of 'determinism', itself.

Take a simple example: I ask you for your email address. That request becomes a "previous cause." It might nudge you to consider whether to send it or not. Your decision—whether to share the email or decline—is shaped by a cascade of prior causes: your past interactions with me, your comfort with sharing personal information, your current mood, and so on. The act of deciding didn’t materialize from nowhere; it was caused.

WHY do you come across like centuries or even millennia BEHIND, here?

When I suggest "self-awareness" or "growth," those words can trigger a similar process.

GREAT. So, when I suggest 'self-awareness' and 'growth' those words can trigger, in you, a similar process, right?

If someone is receptive to that input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping their future actions.

So, if you are receptive to my input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping your future behaviors, right?

It’s not some mystical loophole in determinism;

Have you NOTICED HOW OFTEN you RESORT to the 'mystical' word WHEN you are 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from the Fact that you have been DOING, here, the EXACT SAME of what you ACCUSE others of DOING?

it’s how causation works. Inputs—whether they’re words, experiences, or events—cause reactions, which cause further reactions, and so on.

Are you AWARE of just HOW CLOSED you REALLY ARE, here. AGAIN, which was CAUSED BE-CAUSE of your 'past experiences'. The way you are BE-ING BLIND and CLOSED is BE-CAUSE of your OWN INDIVIDUAL 'past experiences'. AGAIN, this is HOW 'determinsim' WORKS, and what HAS CAUSED ALL of you human beings TO BE the INDIVIDUAL, and DIFFERENT, human beings that you ALL ARE.

Your criticism that I somehow contradict determinism

LOL you can NOT even get 'this' Right AND Correct.

I have NEVER EVER even 'THOUGHT', let alone 'SUGGESTED' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE, that 'you' somehow contradict determinism.

you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ, and COMPREHEND, what is WRITTEN BEFORE you, here, BEFORE you RESPOND.

you CONTINUALLY READ INTO 'things' that are NOT even being SAID, nor even being WRITTEN.

ONCE AGAIN FOR 'you' "bigmike" I AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT THAT, ABSOLUTELY EVERY THING IS BECAUSE OF 'determinism'.

WHEN will you EVER COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact?

you are NOT contradicting 'determinism', itself. you are CONTRADICTING your OTHER CLAIMS.

misunderstands its very nature.

you are THE 'one' MISUNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING, WRITING, and MEANING, here.

Determinism doesn’t mean people don’t change or grow; it means that change and growth are caused.

GREAT. Now, SAY 'this', and then WAIT FOR people TO CHANGE and GROW.

And, WHY would you EVEN BEGIN TO THINK that I was SAYING that determinism means people do not change or grow?

you would have to be an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE to even JUST BEGIN to think that I was saying and meaning this.

But, BECAUSE of 'determinism', itself, you had NO CHOICE AT ALL other than TO BEGIN to think that 'that' was EXACTLY what I was saying and meaning, here, right?

The deterministic framework fully accounts for this—it’s not complicated.

LOL

you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, YET, of just HOW Truly SIMPLE, and EASY, ALL-OF-THIS REALLY IS.

In case you are STILL UNAWARE, it HAS BEEN 'you' WHO HAS BEEN UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATING things, here.

[Age]

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.




*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

Henry, let me break this down clearly: all causation, all input, enters the system through our senses and afferent nervous system.

WHY NOT just TAKE ON "henry quirk's" suggestions and ideas, here, "bigmike"?

you, OBVIOUSLY, EXPECT others to TAKE ON your suggestions and ideas when you present them.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, "henry quirk's" suggestions and ideas, here, have ENTERED 'the causal chain'. So, WHY are you CHOOSING to NOT FOLLOW them?

Also, HOW are you even CHOOSING NOT TO.

These include external sensory inputs—sights, sounds, smells, and touches—as well as internal signals like hormones, neurotransmitters, and chemicals introduced into the body, such as alcohol or drugs. This input feeds into the brain, triggering neurological activity that processes the data and determines responses.

LOL 'They' do NOT 'determine responses'.

you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN,COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND MORE, here.

When I mention introspection, growth, or self-awareness, I’m describing processes that are caused by this chain of inputs. For example, if you hear a suggestion to self-reflect, that sound wave becomes sensory input. It travels to your auditory cortex, is processed alongside your past experiences and current state, and may or may not lead to what we call introspection. This isn’t "choice" as in uncaused free will; it’s a deterministic cascade shaped by your biology, environment, and history.

LOL you are STILL going on about some so-called 'uncaused things', here.

WHEN WILL your 'past experiences' CAUSE you to UNDERSTAND that there are NO SUCH 'things' as UNCAUSED THINGS?

WHY do you KEEP BRINGING what is sometimes referred to as a 'red herring', here?

LOL you have spend some time, here, on YOUR BELIEF that there are some human beings who you want to FIGHT and ARGUE AGAINST, who BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there is LAUGHINGLY some so-called 'uncaused free will'. AGAIN, "bigmike" there is NOT a human beings who BELIEVES this.

So, what you are, ESSENTIALLY, doing, here, is 'trying to' ARGUE and FIGHT AGAINST some thing of your OWN making, which does NOT even exist.

You’re right to push for clarity, but you’re mischaracterizing determinism when you say it’s "inevitable" without influence.

Did "henry quirk" EVER say 'this'?

If yes, then WHEN and WHERE, EXACTLY?

Influence is causation. Inputs from the environment—whether words, sounds, or chemical changes—enter the system and alter its state. Your behavior, whether it’s introspection or anything else, arises because the inputs made it happen. That’s the deterministic framework, and it’s entirely consistent.

AGAIN, you speak and write as though you are from CENTURIES AGO, prior to when this is being written.

WHY NOT just SAY and WRITE what IS, essentially, VERY SIMPLE, and EASY, what IS VERY SIMPLE and EASY TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, and just what can NOT be refuted by absolutely ANY one, instead. And, that is:

EVERY thing EVERY body thinks AND does IS BECAUSE of 'that body's' INDIVIDUAL and DIFFERENT 'past experiences'.

And, this is the VERY REASON WHY ALL OF 'you', human beings, are INDIVIDUALLY DIFFERENT.

'you' are ALL INDIVIDUALLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF the EXACT SAME PROCESS/ES.

So yes, Joe introspects not because of magical decision-making but because the inputs (sensory or otherwise) and his internal state caused it.

And, like 'you', other people, do NOT introspect, not because of magical decision making, but because of what 'the body' has, PREVIOUSLY, experienced.

Also, just like 'you' do NOT introspect, as you KEEP PROVING, here, no matter HOW MANY TIMES 'we' SUGGEST that 'you' do it "bigmike", other people WILL ALSO CHOOSE to NOT introspect, AS WELL. And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE of 'yours' and 'their' 'past experiences', HITHERTO.

Influence and causation are the same in this context, and tightening language doesn’t change the reality of the deterministic chain at work.

AGAIN, you do NOT FOLLOW the 'advice' of others, 'try to' "justify" 'your position' and 'your non doing', while AT THE SAME TIME, EXPECTING others to FOLLOW 'your advice'.

And, the WORST PART, here, is you, STILL, can NOT YET SEE 'this'. Which, AGAIN, is BECAUSE of what 'that body' HAS EXPERIENCED, HITHERTO.

[Age]

Mike, you need to give it up.

GOD exists, ergo by your own standard, your premise that defines determinism is false.

(*put in words mates of mine would better under_stand: Determinism is bollocks)

'This' REALLY WAS the LACK OF MATURITY and the LACK OF GROWTH some adults had, back in the days when this was being written.

[BigMike]

Your argument seems to hinge on a fundamental misunderstanding of determinism.

'WHAT argument'?

PRESENT what you think or BELIEVE is 'my argument', so then at least 'us' readers, here, KNOW what you are talking about and referring to, exactly.

Let me spell this out clearly, once and for all.

Okay. I will be excited to SEE what 'this' is, EXACTLY, that you will, supposedly, 'spell out', here.

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

So, are you saying and claiming that 'you' have some sort of CONTROL OVER the 'causal chain'?

Also, was it NOT ALREADY BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that WHATEVER 'you' SAY and/or DO, ANYWHERE, is just going to be a PART OF 'the causal chain', anyway?

Now, OF COURSE your suggestions and your ideas BECOME A PART OF 'the causal chain'. Just like others suggestions and others ideas BECOME A PART OF 'the causal chain'. But, just like you CHOOSING NOT TO FOLLOW others suggestions or others ideas SO TO do they CHOOSE to just NOT FOLLOW your suggestions and your ideas.

AGAIN, this is ALL just a PART OF 'the causal chain', HERE.

you seem to have a fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of 'determinism', itself.

Take a simple example: I ask you for your email address. That request becomes a "previous cause." It might nudge you to consider whether to send it or not. Your decision—whether to share the email or decline—is shaped by a cascade of prior causes: your past interactions with me, your comfort with sharing personal information, your current mood, and so on. The act of deciding didn’t materialize from nowhere; it was caused.

WHY do you come across like centuries or even millennia BEHIND, here?

When I suggest "self-awareness" or "growth," those words can trigger a similar process.

GREAT. So, when I suggest 'self-awareness' and 'growth' those words can trigger, in you, a similar process, right?

If someone is receptive to that input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping their future actions.

So, if you are receptive to my input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping your future behaviors, right?

It’s not some mystical loophole in determinism;

Have you NOTICED HOW OFTEN you RESORT to the 'mystical' word WHEN you are 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from the Fact that you have been DOING, here, the EXACT SAME of what you ACCUSE others of DOING?

it’s how causation works. Inputs—whether they’re words, experiences, or events—cause reactions, which cause further reactions, and so on.

Are you AWARE of just HOW CLOSED you REALLY ARE, here. AGAIN, which was CAUSED BE-CAUSE of your 'past experiences'. The way you are BE-ING BLIND and CLOSED is BE-CAUSE of your OWN INDIVIDUAL 'past experiences'. AGAIN, this is HOW 'determinsim' WORKS, and what HAS CAUSED ALL of you human beings TO BE the INDIVIDUAL, and DIFFERENT, human beings that you ALL ARE.

Your criticism that I somehow contradict determinism

LOL you can NOT even get 'this' Right AND Correct.

I have NEVER EVER even 'THOUGHT', let alone 'SUGGESTED' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE, that 'you' somehow contradict determinism.

you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ, and COMPREHEND, what is WRITTEN BEFORE you, here, BEFORE you RESPOND.

you CONTINUALLY READ INTO 'things' that are NOT even being SAID, nor even being WRITTEN.

ONCE AGAIN FOR 'you' "bigmike" I AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT THAT, ABSOLUTELY EVERY THING IS BECAUSE OF 'determinism'.

WHEN will you EVER COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact?

you are NOT contradicting 'determinism', itself. you are CONTRADICTING your OTHER CLAIMS.

misunderstands its very nature.

you are THE 'one' MISUNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING, WRITING, and MEANING, here.

Determinism doesn’t mean people don’t change or grow; it means that change and growth are caused.

GREAT. Now, SAY 'this', and then WAIT FOR people TO CHANGE and GROW.

And, WHY would you EVEN BEGIN TO THINK that I was SAYING that determinism means people do not change or grow?

you would have to be an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE to even JUST BEGIN to think that I was saying and meaning this.

But, BECAUSE of 'determinism', itself, you had NO CHOICE AT ALL other than TO BEGIN to think that 'that' was EXACTLY what I was saying and meaning, here, right?

The deterministic framework fully accounts for this—it’s not complicated.

LOL

you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, YET, of just HOW Truly SIMPLE, and EASY, ALL-OF-THIS REALLY IS.

In case you are STILL UNAWARE, it HAS BEEN 'you' WHO HAS BEEN UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATING things, here.

Enough with the endless circular arguments and misrepresentations. Let me set this straight in no uncertain terms: I understand determinism fully and consistently—and what’s painfully clear is that you’re either deliberately distorting my points or failing to grasp them entirely.

When I say that introspection, growth, or self-awareness are deterministic processes, I mean exactly that. It’s not "contradictory" for me to suggest these processes as part of the causal chain. If you’re incapable of seeing how inputs—whether they’re words, experiences, or even biochemical changes—can lead to changes in behavior, then the misunderstanding here is yours, not mine.

You accuse me of reading things into your comments? Please. You’ve written pages of convoluted, contradictory responses that twist straightforward concepts into incomprehensible nonsense. And then you dare to accuse me of complicating matters? Spare me.

Yes, people change and grow—deterministically. Yes, inputs cause reactions—deterministically. And yes, your responses to this entire discussion are shaped by prior causes. But your insistence on dragging this into endless tangents and strawman arguments is exhausting and unnecessary. You want to claim I’m missing something? Then state your argument clearly—if you even have one—without the rhetorical gymnastics. If you can’t, maybe it’s time to reconsider who’s really overcomplicating things here.

[Age]

Your argument seems to hinge on a fundamental misunderstanding of determinism.

'WHAT argument'?

PRESENT what you think or BELIEVE is 'my argument', so then at least 'us' readers, here, KNOW what you are talking about and referring to, exactly.

Let me spell this out clearly, once and for all.

Okay. I will be excited to SEE what 'this' is, EXACTLY, that you will, supposedly, 'spell out', here.

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

So, are you saying and claiming that 'you' have some sort of CONTROL OVER the 'causal chain'?

Also, was it NOT ALREADY BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that WHATEVER 'you' SAY and/or DO, ANYWHERE, is just going to be a PART OF 'the causal chain', anyway?

Now, OF COURSE your suggestions and your ideas BECOME A PART OF 'the causal chain'. Just like others suggestions and others ideas BECOME A PART OF 'the causal chain'. But, just like you CHOOSING NOT TO FOLLOW others suggestions or others ideas SO TO do they CHOOSE to just NOT FOLLOW your suggestions and your ideas.

AGAIN, this is ALL just a PART OF 'the causal chain', HERE.

you seem to have a fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of 'determinism', itself.

Take a simple example: I ask you for your email address. That request becomes a "previous cause." It might nudge you to consider whether to send it or not. Your decision—whether to share the email or decline—is shaped by a cascade of prior causes: your past interactions with me, your comfort with sharing personal information, your current mood, and so on. The act of deciding didn’t materialize from nowhere; it was caused.

WHY do you come across like centuries or even millennia BEHIND, here?

When I suggest "self-awareness" or "growth," those words can trigger a similar process.

GREAT. So, when I suggest 'self-awareness' and 'growth' those words can trigger, in you, a similar process, right?

If someone is receptive to that input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping their future actions.

So, if you are receptive to my input, it becomes part of the chain of causes shaping your future behaviors, right?

It’s not some mystical loophole in determinism;

Have you NOTICED HOW OFTEN you RESORT to the 'mystical' word WHEN you are 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from the Fact that you have been DOING, here, the EXACT SAME of what you ACCUSE others of DOING?

it’s how causation works. Inputs—whether they’re words, experiences, or events—cause reactions, which cause further reactions, and so on.

Are you AWARE of just HOW CLOSED you REALLY ARE, here. AGAIN, which was CAUSED BE-CAUSE of your 'past experiences'. The way you are BE-ING BLIND and CLOSED is BE-CAUSE of your OWN INDIVIDUAL 'past experiences'. AGAIN, this is HOW 'determinsim' WORKS, and what HAS CAUSED ALL of you human beings TO BE the INDIVIDUAL, and DIFFERENT, human beings that you ALL ARE.

Your criticism that I somehow contradict determinism

LOL you can NOT even get 'this' Right AND Correct.

I have NEVER EVER even 'THOUGHT', let alone 'SUGGESTED' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE, that 'you' somehow contradict determinism.

you REALLY DO NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ, and COMPREHEND, what is WRITTEN BEFORE you, here, BEFORE you RESPOND.

you CONTINUALLY READ INTO 'things' that are NOT even being SAID, nor even being WRITTEN.

ONCE AGAIN FOR 'you' "bigmike" I AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT THAT, ABSOLUTELY EVERY THING IS BECAUSE OF 'determinism'.

WHEN will you EVER COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact?

you are NOT contradicting 'determinism', itself. you are CONTRADICTING your OTHER CLAIMS.

misunderstands its very nature.

you are THE 'one' MISUNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING, WRITING, and MEANING, here.

Determinism doesn’t mean people don’t change or grow; it means that change and growth are caused.

GREAT. Now, SAY 'this', and then WAIT FOR people TO CHANGE and GROW.

And, WHY would you EVEN BEGIN TO THINK that I was SAYING that determinism means people do not change or grow?

you would have to be an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE to even JUST BEGIN to think that I was saying and meaning this.

But, BECAUSE of 'determinism', itself, you had NO CHOICE AT ALL other than TO BEGIN to think that 'that' was EXACTLY what I was saying and meaning, here, right?

The deterministic framework fully accounts for this—it’s not complicated.

LOL

you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, YET, of just HOW Truly SIMPLE, and EASY, ALL-OF-THIS REALLY IS.

In case you are STILL UNAWARE, it HAS BEEN 'you' WHO HAS BEEN UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATING things, here.

Enough with the endless circular arguments and misrepresentations.

AGAIN, you MISREPRESENT what is being SAID and WRITTEN, to you, while BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY that it is 'the other' who IS MISREPRESENTING.

Let me set this straight in no uncertain terms:

The ONLY 'thing' that NEEDS STRAIGHTENING, here, is your OWN MISREPRESENTATIONS.

If absolutely ANY one say absolutely ANY thing, which you think or BELIEVE they are trying to COUNTER your CLAIMS, then you JUMP INTO MISINTERPRETING what is BEING SAID, and MEANT.

I understand determinism fully and consistently—and what’s painfully clear is that you’re either deliberately distorting my points or failing to grasp them entirely.

So, BECAUSE of 'determinism', itself, 'you', "bigmike', have been LED, "dunning-kruger effect", into BELIEVING that 'you' ALONE UNDERSTAND 'determinism', itself, FULLY, and CONSISTENTLY.

LOL There is NOTHING MORE NEEDED TO BE UNDERSTOOD than absolutely EVERY thing that 'you' THINK and DO is BECAUSE of 'that bodies' 'past experiences' AND that 'that body' ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'previous events'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, there was NO BEGINNING TO.

LOL What else is there to UNDERSTAND ABOUT 'determinsim', itself?

When I say that introspection, growth, or self-awareness are deterministic processes, I mean exactly that.

What you wrote, here, SHOWS and PROVES just how CLOSED and STUPID you REALLY ARE BEING, here.

Which, AGAIN, is NOT 'your fault' AT ALL, BECAUSE you had absolutely NO say, AT ALL, in what 'that body' HAD 'previously experienced'.

LOL
LOL
LOL

I have NEVER EVER even SUGGESTED, let alone SAID, that introspection, growth, or self-awareness are NOT deterministic processes.

I have JUST alluded to the Fact that BECAUSE introspection, growth, and self-awareness are deterministic processes, then you WILL HAVE TO WAIT for 'deterministic processes' to OCCUR BEFORE you and others, here, WILL ACTUALLY introspect, grow, and BECOME Truly 'Self-aware'.

It’s not "contradictory" for me to suggest these processes as part of the causal chain.

you KEEP JUMPING TO and KEEP MAKING this False AND Wrong CONCLUSION BECAUSE you WILL NOT READ what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

AGAIN, this is BECAUSE of the 'deterministic process' that 'you', and 'that body', have PREVIOUSLY EXPERIENCED.

ONCE MORE, I AM NOT SAYING what you BELIEVE I AM, here.

If you’re incapable of seeing how inputs—whether they’re words, experiences, or even biochemical changes—can lead to changes in behavior, then the misunderstanding here is yours, not mine.

you are SHOWING and PROVING just HOW UNABLE you REALLY ARE to READ and COMPREHEND, here.

You accuse me of reading things into your comments?

WHY did you make A STATEMENT and A CLAIM but put a question mark at the end of it, here?

Please. You’ve written pages of convoluted, contradictory responses that twist straightforward concepts into incomprehensible nonsense.

SEE, 'this one' has JUST PROVED that it is 'it' who does NOT UNDERSTAND what I have written and said, here.

And, it CLAIMS that it is 'I' who is MISREPRESENTING 'the other'.

And then you dare to accuse me of complicating matters? Spare me.

LOL "bigmike" you, STILL, have NOT YET COMPREHENDED that 'you' ARE BECAUSE of what 'that body' has 'previously experienced', hitherto.

And, it does NOT get ANY SIMPLER, and EASIER, than 'this'.

Yes, people change and grow—deterministically. Yes, inputs cause reactions—deterministically. And yes, your responses to this entire discussion are shaped by prior causes. But your insistence on dragging this into endless tangents and strawman arguments is exhausting and unnecessary.

LOL you can NOT even BRING ANY of these SO-CLAIMED 'endless tangents and strawman arguments', OF MINE, and then COUNTER nor REFUTE 'them'. BECAUSE you can NOT even COMPREHEND and FATHOM just about ANY thing that I have SAID and POINTED OUT, here.

LOL you ARE SO FAR BEHIND you, STILL, BELIEVE that I am TRYING TO DISAGREE and/or ARGUE AGAINST you. 'This' is HOW STUPID you are BEING, here.

you are, literally, ALLOWING 'your past experiences', which have BECOME BELIEFS, to BLIND 'you' and thus have CONTROL OVER 'you'.

You want to claim I’m missing something?

ONCE AGAIN, you make A STATEMENT and A CLAIM, but put a question mark at the end of it.

you are NOT SEEING what you are DOING, here. And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE you are BEING BLINDED by 'your OWN past experiences'. Or, BY what you call 'deterministic processes'.

So, I could now SUGGEST that you introspect, grow, and become self-aware, but 'me' just DOING this does NOT necessarily mean that 'you' WILL, AT ALL, right.

Even though MY SUGGESTION has been ADDED INTO 'the causal chain', correct?

Then state your argument clearly

you "bigmike" are 'the one' who CLAIMS to UNDERSTAND 'my argument'. So, it is up TO 'you' to STATE and PRESENT 'it'.

LOL BECAUSE you ARE SO BLIND and DEAF, here, I WILL REPEAT, I have NOT been arguing AGAINST you.

LOL that you, STILL, have NOT YET SEEN and HEARD this only goes to SHOW and PROVE what I have been SAYING, and POINTING OUT, here.

—if you even have one—without the rhetorical gymnastics. If you can’t, maybe it’s time to reconsider who’s really overcomplicating things here.

LOL

WHY DO you KEEP BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that IF and WHEN some one responds TO you, then they ARE ARGUING AGAINST you?

[attofishpi]

Mike, you need to give it up.

GOD exists, ergo by your own standard, your premise that defines determinism is false.

(*put in words mates of mine would better under_stand: Determinism is bollocks)

'This' REALLY WAS the LACK OF MATURITY and the LACK OF GROWTH some adults had, back in the days when this was being written.

Says the 1 billion year old virgin, the oldest virgin in the Universe.

* OMG, you might bee right, maybe I am immature!!

What should I do to correct this?

ANSWER: NOTHING.
REASON: I ENJOY BEING IMMATURE, I FIND MY OWN SILLY STATEMENTS HILARIOUS..

Fuck the Big Bang for making me unwilling to change..

[Belinda]

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.




*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

Honest educators aim to increase your ability to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.True, there is no guarantee that good intentions will be fulfilled but each must live in hope, or die.

[Belinda]

Mike, you need to give it up.

GOD exists, ergo by your own standard, your premise that defines determinism is false.

(*put in words mates of mine would better under_stand: Determinism is bollocks)

'This' REALLY WAS the LACK OF MATURITY and the LACK OF GROWTH some adults had, back in the days when this was being written.

Says the 1 billion year old virgin, the oldest virgin in the Universe.

* OMG, you might bee right, maybe I am immature!!

What should I do to correct this?

ANSWER: NOTHING.
REASON: I ENJOY BEING IMMATURE, I FIND MY OWN SILLY STATEMENTS HILARIOUS..

Fuck the Big Bang for making me unwilling to change..

Do you actually claim to base your life decisions on what you most enjoy or find hilarious? Have you never found that putting intellectual effort into your life decisions bears good fruit?

[henry quirk]

When I mention introspection, growth, or self-awareness (or influence)....

...you're usin' words that mean much more than input. If you truly believe in this meat machine nonsense, then my input ought lead to the output: you amend your posts.

But you won't. Not becuz it's causally inevitable you shouldn't but becuz you choose not to, just like any other free will.

[henry quirk]

Honest educators aim to increase your ability to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.

Honest educators who are free wills can; *meat machines cannot.




*what you and Mike and the other determinists believe yourselves to be

[seeds]

Imagine, just for a moment, that humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe—one that covers everything, from the first quantum fluctuation to the formation of the very first particles and, eventually, galaxies. If we had that, would it change the way we think about determinism and the laws of physics?

Perhaps not, but it would certainly have an impact on your stance regarding the nonexistence of "free will" if...

"...humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe..."

...and it turns out to have been created by a super-advanced, incorporeal entity who exercised its "free will" to create the universe out of the living fabric of its very own being, as per "Berkeleyanism," for example.
_______

[seeds]

_______


_______