Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[Age]

Again, don't expect me to point out the irony.

Ah, bugger it. Pretty certain everyone on this forum is aware of you as being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

That you CAN NOT, and WILL NOT, POINT OUT the ALLEGED 'irony', SHOWS and REVEALS FAR MORE, here.

And, you can be so-called 'pretty certain' ABOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that you like, but IF what you are 'pretty sure' ABOUT is ACTUALLY True OR NOT, you WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

Now, I CHALLENGE ABSOLUTELY ANY one to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of 'me' AND the "dunning-kruger effect".

OBVIOUSLY I have VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT and SHOWN WHERE, and WHEN, "attofishpi" HAS. Now, let 'us' SEE if ABSOLUTELY ANY one can do the SAME, WITH 'me'. After all "attofishpi" is 'PRETTY CERTAIN' that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, on this forum, is AWARE of 'me' being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

The red bit above IS the irony pointed out to you, after I stated "Ah, bugger it."

Are you REALLY THAT STUPID?

OF COURSE that is what you BELIEVE. and WERE MEANING.

What you, STILL, do NOT UNDERSTAND is just HOW Truly STUPID A COMMENT and CLAIM that IS..

(* the irony of U calling ME an example of the "DKE")

WOW you REALLY ARE THAT STUPID.

ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one PRE-ASSUMING some thing, and then BELIEVING the CONCLUSION, that it JUMPED TO.

The FACT that you didn't notice that the IRONY was pointed out in my post is another PRIME example of you and the "dunning-kruger effect"...

LOL you REALLY did NOT SEE what I POINTED OUT, above here.

HOW IRONIC!!!!!!

LOL This one, STILL, can NOT PRODUCE ONE SINGLE TIME OF 'me' HAVING A "dunning-kruger effect".

BRING IT ON "attofishpi". BRING IT ON.

LINK ALL of 'us' readers, here, to that 'your post', AND THEN 'us' DISCUSS it.

you, by the way, WILL NEVER DISCUSS it, BECAUSE you KNOW, deep down, that you WILL BE SHOWN, and PROVED, to BE Wrong, AGAIN.

one would have to be ABSOLUTELY IDIOT TO BELIEVE that just CLAIMING that 'EVERY one is AWARE of 'me' as being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect" is IRONY.

For the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, you HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE ANY time I have PRODUCED the "dunning-kruger effect".

you, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE NOT YET DONE SO.

So, 'we' AGAIN WAIT, FOR you "attofishpi".

[attofishpi]

Seriously, someone that can be bothered should do a full analysis of you, particularly IQ, and see if you are anywhere near as intelligent as the AI I just used that used another AI to create this:


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

[Alexis Jacobi]

If Seed or anyone else believes that determinism’s lack of focus on ultimate origins invalidates its explanatory power, they are holding it to a standard it never claimed to meet. That’s not a critique—it’s a misunderstanding.

The crucial issue, naturally, for those like Seeds who are concerned about their own subjective hook-up, their tangible existence here and now, always revolve around issues and questions that, in your system, have no meaning nor validity.

In my case, understanding what I perceive to be your “predicates” I don’t find it hard to understand that your sole object is in “explaining the unfolding of phenomena” and, concomitantly, explaining the brain as having developed itself as an ultra-complex interpretation tool. No brain, no thought. No brain, no “philosophy”. No brain, no interpretation. And what is metaphysical or, even worse, what is supernatural (to the manifest world, and to the brain), is non-considerable because “no proof exists”. And anyway it is the brain that does everything.

I agree: your system, because it reduces itself to chemical and electrical (neuronic) phenomena in its biology, can say nothing about much of anything outside of observable, measurable brain-processes. And NO ONE CAN DENY the centrality of this brain given the acute facts (that without the biological structure there is no thought, no perception, no self-realization).

“Prove to me that any other picture has explanation power!” you challenge. And no one can. No one can challenge The Laboratory”.

Except of course those who live life from a platform of experience with life on levels that, though noted by the lab technician, can have no influence on laboratory findings.

You will say — and you can only say — that metaphysical pictures are simply put epiphenomenal pictorializations that have arisen within “emergent” perceptions. But these fundamentally have nothing to do with biological life as creatures on a planet and within a bio-material existence. Hence, they do not add to understanding (since truthfully it is all hallucinated, imagined). In fact you are duty-bound to reject as implausible all that men have devised as explanatory models. All of it ALL OF IT! is not very useful picture-making when the brain is understood as you declare it must be understood. Nay as it can only be understood.

When I suggested that the brain, when understood as “mind”, could well be an instrument that developed to perceive not only on the frequencies of world-life and world-perception (daily tangible life) but with an added power or capacity — an instrument capable of perceiving and conceptualizing meaning that exists, metaphysically to material manifestation, well, that idea was dismissed.

And yet it really is that so much of what makes man man is entirely bound up in such “captures” of metaphysical ideas.

Your system, when it is reduced to its actual moving parts, is ultimately ultra-anti-philosophical! Because it is a physiology of brain-science and has no need for speculations, intimations, intuitions, nor for entire ranges of man’s subjective experiences!

Thus it “makes sense” that man is compared to, reduced to, a falling rock. It is a bizarre comparison really. I get it that you cannot see any other causal potency other than what had been accumulated by the brain’s capture, and this is “the falling rock”.

But the philosophical implications of denying individual agency even when one is sitting on that wave of the self, carried along by it (determined), is where the potential flaw lies.

If my mind — more relevant and more important really than your mere picture of the brain — is a meaning capturing device; and if there are meanings of another order to be captured (perceived, understood, acted on) (think “frequencies”), then things change. Indeed a man’s life would change because the core predicates changed.

[Belinda]

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.

Thank you. What is SO OBVIOUS, to some, can be COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS, to others. And, vice versa.

Henry confuses determinism and fatalism, especially concerning his "meat machine" theory.

"meat machine" theory is not determinism it's fatalism.

Fatalism: the future is closed and what must be will be.

Determinism: the future is open especially for living organisms which can adapt to circumstances. Clearly a meat machine has more in common with a cadaver than with a living animal which essentially can adapt to circumstances as a functioning system.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed. The belief that you can simply will yourself into action without external cause is pure fantasy, the kind of self-deception reserved for fairy tales and bad philosophy.

All this is *true* as long as one understands, one believes, that there is no *mind* with capabilities that are not determined in the same way the falling rock is determined.

The declaration in BigMike’s (now famous!) paragraph is a linguistic and semantic construct! At the least it should be, can be, examined as such.

[BigMike]

If Seed or anyone else believes that determinism’s lack of focus on ultimate origins invalidates its explanatory power, they are holding it to a standard it never claimed to meet. That’s not a critique—it’s a misunderstanding.

The crucial issue, naturally, for those like Seeds who are concerned about their own subjective hook-up, their tangible existence here and now, always revolve around issues and questions that, in your system, have no meaning nor validity.

In my case, understanding what I perceive to be your “predicates” I don’t find it hard to understand that your sole object is in “explaining the unfolding of phenomena” and, concomitantly, explaining the brain as having developed itself as an ultra-complex interpretation tool. No brain, no thought. No brain, no “philosophy”. No brain, no interpretation. And what is metaphysical or, even worse, what is supernatural (to the manifest world, and to the brain), is non-considerable because “no proof exists”. And anyway it is the brain that does everything.

I agree: your system, because it reduces itself to chemical and electrical (neuronic) phenomena in its biology, can say nothing about much of anything outside of observable, measurable brain-processes. And NO ONE CAN DENY the centrality of this brain given the acute facts (that without the biological structure there is no thought, no perception, no self-realization).

“Prove to me that any other picture has explanation power!” you challenge. And no one can. No one can challenge The Laboratory”.

Except of course those who live life from a platform of experience with life on levels that, though noted by the lab technician, can have no influence on laboratory findings.

You will say — and you can only say — that metaphysical pictures are simply put epiphenomenal pictorializations that have arisen within “emergent” perceptions. But these fundamentally have nothing to do with biological life as creatures on a planet and within a bio-material existence. Hence, they do not add to understanding (since truthfully it is all hallucinated, imagined). In fact you are duty-bound to reject as implausible all that men have devised as explanatory models. All of it ALL OF IT! is not very useful picture-making when the brain is understood as you declare it must be understood. Nay as it can only be understood.

When I suggested that the brain, when understood as “mind”, could well be an instrument that developed to perceive not only on the frequencies of world-life and world-perception (daily tangible life) but with an added power or capacity — an instrument capable of perceiving and conceptualizing meaning that exists, metaphysically to material manifestation, well, that idea was dismissed.

And yet it really is that so much of what makes man man is entirely bound up in such “captures” of metaphysical ideas.

Your system, when it is reduced to its actual moving parts, is ultimately ultra-anti-philosophical! Because it is a physiology of brain-science and has no need for speculations, intimations, intuitions, nor for entire ranges of man’s subjective experiences!

Thus it “makes sense” that man is compared to, reduced to, a falling rock. It is a bizarre comparison really. I get it that you cannot see any other causal potency other than what had been accumulated by the brain’s capture, and this is “the falling rock”.

But the philosophical implications of denying individual agency even when one is sitting on that wave of the self, carried along by it (determined), is where the potential flaw lies.

If my mind — more relevant and more important really than your mere picture of the brain — is a meaning capturing device; and if there are meanings of another order to be captured (perceived, understood, acted on) (think “frequencies”), then things change. Indeed a man’s life would change because the core predicates changed.

Alexis, let’s cut through the layers and get straight to the point. You’ve eloquently described your belief in metaphysical possibilities and hinted at frequencies of meaning that you claim lie beyond the deterministic framework. But when pressed to name a single human trait, quality, or experience that cannot be fully described or explained within the deterministic framework I’ve outlined, you’ve consistently avoided answering. So, I’ll ask you again, plainly: What is one human trait, quality, or experience you believe cannot be explained by determinism?

The deterministic framework, grounded in physical laws and causal relationships, accounts for all aspects of human behavior, cognition, and experience as products of interacting factors: biological, environmental, and cultural. Even concepts like "meaning" and "intuition" can be traced back to the brain's ability to process, organize, and interpret information. These aren’t dismissals—they’re explanations. Determinism doesn’t deny the complexity or richness of human life; it seeks to understand it in terms of the processes that create it.

Your notion of the brain as a "meaning-capturing device" isn’t foreign to determinism. The brain’s capacity to detect patterns, construct narratives, and assign meaning is well-documented. This process is emergent, arising from deterministic interactions within the brain and between the individual and their environment. It’s not an argument against determinism—it’s an example of it.

You suggest that these "frequencies" of meaning might exist beyond what is measurable or scientifically explicable. Fine—propose a mechanism. How do these metaphysical meanings interact with the physical brain? If they influence us in any way, they must interact with neurons, altering their activity. If they don’t, then they are irrelevant to human action. Either way, deterministic processes are still in play.

If you claim these meanings exist outside the scope of determinism, then back it up. Give an example—something tangible, testable, and falsifiable. Until then, your argument is merely an assertion, wrapped in poetic language but devoid of explanatory power.

So, once more: Name one human trait, quality, or experience you believe determinism cannot explain. This is your chance to engage directly with the challenge instead of sidestepping into abstractions about ineffable meanings. Let’s finally get to the core of this debate.

[henry quirk]

What is one human trait, quality, or experience you believe cannot be explained by determinism?

Mercy.

[BigMike]

What is one human trait, quality, or experience you believe cannot be explained by determinism?

Mercy.

Henry, determinism can explain mercy quite effectively. Mercy is an outcome shaped by a combination of neurological processes, social conditioning, and environmental influences. It arises when empathy—mediated by neural circuits like the mirror neuron system—interacts with learned moral frameworks, which are themselves shaped by culture, upbringing, and personal experiences. In this way, mercy is not an inexplicable, free-floating quality; it’s a predictable outcome of human biology and societal evolution.

For instance, in a deterministic framework, the decision to show mercy might result from an internal cost-benefit analysis—conscious or unconscious—where compassion, personal values, or long-term social considerations outweigh the impulse for retribution. These decisions are fully embedded within the causal web of the person’s neural activity, history, and context.

Now that I’ve laid out a deterministic explanation for mercy, what’s your metaphysical one? Where does mercy come from in your framework? What drives it, and how does it operate outside the deterministic chain of cause and effect?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You suggest that these "frequencies" of meaning might exist beyond what is measurable or scientifically explicable. Fine—propose a mechanism. How do these metaphysical meanings interact with the physical brain? If they influence us in any way, they must interact with neurons, altering their activity. If they don’t, then they are irrelevant to human action. Either way, deterministic processes are still in play.

Yes indeed: frequencies of meaning, and most definitely beyond what is “measurable”. I do not think “science” has much to say about meaning, and certainly those meanings on a (traditionally understood) higher level and those that animate men of a higher sort. For to be a man of a “higher sort” (in my framing) implies a man who is a better-tuned instrument; whose brain is a “mind” and is capable of registering what I describe as of metaphysical substance. It is there, it exists, it has effect, but it is thoroughly non-tangible. It also continues to exist even if there is no mere “brain” to capture it; to tune in.

The end of all conversation with you — you set it up this way — is when you ask or “demand” a mechanical proof. That proof cannot be provided as far as I am aware, because what is “metaphysical” in my sense, is non-tangible. For you that means that it does not exist except as neuronal activity in a brain. There, you give it epiphenomenal, emergent existence. But it can only exist (in your system) in a brain. But in my view all that is apprehended by “mind”, and within the instrumentation of a biological brain, arose with the •manifestation• and will still exist when the perceiving brain, and the manifestation, ceases.

The question that revolves around that of “mechanism” is not at all a bad question. I mean it certainly can’t be a “forbidden” question. But any answer that I would offer is conjectural. Effectively I have no answer that fits into your paradigm. And I assume that “all of material science” cannot recognize a mechanism.

But in my view — which is definitely a mysticism in the sense that it cannot be proved — I have only my own subjective experience to rely on. Note that I did refer to the notion of an acausal connecting principle (CG Jung). What that means, to me, and also practically, is that there are connections between things — people certainly — that do not involve “touch”. Because when you refer to mechanism that is really what you are getting at.

If I am ‘moved’ by anything, there must be a physical agent. Because no metaphysical and no ultra-material or non-physical — supernatural — agent or agency exists for you. This is the foundational reason why you are an atheist.

Now, if I am “moved” in some way, and if I am moved let’s say by something “acausal”, in my view it would be described as an “idea” that introduces itself, but outside of typical causality. A hunch-like event? An intuition? A sort of sentiment? I really am at a loss for explanatory language.

For you this is “dreamy poetics” and you dismiss it out of hand. I GET THIS. I do not ask that you modify your views.

[BigMike]

You suggest that these "frequencies" of meaning might exist beyond what is measurable or scientifically explicable. Fine—propose a mechanism. How do these metaphysical meanings interact with the physical brain? If they influence us in any way, they must interact with neurons, altering their activity. If they don’t, then they are irrelevant to human action. Either way, deterministic processes are still in play.

Yes indeed: frequencies of meaning, and most definitely beyond what is “measurable”. I do not think “science” has much to say about meaning, and certainly those meanings on a (traditionally understood) higher level and those that animate men of a higher sort. For to be a man of a “higher sort” (in my framing) implies a man who is a better-tuned instrument; whose brain is a “mind” and is capable of registering what I describe as of metaphysical substance. It is there, it exists, it has effect, but it is thoroughly non-tangible. It also continues to exist even if there is no mere “brain” to capture it; to tune in.

The end of all conversation with you — you set it up this way — is when you ask or “demand” a mechanical proof. That proof cannot be provided as far as I am aware, because what is “metaphysical” in my sense, is non-tangible. For you that means that it does not exist except as neuronal activity in a brain. There, you give it epiphenomenal, emergent existence. But it can only exist (in your system) in a brain. But in my view all that is apprehended by “mind”, and within the instrumentation of a biological brain, arose with the •manifestation• and will still exist when the perceiving brain, and the manifestation, ceases.

The question that revolves around that of “mechanism” is not at all a bad question. I mean it certainly can’t be a “forbidden” question. But any answer that I would offer is conjectural. Effectively I have no answer that fits into your paradigm. And I assume that “all of material science” cannot recognize a mechanism.

But in my view — which is definitely a mysticism in the sense that it cannot be proved — I have only my own subjective experience to rely on. Note that I did refer to the notion if an acausal connecting principle (CG Jung). What that means, to me, and also practically, is that there are connections between things — people certainly — that do not involve “touch”. Because when you refer to mechanism that is really what you are getting at.

If I am ‘moved’ by anything, there must be a physical agent. Because no metaphysical and no ultra-material or non-physical — supernatural — agent or agency exists for you. This is the foundational reason why you are an atheist.

Now, if I am “moved” in some way, and if I am moved let’s say by something “acausal”, in my view it would be described as an “idea” that introduces itself, but outside of typical causality. A hunch-like event? An intuition? A sort of sentiment? I really am at a loss for explanatory language.

For you this is “dreamy poetics” and you dismiss it out of hand. I GET THIS. I do not ask that you modify your views.

Alexis, your description hinges on these "frequencies of meaning" being both beyond the tangible and yet influential enough to move or inspire. But here’s the issue: if these frequencies do not interact with the physical world, including our brains, they are irrelevant to any real-world phenomena, including human thought or action. If they do interact, then they must operate through mechanisms that affect neurons, synapses, or some other material aspect of the brain. That interaction is entirely within the realm of determinism.

Even if you appeal to something like Jung's "acausal connecting principle," the same question applies: how does an "acausal" event produce physical effects? If you’re moved by an idea or intuition, that experience must involve neurons firing in specific patterns, neurotransmitters being released, and motor functions being activated—all of which operate under physical laws. Without a mechanism, these "frequencies" cannot meaningfully explain anything—they become placeholders for mystery.

So let me put it directly: do these frequencies alter neuronal activity, or do they exist in a realm completely detached from physical causality? If they alter neurons, then they are subject to the same deterministic framework I’ve outlined. If they don’t, then how can they influence behavior, thoughts, or actions? What is your metaphysical explanation for this interaction, or lack thereof?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Even if you appeal to something like Jung's "acausal connecting principle," the same question applies: how does an "acausal" event produce physical effects? If you’re moved by an idea or intuition, that experience must involve neurons firing in specific patterns, neurotransmitters being released, and motor functions being activated—all of which operate under physical laws. Without a mechanism, these "frequencies" cannot meaningfully explain anything—they become placeholders for mystery.

Indeed: mysterious placeholders.

One question could be: How does my •thought• thinking of someone far away from me affect them? There is no causal connection, no mechanism, and I agree that I perceive none. Yet it is true that many people report incidents where some tangible effect is registered. The examples are legion.

Acausal connecting principle, for Jung, was his attempt to describe synchronicities that contained “meaning”. That is, some something that occurred, that presented itself acausally and that engendered “meaning” — realization, understanding.

You are asking me to define “mechanism”. I am referring to areas, and these have all been proven for me subjectively where acausality has been understood to operate. I mean: no mechanical appliance, no string, no wire.

So let me put it directly: do these frequencies alter neuronal activity, or do they exist in a realm completely detached from physical causality? If they alter neurons, then they are subject to the same deterministic framework I’ve outlined. If they don’t, then how can they influence behavior, thoughts, or actions? What is your metaphysical explanation for this interaction, or lack thereof?

Apparently, yes. They apparently have some means to connect neuronically, but I would also say that the recognition of a synchronistic occurrence, laden with meaning, has neuronal affect right then and there: something in us is moved.

An acausal event, that produces “meaning” (which could be said to explode or in any case to emanate from it) obviously is received by the brain. So, obviously, there is neuronal activity.

I can think of many events that, for me, contained, transmitted and emitted meaning.
Events where you (i.e. someone not you! ) might say “A providential hand operated in this”.

It is also possible to conceive it possible that a thought, an aspiration, a hope, a realization could appear, acausally if you wish, within an individual.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I see that Gary has just shown up.

I am getting two images:

Pear

Goldfish

Gary, has any acausal principle whispered out of any recess?

Or am I just whistling Dixie??

[BigMike]

Even if you appeal to something like Jung's "acausal connecting principle," the same question applies: how does an "acausal" event produce physical effects? If you’re moved by an idea or intuition, that experience must involve neurons firing in specific patterns, neurotransmitters being released, and motor functions being activated—all of which operate under physical laws. Without a mechanism, these "frequencies" cannot meaningfully explain anything—they become placeholders for mystery.

Indeed: mysterious placeholders.

One question could be: How does my •thought• thinking of someone far away from me affect them? There is no causal connection, no mechanism, and I agree that I perceive none. Yet it is true that many people report incidents where some tangible effect is registered. The examples are legion.

Acausal connecting principle, for Jung, was his attempt to describe synchronicities that contained “meaning”. That is, some something that occurred, that presented itself acausally and that engendered “meaning” — realization, understanding.

You are asking me to define “mechanism”. I am referring to areas, and these have all been proven for me subjectively where acausality has been understood to operate. I mean: no mechanical appliance, no string, no wire.

So let me put it directly: do these frequencies alter neuronal activity, or do they exist in a realm completely detached from physical causality? If they alter neurons, then they are subject to the same deterministic framework I’ve outlined. If they don’t, then how can they influence behavior, thoughts, or actions? What is your metaphysical explanation for this interaction, or lack thereof?

Apparently, yes. They apparently have some means to connect neuronically, but I would also say that the recognition of a synchronistic occurrence, laden with meaning, has neuronal affect right then and there: something in us is moved.

An acausal event, that produces “meaning” (which could be said to explode or in any case to emanate from it) obviously is received by the brain. So, obviously, there is neuronal activity.

I can think of many events that, for me, contained, transmitted and emitted meaning.
Events where you (i.e. someone not you! ) might say “A providential hand operated in this”.

It is also possible to conceive it possible that a thought, an aspiration, a hope, a realization could appear, acausally if you wish, within an individual.

Alexis, your example of neurons in the brain firing "acausally" to generate thoughts or responses fundamentally misunderstands how neurons work within the deterministic framework of biology. Neurons don’t just spontaneously fire action potentials in a vacuum. For a neuron to fire, ion gates in its membrane must open, allowing positively charged ions to flood in and depolarize the cell membrane from its resting potential of about -70 mV to the threshold for action potential generation, roughly -55 mV. This process is tightly regulated by physical inputs—whether they come from sensory stimuli, neurotransmitter release from other neurons, or internal feedback loops.

These action potentials don’t just occur on their own. They are caused by specific, measurable events: chemical signals, electrical potentials, or other physical stimuli. For something metaphysical—like your "frequencies of meaning"—to influence neuronal activity, it would need to trigger these ion channels in a physically observable way. Otherwise, neurons simply won’t fire.

You describe thoughts, aspirations, or hopes as appearing "acausally," yet they must be instantiated in the physical brain through neuronal activity. If these phenomena influence thoughts or actions, there has to be a pathway for that influence—a way to transition from the metaphysical to the physical. Without such a mechanism, the claim that they affect behavior remains unsubstantiated.

I’ll ask again: how do these metaphysical "frequencies" interact with ion channels, neurotransmitters, or any other aspect of neuronal function? If they can’t or don’t, then they don’t meaningfully explain anything about human thought or action. If they do, they are necessarily part of the deterministic chain of causality that governs the brain’s operations. How do you resolve this contradiction?

[henry quirk]

Mercy is an outcome shaped by a combination of neurological processes, social conditioning, and environmental influences. It arises when empathy—mediated by neural circuits like the mirror neuron system—interacts with learned moral frameworks, which are themselves shaped by culture, upbringing, and personal experiences.

mercy might result from an internal cost-benefit analysis—conscious or unconscious—where compassion, personal values, or long-term social considerations outweigh the impulse for retribution.

So where in all that does mercy come to be? All I'm seein' are inputs & outputs.

Let's try this: if you would, define mercy.

what’s your metaphysical one?

Now, Mike, you already know my answer.

[BigMike]

Mercy is an outcome shaped by a combination of neurological processes, social conditioning, and environmental influences. It arises when empathy—mediated by neural circuits like the mirror neuron system—interacts with learned moral frameworks, which are themselves shaped by culture, upbringing, and personal experiences.

mercy might result from an internal cost-benefit analysis—conscious or unconscious—where compassion, personal values, or long-term social considerations outweigh the impulse for retribution.

So where in all that does mercy come to be? All I'm seein' are inputs & outputs.

Let's try this: if you would, define mercy.

what’s your metaphysical one?

Now, Mike, you already know my answer.

Henry, your question actually circles back to the crux of this discussion. If all you see are inputs and outputs in the explanation of mercy, that’s because that’s exactly what it is—mercy, like every other human experience, is an emergent phenomenon arising from those very inputs and outputs. It is the result of complex processes in the brain where various factors, like empathy, social norms, and personal values, interact to produce what we label as "mercy." The label is shorthand for those processes in action.

To define it clearly: Mercy is the deliberate withholding of punishment, harm, or retribution that could otherwise be justified, often motivated by empathy, compassion, or a higher moral consideration. It’s a behavior that arises in response to specific stimuli, shaped by both biology and learned frameworks.

Your skepticism seems to come from wanting something more—a metaphysical "essence" of mercy. But let me flip it back: if mercy isn’t the product of these inputs and outputs, as I’ve described, then where does it come from? You say I already know your metaphysical explanation, but humor me. Spell it out. What, in your view, is mercy, and how does it manifest if not through deterministic processes?