Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[Gary Childress]

Understanding the causes of our actions is exactly what gives us the ability to act morally "next time," Gary. If we comprehend the factors that led to a poor decision—be they environmental, emotional, or situational—we can adjust those factors or prepare ourselves better in the future. This doesn’t negate moral responsibility; it reframes it as a process of learning and improving rather than assigning blame.

By identifying the determinants of behavior, we can establish moral rules of thumb—guidelines that help steer our actions in the right direction when similar situations arise. These rules act as a kind of practical shortcut, shaped by understanding what led to harm or benefit in the past, and they guide us toward actions that align with the moral values we strive to uphold.

In this way, determinism doesn’t strip us of moral responsibility; it empowers us with the tools to act more ethically and consistently in the future. The clock may not be "responsible" for stopping, but understanding why it stopped allows us to fix it—and prevent it from failing again. Similarly, we gain moral agency by understanding the causes of our behavior and using that knowledge to guide better choices.

Determinism implies that consciousness cannot affect physical matter. If you believe in determinism, then how can you believe in moral responsibility? How can you assign moral responsibility to something which is entirely mechanical in nature? Responsibility implies choice and the ability to not do something that was done. Determinism implies that there is no such choice.

Gary, your concern hinges on a misunderstanding of determinism and its relationship to moral responsibility. Determinism doesn’t imply that consciousness is powerless or irrelevant—it acknowledges that consciousness itself arises from physical processes in the brain, which are influenced by prior causes. These causes include our experiences, upbringing, and the knowledge we acquire, all of which shape our decisions.

Moral responsibility, in this context, is not about some magical ability to transcend causality and act "outside" of it. It’s about recognizing the causal chain and using that understanding to guide behavior. Responsibility doesn’t require free will in the libertarian sense; it requires the capacity to learn, adapt, and act within the deterministic framework.

When we say someone is morally responsible, we’re essentially saying that their actions can be understood, influenced, and corrected through reasoning, education, or consequences. This allows us to establish systems of accountability—not because people could have acted differently in an ultimate sense, but because understanding the factors influencing behavior gives us the power to encourage better outcomes in the future.

The notion that determinism negates responsibility is akin to saying that because gravity governs motion, we can’t build bridges. Just as we work within the laws of physics to achieve structural integrity, we work within the deterministic framework of human behavior to achieve moral integrity. Far from undermining moral responsibility, determinism provides a rational basis for it.

If we can't act outside of causality, then how can we hold anyone or anything "responsible" for anything?

[BigMike]

If we can't act outside of causality, then how can we hold anyone or anything "responsible" for anything?

Gary, we can’t hold anyone or anything "responsible" in the traditional sense of metaphysical free will, and frankly, we shouldn’t—not without reframing what responsibility means. Responsibility, in a deterministic framework, isn’t about assigning blame as if people could have acted otherwise in a vacuum. It’s about understanding behavior as the product of causes and using that understanding to foster better outcomes.

Responsibility in this sense is deeply tied to learning and memory. These are physical, enduring changes in the brain—changes in synaptic strength, neural connections, and pathways—that allow us to adapt and improve. When someone makes a harmful decision, it’s not about condemning them as inherently "bad." It’s about identifying the factors that led to the decision, addressing them, and promoting new patterns of thought and action through education, experience, and reinforcement.

By reframing responsibility, we shift the focus from blame to growth. We move away from retribution and toward prevention, rehabilitation, and understanding. In this way, responsibility becomes less about punishment for past actions and more about cultivating the conditions for better actions in the future. It’s practical, it’s humane, and it works within the reality of causality that shapes us all.

[Gary Childress]

If we can't act outside of causality, then how can we hold anyone or anything "responsible" for anything?

Gary, we can’t hold anyone or anything "responsible" in the traditional sense of metaphysical free will, and frankly, we shouldn’t—not without reframing what responsibility means. Responsibility, in a deterministic framework, isn’t about assigning blame as if people could have acted otherwise in a vacuum. It’s about understanding behavior as the product of causes and using that understanding to foster better outcomes.

Responsibility in this sense is deeply tied to learning and memory. These are physical, enduring changes in the brain—changes in synaptic strength, neural connections, and pathways—that allow us to adapt and improve. When someone makes a harmful decision, it’s not about condemning them as inherently "bad." It’s about identifying the factors that led to the decision, addressing them, and promoting new patterns of thought and action through education, experience, and reinforcement.

By reframing responsibility, we shift the focus from blame to growth. We move away from retribution and toward prevention, rehabilitation, and understanding. In this way, responsibility becomes less about punishment for past actions and more about cultivating the conditions for better actions in the future. It’s practical, it’s humane, and it works within the reality of causality that shapes us all.

Fair enough. I just don't see how consciousness can affect physical matter if it violates conservation laws. It seems like it would amount to matter being affected magically by something non-material. I mean, that is the crux of this argument for determinism, isn't it?

[Belinda]

Of course, skepticism doesn't give us reason to abdicate moral responsibility. However, if the universe and we humans in it are ruled by deterministic mechanisms, then there really is no moral responsibility. A pocket watch isn't "responsible" if it stops telling the correct time. It didn't do anything wrong, something wrong happened to it.

But you are not a pocket watch!

I know. A pocket watch isn't a windmill either, however, they are both deterministic machines.

That's the point! What defines a machine and what defines a living system.

The way I am thinking of the question is that if my washing machine does not work as expected it's broken, however if my brain does not work as expected then how it may have adapted to novel circumstances . Adapted is what a living system did whereas not adapted is what machine did.
Washing machine tells me what error was the case, whereas brain tells me what error may have been the case and how to correct it.

[BigMike]

Fair enough. I just don't see how consciousness can affect physical matter if it violates conservation laws. It seems like it would amount to matter being affected magically by something non-material. I mean, that is the crux of this argument for determinism, isn't it?

Gary, you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding one of the central arguments for determinism: consciousness doesn’t exist outside of physical matter. It doesn’t “violate conservation laws” because it is fundamentally a product of physical processes, not something non-material. The brain—the seat of consciousness—is a physical system, obeying the same laws of physics as any other system in the universe.

Consciousness doesn’t act magically on physical matter; it is physical matter. Neuronal activity, synaptic changes, and electrochemical signals in the brain are what produce what we experience as thoughts, decisions, and awareness. When we say that consciousness "affects" physical matter, it’s shorthand for saying that one part of the system (the brain’s neural activity) causes changes in another part of the system (our actions or decisions), all within the deterministic framework of physics.

Your hesitation seems to come from thinking of consciousness as a separate, immaterial entity exerting force on matter. Determinism rejects that dualistic view. Instead, it sees consciousness as an emergent property of the brain’s physical structure and processes—an astonishingly complex pattern of matter and energy in motion. There’s no ghost in the machine; the “machine” itself is doing all the work.

[promethean75]

Gary which of these would you rather be? A pocket watch, a meat-machine or a hylomorph?

[Alexis Jacobi]

When we say someone is morally responsible, we’re essentially saying that their actions can be understood, influenced, and corrected through reasoning, education, or consequences. This allows us to establish systems of accountability—not because people could have acted differently in an ultimate sense, but because understanding the factors influencing behavior gives us the power to encourage better outcomes in the future.

Examining, for example, the profession of psychological therapeutics, or the 12-Step Program for alcoholics and addicts, the process of review of one’s life, the confrontation with dynamics in one’s upbringing, and the requirement to confront conditioning and to consciously choose other attitudes and behaviors as one “makes amends” to those who have suffered the addict’s behaviors, this is precisely what you have described here. Understanding the causal chain that brought one to the present.

The question: Could one have acted differently in an ultimate sense (I am uncertain of the function of that word in this sentence) is where a great deal hinges. One didn’t act differently, thus the matter is settled, but one certainly could have made different choices.

The notion that determinism negates responsibility is akin to saying that because gravity governs motion, we can’t build bridges. Just as we work within the laws of physics to achieve structural integrity, we work within the deterministic framework of human behavior to achieve moral integrity. Far from undermining moral responsibility, determinism provides a rational basis for it.

How could we isolate and think about, for example, a person who grew up in a bad environment that technically should have produced a criminal, but who made other choices? It is true — undeniable — that bad environments, bad families, and bad examples tend to produce “bad people” (I mean only people who make bad choices), yet still there is a personal element that plays out. Conversely, there are people who have had all conceivable advantages and have been surrounded by excellent (ie good) examples, who yet make bad choices and choose “the bad”.

If everything is reduced to a belief that “environment” determines behavior, something that I think essential is stripped away from the individual.

There is a perspective that comes from popular mysticism that interests me in this context. There are many accounts of people who have suffered accidents and “died” who recount experiences of significance while in another state or (using their words) reality. It involves an encounter with an entity perceived as separate from oneself who presents them with knowledge or understanding of the reasons and purposes of their life (incarcnation) and allows them to see it from a veritable, an acute, distance.

Two things factor here. One is the sense of encountering and interacting with a being who has existence on some other plane (I don’t have another word so I use a conventional one) — and this tends to accentuate for those who have had the experience that (as they say) “the full dimensions of life here is more complex than meets the eye”. They thought it was one way, or this-and-such, but changed their view, and often radically.

But the other aspect, also interesting, is one that is achieved through (my own term of course) metaphysical distance. That is a conceptual position that opens into different levels of awareness. I agree that basic evolutionary science and outlook explains man (the super-predator’s brain) as achieving a wide conceptual order to be able to visualize his context from “distance”. But my view obviously pertains to visualization than to other levels and the refinement of the instrument of “mind” as distinct, but certainly intimately connected with, brain.

It is generally conceived, by those who recount such experiences, that their lives and the “reality” in which they find themselves, is different from that offered or maintained conventionally.

The most important aspect in this — a reference to popular mysticism which is certainly problematic for numerous reasons — has to do with encounter with other types of entity. You can put different labels on it naturally yet, effectively, it is that. Though it is true that such stories are explained, and explained away, by those who see all of this as hallucinated by a brain under extreme stresses, I am uncertain if the meaning in these accounts, and inferences that can be drawn from them, and are drawn by those who have had such experiences, should be dismissed.

I certainly admit that there is a great deal of mystical lore — stories, accounts — that one can reference from all the ages where such things are recounted. And I am aware that all of it, when examined by a truly modern intellect, is reduced to hallucination.

In the final analysis there is now arising a final analytical position that, if I am understanding things, reduces what is fundamentally human, human being, even the mystery if life, consciousness and (permit me) the miracle that things even exist and (riffing off of Seed’s major assertion) that there is a force or power that enables things to flow into miraculous forms — all of this is (I can’t think of another word) reduced to a new and very different conceptual platform.

It is this that actually interests me most: explanatory systems that present themselves as final. That offer “totalizing explanations” and superseding perceptual and belief systems which, it seems to me, undermine a great deal that I refer to as “knowledge” (epistemology) that is the foundation of so much •understanding• of life.

I am not sure if it is clear what I am interested in preserving.

[BigMike]

When we say someone is morally responsible, we’re essentially saying that their actions can be understood, influenced, and corrected through reasoning, education, or consequences. This allows us to establish systems of accountability—not because people could have acted differently in an ultimate sense, but because understanding the factors influencing behavior gives us the power to encourage better outcomes in the future.

Examining, for example, the profession of psychological therapeutics, or the 12-Step Program for alcoholics and addicts, the process of review of one’s life, the confrontation with dynamics in one’s upbringing, and the requirement to confront conditioning and to consciously choose other attitudes and behaviors as one “makes amends” to those who have suffered the addict’s behaviors, this is precisely what you have described here. Understanding the causal chain that brought one to the present.

The question: Could one have acted differently in an ultimate sense (I am uncertain of the function of that word in this sentence) is where a great deal hinges. One didn’t act differently, thus the matter is settled, but one certainly could have made different choices.

The notion that determinism negates responsibility is akin to saying that because gravity governs motion, we can’t build bridges. Just as we work within the laws of physics to achieve structural integrity, we work within the deterministic framework of human behavior to achieve moral integrity. Far from undermining moral responsibility, determinism provides a rational basis for it.

How could we isolate and think about, for example, a person who grew up in a bad environment that technically should have produced a criminal, but who made other choices? It is true — undeniable — that bad environments, bad families, and bad examples tend to produce “bad people” (I mean only people who make bad choices), yet still there is a personal element that plays out. Conversely, there are people who have had all conceivable advantages and have been surrounded by excellent (ie good) examples, who yet make bad choices and choose “the bad”.

If everything is reduced to a belief that “environment” determines behavior, something that I think essential is stripped away from the individual.

There is a perspective that comes from popular mysticism that interests me in this context. There are many accounts of people who have suffered accidents and “died” who recount experiences of significance while in another state or (using their words) reality. It involves an encounter with an entity perceived as separate from oneself who presents them with knowledge or understanding of the reasons and purposes of their life (incarcnation) and allows them to see it from a veritable, an acute, distance.

Two things factor here. One is the sense of encountering and interacting with a being who has existence on some other plane (I don’t have another word so I use a conventional one) — and this tends to accentuate for those who have had the experience that (as they say) “the full dimensions of life here is more complex than meets the eye”. They thought it was one way, or this-and-such, but changed their view, and often radically.

But the other aspect, also interesting, is one that is achieved through (my own term of course) metaphysical distance. That is a conceptual position that opens into different levels of awareness. I agree that basic evolutionary science and outlook explains man (the super-predator’s brain) as achieving a wide conceptual order to be able to visualize his context from “distance”. But my view obviously pertains to visualization than to other levels and the refinement of the instrument of “mind” as distinct, but certainly intimately connected with, brain.

It is generally conceived, by those who recount such experiences, that their lives and the “reality” in which they find themselves, is different from that offered or maintained conventionally.

The most important aspect in this — a reference to popular mysticism which is certainly problematic for numerous reasons — has to do with encounter with other types of entity. You can put different labels on it naturally yet, effectively, it is that. Though it is true that such stories are explained, and explained away, by those who see all of this as hallucinated by a brain under extreme stresses, I am uncertain if the meaning in these accounts, and inferences that can be drawn from them, and are drawn by those who have had such experiences, should be dismissed.

I certainly admit that there is a great deal of mystical lore — stories, accounts — that one can reference from all the ages where such things are recounted. And I am aware that all of it, when examined by a truly modern intellect, is reduced to hallucination.

In the final analysis there is now arising a final analytical position that, if I am understanding things, reduces what is fundamentally human, human being, even the mystery if life, consciousness and (permit me) the miracle that things even exist and (riffing off of Seed’s major assertion) that there is a force or power that enables things to flow into miraculous forms — all of this is (I can’t think of another word) reduced to a new and very different conceptual platform.

It is this that actually interests me most: explanatory systems that present themselves as final. That offer “totalizing explanations” and superseding perceptual and belief systems which, it seems to me, undermine a great deal that I refer to as “knowledge” (epistemology) that is the foundation of so much •understanding• of life.

I am not sure if it is clear what I am interested in preserving.

Alexis, your response brings up several points worth unpacking, but before we dive into metaphysics or mysticism, let’s revisit the crux of determinism in human behavior. Understanding determinism doesn’t diminish our capacity for moral action or the significance of our experiences; rather, it provides a clearer lens to examine them.

Take, for example, your mention of individuals who defy their environments—those from harsh conditions who make "better" choices, or those from nurturing conditions who don’t. This aligns perfectly with the deterministic framework. Determinism doesn’t suggest that outcomes are a linear, one-size-fits-all product of environment; it acknowledges a myriad of influences—genetics, chance encounters, brain chemistry, personal relationships—all interwoven in a vast causal network. These forces don’t negate individuality; they explain it. The so-called "personal element" you reference is just another emergent property of these interactions. It’s not magic; it’s complexity.

Your example of mysticism—people encountering entities or gaining metaphysical insights after near-death experiences—doesn’t escape determinism either. Such phenomena, however profound they may feel, can be explored through the lens of neuroscience. For instance, hypoxia in the brain during trauma can cause vivid hallucinations. These experiences don’t diminish their meaning for the person, but they don’t require us to posit non-physical entities or forces to explain them.

Let’s go back to my analogy of the river delta:

Imagine a river with an intricate delta—a vast network of branching streams and tributaries. Each drop of water, or even each water molecule, flows through this network, but its path is determined entirely by the topology of the delta, the slope of the terrain, and the force of the water pushing behind it. At every fork, individual water molecules don’t "choose" to go one way or the other; they simply follow the path dictated by gravity, pressure, and the physical constraints of the branching channels.

Now, think of the nervous system as a similar branching network. Signals, like those water molecules, flow through this neural delta, guided by the specific connections between neurons, the strength of synaptic pathways, and the electrochemical conditions at that moment. The "choices" you think you make are not decisions but the inevitable result of how these signals move through the prearranged structure of your neural pathways.

Just as a water molecule at a fork in the river cannot stop and decide whether to flow left or right, your nervous system doesn’t evaluate "choices" consciously. It acts based on input and the preexisting architecture of your brain. The result is as unavoidable as the molecule’s path through the delta. What we perceive as "free will" is merely the unfolding of processes already set in motion, and the illusion of free choice arises because we cannot observe the forces shaping the flow in real time.

Each tributary represents one of the many factors shaping human behavior—our environment, genetics, memories, and even mystical experiences. The river doesn’t need to “choose” its path, nor does it operate without complexity. Similarly, when people reflect on their lives—be it through therapy, recovery programs, or personal epiphanies—they’re navigating their neural delta. By understanding the forces that shaped their “tributaries,” they can redirect future flows.

As for your interest in "preserving" certain aspects of human understanding or knowledge, I’d argue that determinism doesn’t diminish the richness of life or the mystery of existence. If anything, it deepens our appreciation by revealing the intricate web of causes that lead to every moment, every choice, every insight. Mystical or metaphysical narratives may add poetic layers, but they should complement, not contradict, our understanding of the deterministic processes underpinning them.

Finally, as you grapple with the idea of "final analytical positions" or "totalizing explanations," keep in mind that determinism isn’t about closing doors on wonder. It’s about anchoring our understanding in reality—one that embraces complexity, curiosity, and the humility to acknowledge that while we may never know everything, what we do know can still guide us meaningfully.

[henry quirk]

you're circling back to a fundamental issue of language rather than determinism itself.

Actually, I've never left the spot. In this conversation, across multiple threads, I made no serious attempt to discredit determinism or support libertarian free will/agent causality. My focus was, is, your particular take on the benefits of embracing determinism. As I say: you want more from it than it has to give.

The words we use—like "deliberate"—are steeped in colloquial and philosophical baggage that doesn’t easily translate into a deterministic framework without lengthy explanations.

Which is a damned good reason for you to stick with inputs and outputs. You muddy your argument otherwise.

In everyday language, "deliberate" implies intention and conscious thought, which are shorthand for complex processes happening in the brain: inputs, evaluations, and outputs shaped by prior experiences, biology, and external stimuli.

No, Mike. In everyday language, deliberate (as in I did that deliberately) means I did it on purpose, I chose to do it. What's implied is I'm responsible. There's nuthin' in everyday use hinting at complex processes happening in the brain: inputs, evaluations, and outputs shaped by prior experiences, biology, and external stimuli. That's your take on it. A take you're welcome to have, but that no one else is obligated to adopt, or even understand. The onus is in you to be clear and say what you mean. If you mean an input or inputs, say that. Otherwise, provide a lexicon on your particular use of common words.

When I use "deliberate" in this context, it’s not about invoking mystical free will but describing a process that feels intentional because it emerges from our brain's deterministic architecture—a cascade of neural activity and feedback loops.

Which, of course, is not what deliberate means.

The problem isn’t determinism failing to explain these processes; it’s that our language was crafted for a pre-scientific understanding of human behavior.

And yet even as you recognize the supposed problem you add to it, over and over and over and...

1Concepts like "intention" and "choice" are useful approximations for describing deterministic processes but 2require unpacking to fit within the deterministic framework.

1Not really. Both words very clearly are anti-deterministic.

2Sumthin' you've failed to do.

You see, my use of "deliberate" doesn’t contradict determinism—it reflects the constraints of our vocabulary.

No, Mike. The failure is on the part of the language user, not the language. You keep choosing (er, sorry, you're driven) to use language not in keeping with your meaning. That's on you (or inputs). My hope is: if you're a free will, you'll amend your posts and avoid problematic language, or, if you're a meat machine, my input will adjust your output.

Either way, you have no excuse now for using language not suited to your task.

that’s just you reintroducing free will into the conversation

It's called a jibe, Mike.

[BigMike]

you're circling back to a fundamental issue of language rather than determinism itself.

Actually, I've never left the spot. In this conversation, across multiple threads, I made no serious attempt to discredit determinism or support libertarian free will/agent causality. My focus was, is, your particular take on the benefits of embracing determinism. As I say: you want more from it than it has to give.

The words we use—like "deliberate"—are steeped in colloquial and philosophical baggage that doesn’t easily translate into a deterministic framework without lengthy explanations.

Which is a damned good reason for you to stick with inputs and outputs. You muddy your argument otherwise.

In everyday language, "deliberate" implies intention and conscious thought, which are shorthand for complex processes happening in the brain: inputs, evaluations, and outputs shaped by prior experiences, biology, and external stimuli.

No, Mike. In everyday language, deliberate (as in I did that deliberately) means I did it on purpose, I chose to do it. What's implied is I'm responsible. There's nuthin' in everyday use hinting at complex processes happening in the brain: inputs, evaluations, and outputs shaped by prior experiences, biology, and external stimuli. That's your take on it. A take you're welcome to have, but that no one else is obligated to adopt, or even understand. The onus is in you to be clear and say what you mean. If you mean an input or inputs, say that. Otherwise, provide a lexicon on your particular use of common words.

When I use "deliberate" in this context, it’s not about invoking mystical free will but describing a process that feels intentional because it emerges from our brain's deterministic architecture—a cascade of neural activity and feedback loops.

Which, of course, is not what deliberate means.

The problem isn’t determinism failing to explain these processes; it’s that our language was crafted for a pre-scientific understanding of human behavior.

And yet even as you recognize the supposed problem you add to it, over and over and over and...

1Concepts like "intention" and "choice" are useful approximations for describing deterministic processes but 2require unpacking to fit within the deterministic framework.

1Not really. Both words very clearly are anti-deterministic.

2Sumthin' you've failed to do.

You see, my use of "deliberate" doesn’t contradict determinism—it reflects the constraints of our vocabulary.

No, Mike. The failure is on the part of the language user, not the language. You keep choosing (er, sorry, you're driven) to use language not in keeping with your meaning. That's on you (or inputs). My hope is: if you're a free will, you'll amend your posts and avoid problematic language, or, if you're a meat machine, my input will adjust your output.

Either way, you have no excuse now for using language not suited to your task.

that’s just you reintroducing free will into the conversation

It's called a jibe, Mike.

Henry, fair enough—if I've been guilty of causing misunderstandings, I'll own up to it. Maybe I'm too driven—oops, sorry, compelled—by my deterministic nature to use words like "deliberate" in ways that you find problematic. So let’s recalibrate.

Instead of using terms that might inadvertently evoke mystical free choice, I’ll stick to the simpler "choice" when referring to my own deterministic take and let you revel in your freely deliberate perspective. After all, your freely deliberate understanding of responsibility and intentionality clearly stems from something more magical than mere inputs and outputs, right? Meanwhile, my plain old "choice" is just a result of the boring yet elegant cascade of deterministic processes.

To make things even clearer, I suppose we could all agree to new terminology—freely deliberate for your human exceptionalism and deterministically deliberate for my machine-like slog through cause and effect. I wouldn’t want to muddy your perspective by claiming that freely deliberate free choice is just a poetic veneer on a fundamentally deterministic process. That would be presumptuous.

But here’s the thing, Henry—while you're busy drawing lines in the sand over linguistic purity, let’s not ignore the bigger picture. The deterministic framework I champion (or, as you'd say, am driven to champion) isn’t about semantics. It’s about understanding how the water flows through the delta, as I’ve described before. You may call a tributary's split freely deliberate, but the rest of us, steeped in scientific reality, recognize it for what it is: a function of terrain and gravity.

So if you're content clinging to your freely deliberate free choices in a world shaped by inputs, outputs, and the occasional jibe, that's fine by me. Just don’t be surprised when I call your insistence on magical vocabulary what it is: an input in need of a serious output correction.

[Belinda]

you're circling back to a fundamental issue of language rather than determinism itself.

Actually, I've never left the spot. In this conversation, across multiple threads, I made no serious attempt to discredit determinism or support libertarian free will/agent causality. My focus was, is, your particular take on the benefits of embracing determinism. As I say: you want more from it than it has to give.

The words we use—like "deliberate"—are steeped in colloquial and philosophical baggage that doesn’t easily translate into a deterministic framework without lengthy explanations.

Which is a damned good reason for you to stick with inputs and outputs. You muddy your argument otherwise.

In everyday language, "deliberate" implies intention and conscious thought, which are shorthand for complex processes happening in the brain: inputs, evaluations, and outputs shaped by prior experiences, biology, and external stimuli.

No, Mike. In everyday language, deliberate (as in I did that deliberately) means I did it on purpose, I chose to do it. What's implied is I'm responsible. There's nuthin' in everyday use hinting at complex processes happening in the brain: inputs, evaluations, and outputs shaped by prior experiences, biology, and external stimuli. That's your take on it. A take you're welcome to have, but that no one else is obligated to adopt, or even understand. The onus is in you to be clear and say what you mean. If you mean an input or inputs, say that. Otherwise, provide a lexicon on your particular use of common words.

When I use "deliberate" in this context, it’s not about invoking mystical free will but describing a process that feels intentional because it emerges from our brain's deterministic architecture—a cascade of neural activity and feedback loops.

Which, of course, is not what deliberate means.

The problem isn’t determinism failing to explain these processes; it’s that our language was crafted for a pre-scientific understanding of human behavior.

And yet even as you recognize the supposed problem you add to it, over and over and over and...

1Concepts like "intention" and "choice" are useful approximations for describing deterministic processes but 2require unpacking to fit within the deterministic framework.

1Not really. Both words very clearly are anti-deterministic.

2Sumthin' you've failed to do.

You see, my use of "deliberate" doesn’t contradict determinism—it reflects the constraints of our vocabulary.

No, Mike. The failure is on the part of the language user, not the language. You keep choosing (er, sorry, you're driven) to use language not in keeping with your meaning. That's on you (or inputs). My hope is: if you're a free will, you'll amend your posts and avoid problematic language, or, if you're a meat machine, my input will adjust your output.

Either way, you have no excuse now for using language not suited to your task.

that’s just you reintroducing free will into the conversation

It's called a jibe, Mike.

Are you a machine or a cadaver, Henry? No, you are alive.

You are alive because you are not yet dead, because Mr and Mrs Quirk conceived you, because your ancestors including the aforesaid parents lived long enough to conceive you, because your ancestors' circumstances were sufficient to permit of their surviving to at least puberty, because the USA where your ancestors lived is generally quite prosperous, because the USA had a whole lot of virgin land to exploit, because the indigenous peoples did not waste natural resources, because their cultures of belief and practice caused indigenous peoples of the USA to prosper as they were, because it was a land rich in natural resources, because its climates and topography were such as to maintain rich natural resources, because ad infinitum---------
I trust you can see where my hypothetical story is going ,more especially if you yourself can tell some other hypothetical narrative.

[seeds]

Either way, you have no excuse now for using language not suited to your task.

Henry, fair enough—if I've been guilty of causing misunderstandings, I'll own up to it. Maybe I'm too driven—oops, sorry, compelled—by my deterministic nature to use words like "deliberate" in ways that you find problematic. So let’s recalibrate.

Instead of using terms that might inadvertently evoke mystical free choice, I’ll stick to the simpler "choice" when referring to my own deterministic take and let you revel in your freely deliberate perspective. After all, your freely deliberate understanding of responsibility and intentionality clearly stems from something more magical than mere inputs and outputs, right? Meanwhile, my plain old "choice" is just a result of the boring yet elegant cascade of deterministic processes.

That's a good start, BigMike, but I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that.

To "recalibrate" your language in a way that eliminates an even deeper layer of words that create misunderstanding, you're going to have to find a way around using personal pronouns.

Here, let me recalibrate those two quoted paragraphs for you:

"Fair enough—if this brain has been guilty of causing misunderstandings, this brain will own up to it. Maybe this brain is too driven—oops, sorry, compelled—by its deterministic nature to use words like "deliberate" in ways that the brain that this brain is communicating with finds problematic. So let there be a recalibration of the data output.

Instead of using terms that might inadvertently evoke mystical free choice, this brain will stick to the simpler "choice" when referring to its own deterministic take and let the brain that this brain is communicating with revel in its freely deliberate perspective. After all, the freely deliberate understanding of responsibility and intentionality by the brain of which this brain is communicating with, clearly stems from something more magical than mere inputs and outputs, right? Meanwhile, this brain's plain old "choice" is just a result of the boring yet elegant cascade of deterministic processes."

Sure, it may not be as simple and as convenient as using all of those personal pronouns such as "i" or "me" or "my" or "you" or "your" or "us," etc., but it will at least help to cut down on the misunderstandings that will continue to flare-up due to you not recalibrating your language to the proper degree.

(Oh, and btw, if determinism permits it, then "feel free" to substitute henry's "meat machine" in place of "brain.")
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Determinism implies that consciousness cannot affect physical matter. If you believe in determinism, then how can you believe in moral responsibility? How can you assign moral responsibility to something which is entirely mechanical in nature? Responsibility implies choice and the ability to not do something that was done. Determinism implies that there is no such choice.

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______

[seeds]

_______

moved...
_______