Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[henry quirk]

Henry, do you believe the future is open, or not?

In certain ways, particularly as it pertains to persons, it's open.

In other ways, as it pertains to the regularity of the world, it's closed.

I agree. I draw the demarcation between alive and not alive. You?

I draw the line between free wills (persons) and everything else (living and non).

[BigMike]

Henry, do you believe the future is open, or not?

In certain ways, particularly as it pertains to persons, it's open.

In other ways, as it pertains to the regularity of the world, it's closed.

I agree. I draw the demarcation between alive and not alive. You?

Where is that demarcation, precisely, Belinda? At self-replicating molecules? At self-replicating cells? Where do you draw it—and more importantly, why there?

[Belinda]

In certain ways, particularly as it pertains to persons, it's open.

In other ways, as it pertains to the regularity of the world, it's closed.

I agree. I draw the demarcation between alive and not alive. You?

Where is that demarcation, precisely, Belinda? At self-replicating molecules? At self-replicating cells? Where do you draw it—and more importantly, why there?

I demarcate wherever the entity, be it a slime mould, a virus, a bacterium, or whatever , has an adaptive brainmind. The adaptive brainmind especially the cortex and its function, is a response to natural selection. As far as we know things that are not alive do not adapt, either genetically or culturally , but are products of their own histories.

I demarcate there because I've seen living things learning from experience including myself, and because I believe in the theory of natural selection.
Surely the furore of the Church against Darwin, and Darwin's own conscientious problem , explains the heart of the problem that God is a process and not ,as the Church would have it, a thing.

The future is not only open----it's also existentially created.
So it will be until such time as artificial intelligence creates futures, not existentially but entirely rationally. -----It's unpleasant, not that AI is not carbon based, but that AI is not existentially adaptive but as a rationally -based system it cannot make mistakes.

[BigMike]

I agree. I draw the demarcation between alive and not alive. You?

Where is that demarcation, precisely, Belinda? At self-replicating molecules? At self-replicating cells? Where do you draw it—and more importantly, why there?

I demarcate wherever the entity, be it a slime mould, a virus, a bacterium, or whatever , has an adaptive brainmind. The adaptive brainmind especially the cortex and its function, is a response to natural selection. As far as we know things that are not alive do not adapt, either genetically or culturally , but are products of their own histories.

I demarcate there because I've seen living things learning from experience including myself, and because I believe in the theory of natural selection.
Surely the furore of the Church against Darwin, and Darwin's own conscientious problem , explains the heart of the problem that God is a process and not ,as the Church would have it, a thing.

The future is not only open----it's also existentially created.
So it will be until such time as artificial intelligence creates futures, not existentially but entirely rationally. -----It's unpleasant, not that AI is not carbon based, but that AI is not existentially adaptive but as a rationally -based system it cannot make mistakes.

Belinda, what do you mean by an "open future" or one that is "existentially created"? If the future is "open," does that imply outcomes aren't fully determined by prior states of the world? If so, how does that align with the adaptive, selective processes you describe? Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems, or is it something more?

And how does this contrast with your concern about AI not being "existentially adaptive"? If AI can't "make mistakes," isn't that itself an adaptation to its rational constraints? After all, even rational systems are shaped by their own histories and the parameters under which they operate. So, are you describing openness as a matter of unpredictability, creativity, or something fundamentally non-deterministic?

[Belinda]

Where is that demarcation, precisely, Belinda? At self-replicating molecules? At self-replicating cells? Where do you draw it—and more importantly, why there?

I demarcate wherever the entity, be it a slime mould, a virus, a bacterium, or whatever , has an adaptive brainmind. The adaptive brainmind especially the cortex and its function, is a response to natural selection. As far as we know things that are not alive do not adapt, either genetically or culturally , but are products of their own histories.

I demarcate there because I've seen living things learning from experience including myself, and because I believe in the theory of natural selection.
Surely the furore of the Church against Darwin, and Darwin's own conscientious problem , explains the heart of the problem that God is a process and not ,as the Church would have it, a thing.

The future is not only open----it's also existentially created.
So it will be until such time as artificial intelligence creates futures, not existentially but entirely rationally. -----It's unpleasant, not that AI is not carbon based, but that AI is not existentially adaptive but as a rationally -based system it cannot make mistakes. The adaptive selective process is all the better for the probability of error; I can't imagine how natrural selection would work at all without the probability of error.

Belinda, what do you mean by an "open future" or one that is "existentially created"? If the future is "open," does that imply outcomes aren't fully determined by prior states of the world? If so, how does that align with the adaptive, selective processes you describe? Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems, or is it something more?

And how does this contrast with your concern about AI not being "existentially adaptive"? If AI can't "make mistakes," isn't that itself an adaptation to its rational constraints? After all, even rational systems are shaped by their own histories and the parameters under which they operate. So, are you describing openness as a matter of unpredictability, creativity, or something fundamentally non-deterministic?

Yes, I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , except to a great extent in the cases of bits of rock , mountains , and other non -biological beings.
Nothing that lacks sufficient cortical power can culturally adapt, and nothing that lacks the power to reproduce (one way or the other) can genetically adapt.
We presume bits of rock and atoms etc 'adapt' to causal events but it's only constant correlation at best. For practical and moral purposes we need to draw that line somewhere and causal determinism is the safest way less likely to get people killed or to suffer injustice.

I think wholeness is deterministic. Determinism makes no sense to me unless 'determinism' is whole. But because we can't know the future our creativity bears the probability of some degree of error. Even the most rigorous experiment using only very controllable subjects such as do experiments in physics the unexpected does happen sometimes causing an entire paradigm shift.

Rational systems such a AI, mathematics, and formal logic are tools only and do not indicate truth. The best truth we can get is primarily empirical truth which mathematics, formal logic, and AI are used to endorse or not as the case may be.
The possibility of error is essential to our safety, and rational systems don't do errors ; whenever they seem to err the problem is human error not the system.

If big AI gets control the danger is human error. Imagine big AI as set up by X or
XA !
To add to unpredictability as supporting the case for determinism I'd add fallibility.

[seeds]

Seeds, existence itself is undoubtedly remarkable; all proper philosophers remark on it.
So let's not presume a supernatural intelligent Entity made existence and made it as it is.

Are we thus supposed to presume the alternative then, that the blind and mindless processes of chance created all of this remarkableness?

Stop ignoring that 12-ton elephant I pointed out to BigMike.

Here, let me point it out again...

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” — Terence McKenna

Do you think God is of the same nature as a human its methods? Is God merely a high degree of intelligence?

After all of the many years that you and I have been debating these issues, you should know by now that I believe that the Creator of this universe is merely the fully-developed/fully-matured "adult" version of what we are,...

...and that we (our minds) momentarily exist as the literal familial "embryos" of said higher Being.

Now I realize (as you yourself have pointed out to me) that my theory sounds like outrageous "wishful thinking."

However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why anyone would object to me suggesting that the ultimate truth of God and the universe, and that of our ultimate relationship to God is as "natural" and "organic" as that of our relationship to our earthly mother.

Which simply means that each and every human ever awakened into existence on this planet, has (by natural birthright) been imbued with the same creative powers and potential as the Being in which we momentarily...

"...live, and move, and have our being...For we are also his offspring..."
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds, existence itself is undoubtedly remarkable; all proper philosophers remark on it.
So let's not presume a supernatural intelligent Entity made existence and made it as it is.

Are we thus supposed to presume the alternative then, that the blind and mindless processes of chance created all of this remarkableness?

Stop ignoring that 12-ton elephant I pointed out to BigMike.

Here, let me point it out again...

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” — Terence McKenna

Do you think God is of the same nature as a human its methods? Is God merely a high degree of intelligence?

After all of the many years that you and I have been debating these issues, you should know by now that I believe that the Creator of this universe is merely the fully-developed/fully-matured "adult" version of what we are,...

...and that we (our minds) momentarily exist as the literal familial "embryos" of said higher Being.

Now I realize (as you yourself have pointed out to me) that my theory sounds like outrageous "wishful thinking."

However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why anyone would object to me suggesting that the ultimate truth of God and the universe, and that of our ultimate relationship to God is as "natural" and "organic" as that of our relationship to our earthly mother.

Which simply means that each and every human ever awakened into existence on this planet, has (by natural birthright) been imbued with the same creative powers and potential as the Being in which we momentarily...

"...live, and move, and have our being...For we are also his offspring..."
_______

Earthly mothers are bodyminds to whom we can relate. God is not a bodymind but is existence itself.
I don't object to your theory or to you yourself. I think that simply your theory is not much help for understanding the world.

[BigMike]

I demarcate wherever the entity, be it a slime mould, a virus, a bacterium, or whatever , has an adaptive brainmind. The adaptive brainmind especially the cortex and its function, is a response to natural selection. As far as we know things that are not alive do not adapt, either genetically or culturally , but are products of their own histories.

I demarcate there because I've seen living things learning from experience including myself, and because I believe in the theory of natural selection.
Surely the furore of the Church against Darwin, and Darwin's own conscientious problem , explains the heart of the problem that God is a process and not ,as the Church would have it, a thing.

The future is not only open----it's also existentially created.
So it will be until such time as artificial intelligence creates futures, not existentially but entirely rationally. -----It's unpleasant, not that AI is not carbon based, but that AI is not existentially adaptive but as a rationally -based system it cannot make mistakes. The adaptive selective process is all the better for the probability of error; I can't imagine how natrural selection would work at all without the probability of error.

Belinda, what do you mean by an "open future" or one that is "existentially created"? If the future is "open," does that imply outcomes aren't fully determined by prior states of the world? If so, how does that align with the adaptive, selective processes you describe? Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems, or is it something more?

And how does this contrast with your concern about AI not being "existentially adaptive"? If AI can't "make mistakes," isn't that itself an adaptation to its rational constraints? After all, even rational systems are shaped by their own histories and the parameters under which they operate. So, are you describing openness as a matter of unpredictability, creativity, or something fundamentally non-deterministic?

Yes, I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , except to a great extent in the cases of bits of rock , mountains , and other non -biological beings.
Nothing that lacks sufficient cortical power can culturally adapt, and nothing that lacks the power to reproduce (one way or the other) can genetically adapt.
We presume bits of rock and atoms etc 'adapt' to causal events but it's only constant correlation at best. For practical and moral purposes we need to draw that line somewhere and causal determinism is the safest way less likely to get people killed or to suffer injustice.

I think wholeness is deterministic. Determinism makes no sense to me unless 'determinism' is whole. But because we can't know the future our creativity bears the probability of some degree of error. Even the most rigorous experiment using only very controllable subjects such as do experiments in physics the unexpected does happen sometimes causing an entire paradigm shift.

Rational systems such a AI, mathematics, and formal logic are tools only and do not indicate truth. The best truth we can get is primarily empirical truth which mathematics, formal logic, and AI are used to endorse or not as the case may be.
The possibility of error is essential to our safety, and rational systems don't do errors ; whenever they seem to err the problem is human error not the system.

If big AI gets control the danger is human error. Imagine big AI as set up by X or
XA !
To add to unpredictability as supporting the case for determinism I'd add fallibility.

Belinda, let’s cut through the poetic abstractions and get to the crux of it: is your belief—that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world in biological systems—rooted in evidence, or is it a leap of faith masquerading as philosophical insight? Because from where I’m standing, it sounds like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-scientific language.

You invoke concepts like "adaptive brainmind" and "existentially created futures" without addressing how these fit into the deterministic framework of natural selection you claim to endorse. Natural selection is not a mystical process—it’s cause and effect, plain and simple. Genetic mutations, environmental pressures, survival, and reproduction. There’s no magical break in the causal chain where "existential creation" steps in and throws the dice differently for biological beings compared to rocks or atoms. The same physics applies, no matter how complex the system.

And this notion that AI or logic can’t handle "truth" because they don’t allow for errors? That’s not a critique of rational systems—it’s a misunderstanding of how empirical methods work. Errors and unpredictability don’t undermine determinism; they’re just manifestations of complexity and incomplete information. Rational systems—be they human cognition, AI, or mathematics—operate within the constraints of causality. They don’t need to "err" to demonstrate their usefulness or alignment with reality.

So, I’ll ask you again: what is your evidence that biological outcomes are exempt from full causal determination? Or is this belief of yours simply a comforting narrative, unconstrained by the rigorous demands of logic and evidence?

[seeds]

Earthly mothers are bodyminds to whom we can relate. God is not a bodymind but is existence itself.

God, at least from the Panentheistic perspective, can indeed be imagined as being a "bodymind."

And although I'm sure that Spinoza would be very pleased to hear you say that God "...is existence itself...", unfortunately, it offers nothing that might help answer the question I posed to you in my prior post:

Are we thus supposed to presume the alternative then, that the blind and mindless processes of chance created all of this remarkableness?

I don't object to your theory or to you yourself. I think that simply your theory is not much help for understanding the world.

In contrast then, do you honestly believe that "...God is existence itself..." is a better theory for helping us understand the world?

And just to ease my curiosity as to whether or not you even understand my theory, would you mind taking a brief moment to give me a short synopsis of what you think my theory entails?
_______

[Belinda]

Belinda, what do you mean by an "open future" or one that is "existentially created"? If the future is "open," does that imply outcomes aren't fully determined by prior states of the world? If so, how does that align with the adaptive, selective processes you describe? Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems, or is it something more?

And how does this contrast with your concern about AI not being "existentially adaptive"? If AI can't "make mistakes," isn't that itself an adaptation to its rational constraints? After all, even rational systems are shaped by their own histories and the parameters under which they operate. So, are you describing openness as a matter of unpredictability, creativity, or something fundamentally non-deterministic?

Yes, I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , except to a great extent in the cases of bits of rock , mountains , and other non -biological beings.
Nothing that lacks sufficient cortical power can culturally adapt, and nothing that lacks the power to reproduce (one way or the other) can genetically adapt.
We presume bits of rock and atoms etc 'adapt' to causal events but it's only constant correlation at best. For practical and moral purposes we need to draw that line somewhere and causal determinism is the safest way less likely to get people killed or to suffer injustice.

I think wholeness is deterministic. Determinism makes no sense to me unless 'determinism' is whole. But because we can't know the future our creativity bears the probability of some degree of error. Even the most rigorous experiment using only very controllable subjects such as do experiments in physics the unexpected does happen sometimes causing an entire paradigm shift.

Rational systems such a AI, mathematics, and formal logic are tools only and do not indicate truth. The best truth we can get is primarily empirical truth which mathematics, formal logic, and AI are used to endorse or not as the case may be.
The possibility of error is essential to our safety, and rational systems don't do errors ; whenever they seem to err the problem is human error not the system.

If big AI gets control the danger is human error. Imagine big AI as set up by X or
XA !
To add to unpredictability as supporting the case for determinism I'd add fallibility.

Belinda, let’s cut through the poetic abstractions and get to the crux of it: is your belief—that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world in biological systems—rooted in evidence, or is it a leap of faith masquerading as philosophical insight? Because from where I’m standing, it sounds like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-scientific language.

You invoke concepts like "adaptive brainmind" and "existentially created futures" without addressing how these fit into the deterministic framework of natural selection you claim to endorse. Natural selection is not a mystical process—it’s cause and effect, plain and simple. Genetic mutations, environmental pressures, survival, and reproduction. There’s no magical break in the causal chain where "existential creation" steps in and throws the dice differently for biological beings compared to rocks or atoms. The same physics applies, no matter how complex the system.

And this notion that AI or logic can’t handle "truth" because they don’t allow for errors? That’s not a critique of rational systems—it’s a misunderstanding of how empirical methods work. Errors and unpredictability don’t undermine determinism; they’re just manifestations of complexity and incomplete information. Rational systems—be they human cognition, AI, or mathematics—operate within the constraints of causality. They don’t need to "err" to demonstrate their usefulness or alignment with reality.

So, I’ll ask you again: what is your evidence that biological outcomes are exempt from full causal determination? Or is this belief of yours simply a comforting narrative, unconstrained by the rigorous demands of logic and evidence?

I claim that outcomes are fully determined by prior states of the world.I am anxious that any outcome is not taken to be the effect of a simple causal chain in a time sequence but is also an effect of enduring circumstances , and also an effect of enduring systems. taken as a whole system ,which I claim existence is, each and every event is a necessary event. I admit that today ,after I thought more about your explicit question, my claim "I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , " is no longer what I claim .I now endorse that prior states determine future events. I add that prior means , not only prior as sequentially prior in time but also prior in space and in physical forces such as gravity.

I have been confusing what exists and how we can know what exists. You ask me , Big Mike, "Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems ---- ?" Yes, it is just that, no more no less. What I like to call adaptive brainmind, and existentially created futures ,are rooted in causal determinism despite that we persist in attitudes engendered by persistent feelings of freedom of choice. Because our futures are unpredictable our hopes of free choices are survival strategies.

I must stick to my claim that mathematics, AI, and classical formal logic are man made systems and are no more indicative of eternal truths than is empirical truth. Human cognition is not an event that I'd ever categorise as a 'rational system'.

[Belinda]

Earthly mothers are bodyminds to whom we can relate. God is not a bodymind but is existence itself.

God, at least from the Panentheistic perspective, can indeed be imagined as being a "bodymind."

And although I'm sure that Spinoza would be very pleased to hear you say that God "...is existence itself...", unfortunately, it offers nothing that might help answer the question I posed to you in my prior post:

Are we thus supposed to presume the alternative then, that the blind and mindless processes of chance created all of this remarkableness?

I don't object to your theory or to you yourself. I think that simply your theory is not much help for understanding the world.

In contrast then, do you honestly believe that "...God is existence itself..." is a better theory for helping us understand the world?

And just to ease my curiosity as to whether or not you even understand my theory, would you mind taking a brief moment to give me a short synopsis of what you think my theory entails?
_______

Seeds, as I understand it, your theory entails that God can and does choose from moment to moment what happens in the way a person chooses,i.e. with an end in view, only much more freely than a human person or any other animal chooses.

[BigMike]

Yes, I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , except to a great extent in the cases of bits of rock , mountains , and other non -biological beings.
Nothing that lacks sufficient cortical power can culturally adapt, and nothing that lacks the power to reproduce (one way or the other) can genetically adapt.
We presume bits of rock and atoms etc 'adapt' to causal events but it's only constant correlation at best. For practical and moral purposes we need to draw that line somewhere and causal determinism is the safest way less likely to get people killed or to suffer injustice.

I think wholeness is deterministic. Determinism makes no sense to me unless 'determinism' is whole. But because we can't know the future our creativity bears the probability of some degree of error. Even the most rigorous experiment using only very controllable subjects such as do experiments in physics the unexpected does happen sometimes causing an entire paradigm shift.

Rational systems such a AI, mathematics, and formal logic are tools only and do not indicate truth. The best truth we can get is primarily empirical truth which mathematics, formal logic, and AI are used to endorse or not as the case may be.
The possibility of error is essential to our safety, and rational systems don't do errors ; whenever they seem to err the problem is human error not the system.

If big AI gets control the danger is human error. Imagine big AI as set up by X or
XA !
To add to unpredictability as supporting the case for determinism I'd add fallibility.

Belinda, let’s cut through the poetic abstractions and get to the crux of it: is your belief—that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world in biological systems—rooted in evidence, or is it a leap of faith masquerading as philosophical insight? Because from where I’m standing, it sounds like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-scientific language.

You invoke concepts like "adaptive brainmind" and "existentially created futures" without addressing how these fit into the deterministic framework of natural selection you claim to endorse. Natural selection is not a mystical process—it’s cause and effect, plain and simple. Genetic mutations, environmental pressures, survival, and reproduction. There’s no magical break in the causal chain where "existential creation" steps in and throws the dice differently for biological beings compared to rocks or atoms. The same physics applies, no matter how complex the system.

And this notion that AI or logic can’t handle "truth" because they don’t allow for errors? That’s not a critique of rational systems—it’s a misunderstanding of how empirical methods work. Errors and unpredictability don’t undermine determinism; they’re just manifestations of complexity and incomplete information. Rational systems—be they human cognition, AI, or mathematics—operate within the constraints of causality. They don’t need to "err" to demonstrate their usefulness or alignment with reality.

So, I’ll ask you again: what is your evidence that biological outcomes are exempt from full causal determination? Or is this belief of yours simply a comforting narrative, unconstrained by the rigorous demands of logic and evidence?

I claim that outcomes are fully determined by prior states of the world.I am anxious that any outcome is not taken to be the effect of a simple causal chain in a time sequence but is also an effect of enduring circumstances , and also an effect of enduring systems. taken as a whole system ,which I claim existence is, each and every event is a necessary event. I admit that today ,after I thought more about your explicit question, my claim "I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , " is no longer what I claim.

I have been confusing what exists and how we can know what exists. You ask me , Big Mike, "Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems ---- ?" Yes, it is just that, no more no less. What I like to call adaptive brainmind, and existentially created futures ,are rooted in causal determinism despite that we persist in attitudes engendered by persistent feelings of freedom of choice. Because our futures are unpredictable our hopes of free choices are survival strategies.

I must stick to my claim that mathematics, AI, and classical formal logic are man made systems and are no more indicative of eternal truths than is empirical truth. Human cognition is not an event that I'd ever categorise as a 'rational system'.

Belinda, let’s clarify an important distinction regarding mathematics, formal logic, and their relationship to truth. These systems are axiomatic, not hypothetical or empirical. Their "truths" are derived entirely from their foundational axioms and rules of inference, not from observation or physical evidence.

When we say, for example, that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides in a right triangle, this isn’t an empirical statement. It’s a conclusion deduced from the axioms and definitions of Euclidean geometry. These axioms are arbitrary starting points, chosen to construct a consistent logical framework. The resulting truths are true by definition within that framework.

This is fundamentally different from empirical truth, which relies on observations of the physical world and is always subject to revision based on new evidence. In contrast, mathematical truths are immutable within their axiomatic systems. If the system changes—such as switching from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry—then the truths within that new system will follow logically from its own axioms.

You also seem to conflate human cognition with rational systems like mathematics or AI. While human cognition is indeed a product of evolution, shaped by causal determinism and biological imperatives, rational systems like formal logic and mathematics are tools created by humans to model aspects of reality. They are not subject to human errors in the same way cognition is; rather, any apparent "errors" in these systems stem from their improper application or misinterpretation by humans.

So, when you assert that mathematics and logic "are no more indicative of eternal truths than is empirical truth," you miss the key distinction: mathematical truths are not contingent on empirical observation at all—they are tautologies, true by virtue of the system's structure. Empirical truths, on the other hand, are contingent on the physical world and our ability to observe and interpret it. The two domains serve different purposes and are evaluated on entirely separate criteria.

[Belinda]

Belinda, let’s cut through the poetic abstractions and get to the crux of it: is your belief—that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world in biological systems—rooted in evidence, or is it a leap of faith masquerading as philosophical insight? Because from where I’m standing, it sounds like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-scientific language.

You invoke concepts like "adaptive brainmind" and "existentially created futures" without addressing how these fit into the deterministic framework of natural selection you claim to endorse. Natural selection is not a mystical process—it’s cause and effect, plain and simple. Genetic mutations, environmental pressures, survival, and reproduction. There’s no magical break in the causal chain where "existential creation" steps in and throws the dice differently for biological beings compared to rocks or atoms. The same physics applies, no matter how complex the system.

And this notion that AI or logic can’t handle "truth" because they don’t allow for errors? That’s not a critique of rational systems—it’s a misunderstanding of how empirical methods work. Errors and unpredictability don’t undermine determinism; they’re just manifestations of complexity and incomplete information. Rational systems—be they human cognition, AI, or mathematics—operate within the constraints of causality. They don’t need to "err" to demonstrate their usefulness or alignment with reality.

So, I’ll ask you again: what is your evidence that biological outcomes are exempt from full causal determination? Or is this belief of yours simply a comforting narrative, unconstrained by the rigorous demands of logic and evidence?

I claim that outcomes are fully determined by prior states of the world.I am anxious that any outcome is not taken to be the effect of a simple causal chain in a time sequence but is also an effect of enduring circumstances , and also an effect of enduring systems. taken as a whole system ,which I claim existence is, each and every event is a necessary event. I admit that today ,after I thought more about your explicit question, my claim "I imply that outcomes are not fully determined by prior states of the world , " is no longer what I claim.

I have been confusing what exists and how we can know what exists. You ask me , Big Mike, "Is this "openness" an acknowledgment of complexity and unpredictability in deterministic systems ---- ?" Yes, it is just that, no more no less. What I like to call adaptive brainmind, and existentially created futures ,are rooted in causal determinism despite that we persist in attitudes engendered by persistent feelings of freedom of choice. Because our futures are unpredictable our hopes of free choices are survival strategies.

I must stick to my claim that mathematics, AI, and classical formal logic are man made systems and are no more indicative of eternal truths than is empirical truth. Human cognition is not an event that I'd ever categorise as a 'rational system'.

Belinda, let’s clarify an important distinction regarding mathematics, formal logic, and their relationship to truth. These systems are axiomatic, not hypothetical or empirical. Their "truths" are derived entirely from their foundational axioms and rules of inference, not from observation or physical evidence.

When we say, for example, that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides in a right triangle, this isn’t an empirical statement. It’s a conclusion deduced from the axioms and definitions of Euclidean geometry. These axioms are arbitrary starting points, chosen to construct a consistent logical framework. The resulting truths are true by definition within that framework.

This is fundamentally different from empirical truth, which relies on observations of the physical world and is always subject to revision based on new evidence. In contrast, mathematical truths are immutable within their axiomatic systems. If the system changes—such as switching from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry—then the truths within that new system will follow logically from its own axioms.

You also seem to conflate human cognition with rational systems like mathematics or AI. While human cognition is indeed a product of evolution, shaped by causal determinism and biological imperatives, rational systems like formal logic and mathematics are tools created by humans to model aspects of reality. They are not subject to human errors in the same way cognition is; rather, any apparent "errors" in these systems stem from their improper application or misinterpretation by humans.

So, when you assert that mathematics and logic "are no more indicative of eternal truths than is empirical truth," you miss the key distinction: mathematical truths are not contingent on empirical observation at all—they are tautologies, true by virtue of the system's structure. Empirical truths, on the other hand, are contingent on the physical world and our ability to observe and interpret it. The two domains serve different purposes and are evaluated on entirely separate criteria.

I agree, You maybe said it better than I did.

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______

[seeds]

_______


_______