Corporation Socialism

[BigMike]

What about anxiety? I feel something we humans call "anxious" when I ponder things like my own death. Can a calculator feel anxiety if you tell it you are going to unplug it and throw it away? Or if not now, could a person create a calculator that felt anxiety when the person who designed it told it that it was about to be unplugged and thrown away. How would YOU design anxiety?

And here's another kicker; how would YOU know or figure out whether the calculator was feeling anxiety and not just acting similar to a living being like you or me who feels anxiety (assuming you have ever felt anxiety)? By what means would you spot "anxiety"? Is "anxiety" nothing more than an increase in pulse or burying one's head under a pillow when the word "death" is mentioned? Or is there something more to it than that? And if there is more to it than just an increase in pulse and a propensity to bury one's head under a pillow, then what is that "more" and what does it look like, sound like, taste like, feel like or smell like? Can you identify the smell, taste, feeling, appearance or sound of anxiety in a calculator, if it had such things?

And if you cannot tell such things as whether something else has anxiety or feels pain or pleasure, does that mean that particular something else doesn't have such feelings (at least as far as you are aware)?

Gary, none of your musings about anxiety, pain, or pleasure refutes determinism. They’re fascinating questions, but they pivot away from the central issue: whether our experiences, emotions, and choices are causally determined by physical processes. They are. Your reluctance to accept this stems either from a lack of understanding of the science or an unwillingness to face its implications, possibly because you find more comfort in imagining a "ghost in the machine." But ghosts, by their very definition, cannot interact with the physical world. They are metaphysical placeholders for ignorance, not answers.

Anxiety, pain, and pleasure are entirely natural phenomena. They’re the result of complex neural processes governed by physical laws. Anxiety, for example, involves the activation of specific brain regions, the release of stress hormones, and heightened physiological responses. These mechanisms are well-documented and understood, and they occur without the need for a "higher" or non-physical entity.

As for your calculator analogy, it’s flawed. We already create machines that can simulate certain emotions or behaviors, like voice assistants apologizing or expressing concern. However, these are not the same as human feelings because they lack the complex neural architecture that generates subjective experiences. If a machine were advanced enough to mimic human emotional responses with sufficient complexity, it might achieve something akin to anxiety—but even then, it would be causally determined, just as it is for us.

So I say to you, sapere aude: dare to know. Dare to confront the evidence, the science, and the reality that consciousness, emotions, and even the fear of death are products of physical processes. They are no less profound or meaningful for being part of the deterministic fabric of the universe. But clinging to the notion of a "ghost" without evidence is a refusal to know—a retreat from truth into comforting illusions.

I'm not a scientist nor in the academic profession but last I heard the argument regarding whether humans have free will or not is not incontrovertible. ChatGPT seems to back that up. Why would I want to believe that we humans have no free will? Is there some advantage to it that I should skip from being somewhat unsure to what amounts to having some degree of faith that humans have no free will?

You said:
What does science tell us about whether human beings have free will or not?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Science offers fascinating insights into the debate about free will, though it doesn't provide a definitive answer. Here’s a summary of key findings and interpretations from neuroscience, psychology, and physics that are relevant to the question:

Neuroscience and Free Will
Libet Experiments (1980s)

What Happened? Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet measured brain activity using EEG while participants were asked to move their fingers at a moment of their choosing. He found that brain activity ("readiness potential") occurred several hundred milliseconds before participants reported their conscious decision to move.
Implications: Some interpret this as evidence that the brain "decides" before we become consciously aware, suggesting free will might be an illusion. However, others argue this doesn't disprove free will; it might only show that unconscious processes prepare for actions while conscious awareness oversees or vetoes them.
Follow-up Studies

Newer studies using fMRI show similar results: patterns of brain activity can predict decisions several seconds before a person is consciously aware of them.
Criticisms: These experiments often involve simple, arbitrary choices (e.g., pressing a button), which may not reflect the complexity of real-world decision-making. Some argue free will operates more meaningfully in complex moral or reflective decisions.
Psychology and Behavioral Science
Role of the Unconscious Mind

Many psychological studies suggest that much of our behavior is influenced by unconscious processes—habits, biases, and environmental cues—rather than deliberate, conscious decisions.
Example: Studies on priming show that subtle environmental stimuli can shape decisions without our awareness.
Self-Control and Decision-Making

Research into self-control (e.g., the "marshmallow test") suggests that individuals with better control over impulses are more successful in life. However, such traits may be shaped by genetic predispositions and environmental factors, challenging the notion of absolute free will.
Physics and Free Will
Determinism in Classical Physics

Classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) describes a deterministic universe where every event follows from prior causes. If the brain operates like a physical system, this could imply determinism.
Quantum Mechanics and Indeterminism

At the quantum level, some events (e.g., particle behavior) appear to be probabilistic rather than deterministic. However:
Supporters of Free Will: Quantum indeterminacy might introduce an element of unpredictability into the brain, potentially allowing for free will.
Critics: Randomness isn't the same as free will. A random decision is still not a "free" decision.
Challenges to the Free Will Debate from Science
Illusion of Free Will

Some researchers, like neuroscientist Sam Harris, argue that free will is an illusion. According to this view, our thoughts and actions arise from processes in the brain that we do not control, even though we feel as though we are making choices.
Emergence and Complexity

Others, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, argue that free will might emerge from the complexity of the brain. Even if our decisions are influenced by prior causes, the capacity to reflect, deliberate, and plan introduces meaningful agency.
Where Science Leaves Us
Science leans toward the idea that our decisions are heavily influenced—or even determined—by unconscious processes, genetics, and environment. However, it doesn't entirely rule out the possibility of free will, especially when defined in nuanced ways, such as:

The ability to act according to one's own goals and desires (compatibilist free will).
The emergent sense of agency arising from complex brain functions.
In short, science complicates simplistic notions of free will but doesn't entirely resolve the debate. Many scientists and philosophers believe that how we define free will—and whether it’s a practical or metaphysical concept—determines how we interpret scientific findings.

What do you think? Does the evidence for unconscious processes or determinism change how you view your sense of control?

Gary, you’re right that science doesn’t provide incontrovertible answers to metaphysical questions like free will. That’s because science, by design, doesn’t try to prove anything. It recognizes that absolute proof is unattainable and focuses instead on what can be falsified. Science works by gathering evidence, testing hypotheses, and ruling out inconsistencies with our observations. It tells us what doesn’t fit the overwhelming mountain of evidence we’ve accumulated over centuries.

When it comes to free will, science can’t outright "prove" it doesn’t exist—nor can it prove psychokinesis or telekinesis are illusions. What science does say, however, is that if phenomena like free will or telekinesis exist, they would violate foundational principles like the conservation laws of physics—the same laws that underpin all of our scientific knowledge. And yet, despite meticulous observation and experimentation, no evidence has ever emerged to suggest that these principles are false.

This doesn’t mean the conversation ends. It means we approach claims of free will or similar phenomena with justified skepticism and caution. If these ideas were true, they would require rethinking the very framework of physics, biology, and neuroscience. Until there’s evidence to support such a monumental shift, determinism remains the most consistent explanation for how our brains and the universe operate.

So no, you don’t need to “skip to faith.” The evidence we have overwhelmingly supports a deterministic view of the universe, even if it doesn’t align with how it feels. Science invites us to dare to know—to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the conclusions challenge our intuitions.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, none of your musings about anxiety, pain, or pleasure refutes determinism. They’re fascinating questions, but they pivot away from the central issue: whether our experiences, emotions, and choices are causally determined by physical processes. They are. Your reluctance to accept this stems either from a lack of understanding of the science or an unwillingness to face its implications, possibly because you find more comfort in imagining a "ghost in the machine." But ghosts, by their very definition, cannot interact with the physical world. They are metaphysical placeholders for ignorance, not answers.

Anxiety, pain, and pleasure are entirely natural phenomena. They’re the result of complex neural processes governed by physical laws. Anxiety, for example, involves the activation of specific brain regions, the release of stress hormones, and heightened physiological responses. These mechanisms are well-documented and understood, and they occur without the need for a "higher" or non-physical entity.

As for your calculator analogy, it’s flawed. We already create machines that can simulate certain emotions or behaviors, like voice assistants apologizing or expressing concern. However, these are not the same as human feelings because they lack the complex neural architecture that generates subjective experiences. If a machine were advanced enough to mimic human emotional responses with sufficient complexity, it might achieve something akin to anxiety—but even then, it would be causally determined, just as it is for us.

So I say to you, sapere aude: dare to know. Dare to confront the evidence, the science, and the reality that consciousness, emotions, and even the fear of death are products of physical processes. They are no less profound or meaningful for being part of the deterministic fabric of the universe. But clinging to the notion of a "ghost" without evidence is a refusal to know—a retreat from truth into comforting illusions.

I'm not a scientist nor in the academic profession but last I heard the argument regarding whether humans have free will or not is not incontrovertible. ChatGPT seems to back that up. Why would I want to believe that we humans have no free will? Is there some advantage to it that I should skip from being somewhat unsure to what amounts to having some degree of faith that humans have no free will?

You said:
What does science tell us about whether human beings have free will or not?

Gary, you’re right that science doesn’t provide incontrovertible answers to metaphysical questions like free will. That’s because science, by design, doesn’t try to prove anything. It recognizes that absolute proof is unattainable and focuses instead on what can be falsified. Science works by gathering evidence, testing hypotheses, and ruling out inconsistencies with our observations. It tells us what doesn’t fit the overwhelming mountain of evidence we’ve accumulated over centuries.

When it comes to free will, science can’t outright "prove" it doesn’t exist—nor can it prove psychokinesis or telekinesis are illusions. What science does say, however, is that if phenomena like free will or telekinesis exist, they would violate foundational principles like the conservation laws of physics—the same laws that underpin all of our scientific knowledge. And yet, despite meticulous observation and experimentation, no evidence has ever emerged to suggest that these principles are false.

This doesn’t mean the conversation ends. It means we approach claims of free will or similar phenomena with justified skepticism and caution. If these ideas were true, they would require rethinking the very framework of physics, biology, and neuroscience. Until there’s evidence to support such a monumental shift, determinism remains the most consistent explanation for how our brains and the universe operate.

So no, you don’t need to “skip to faith.” The evidence we have overwhelmingly supports a deterministic view of the universe, even if it doesn’t align with how it feels. Science invites us to dare to know—to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the conclusions challenge our intuitions.

I'm not saying we are not determined. I'm saying I don't know the answer to that claim. I'm skeptical of the claim that we are determined. I mean, according to IC, evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that there is a God because everything must have a first cause and the best explanation we know of for a first cause is some kind of uncreated creator. Should I believe that too or should I remain skeptical.

[BigMike]

I'm not a scientist nor in the academic profession but last I heard the argument regarding whether humans have free will or not is not incontrovertible. ChatGPT seems to back that up. Why would I want to believe that we humans have no free will? Is there some advantage to it that I should skip from being somewhat unsure to what amounts to having some degree of faith that humans have no free will?

Gary, you’re right that science doesn’t provide incontrovertible answers to metaphysical questions like free will. That’s because science, by design, doesn’t try to prove anything. It recognizes that absolute proof is unattainable and focuses instead on what can be falsified. Science works by gathering evidence, testing hypotheses, and ruling out inconsistencies with our observations. It tells us what doesn’t fit the overwhelming mountain of evidence we’ve accumulated over centuries.

When it comes to free will, science can’t outright "prove" it doesn’t exist—nor can it prove psychokinesis or telekinesis are illusions. What science does say, however, is that if phenomena like free will or telekinesis exist, they would violate foundational principles like the conservation laws of physics—the same laws that underpin all of our scientific knowledge. And yet, despite meticulous observation and experimentation, no evidence has ever emerged to suggest that these principles are false.

This doesn’t mean the conversation ends. It means we approach claims of free will or similar phenomena with justified skepticism and caution. If these ideas were true, they would require rethinking the very framework of physics, biology, and neuroscience. Until there’s evidence to support such a monumental shift, determinism remains the most consistent explanation for how our brains and the universe operate.

So no, you don’t need to “skip to faith.” The evidence we have overwhelmingly supports a deterministic view of the universe, even if it doesn’t align with how it feels. Science invites us to dare to know—to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the conclusions challenge our intuitions.

I'm not saying we are not determined. I'm saying I don't know the answer to that claim. I'm skeptical of the claim that we are determined. I mean, according to IC, evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that there is a God because everything must have a first cause and the best explanation we know of for a first cause is some kind of uncreated creator. Should I believe that too or should I remain skeptical.

Gary, the "first cause" argument is a philosophical proposition, not a scientific one. It attempts to answer the metaphysical question of why there is something rather than nothing, but it doesn’t rely on empirical evidence or testable hypotheses like science does. If there were a "first cause" or creator of the universe, there’s no evidence that it continued to intervene in the unfolding of events. What we observe instead is a universe operating under the deterministic laws of nature, evolving as it must.

Leucippus, nearly 2,500 years ago, captured this beautifully: "Nought happens for nothing, but everything from a ground and of necessity." That’s determinism—events occur due to preceding causes, governed by the laws of nature. Whether or not a creator exists, the universe functions without apparent deviation from these principles.

Your skepticism about determinism is healthy, but it should be grounded in the evidence. What we know about the physical world—from the conservation laws to the interactions governing matter and energy—supports a deterministic framework. In contrast, the claim of an "uncreated creator" introduces an entity that itself defies explanation and requires a leap of faith. The principle of determinism, on the other hand, aligns with centuries of scientific observation and remains consistent with the universe as we understand it.

[Belinda]

Gary Childless wrote:

Why would I want to believe that we humans have no free will? Is there some advantage to it that I should skip from being somewhat unsure to what amounts to having some degree of faith that humans have no free will?

It's at the very least a matter of common sense that there is no such thing as Free Will. If our common sense did not dictate that we act upon experience that events have consequences we would not survive as individuals or species.

The pragmatic advantages of causal determinism are broadly that when we know the probable causes of bad events then we can do what it takes to avoid the bad events happening in the future. Sensible intentions are not always fulfilled but sensible intentions nevertheless are safer than fatalism or faith in a ghost in the machine. Fear of dying for instance may be overcome by the experience of diverting one's attention to more productive more enjoyable trains of thought. Many people are burdened by the false idea that thoughts cannot be controlled : the content of thought can indeed be controlled , and this we have learned from experience -----not from a ghost named "Free Will".

So becoming happier rest upon learning how to do it by learned thought technique as I explained above . If on the other hand Free Will were relied upon to make one happier one would fail because any event that is believed to be a Free Will event is nothing but a random event and not free at all, as Big Mike intimates. We also have learned from experience that certain learned skills such as the skill of communicating ideas cause effects in the future. Social governance, international relations,professional care, and also personal governance of emotions and behaviour rests upon causes and their effects. Persuading others rests upon causes and effects of causes.

[Immanuel Can]

Once more you are begging the question.

No. It's called "paying no attention."

[Will Bouwman]

Once more you are begging the question.

No. It's called "paying no attention."

That can't be true, you clearly read the post. The trouble with dishonesty is that the easiest person to fool is yourself. A more plausible explanation is that you don't understand what begging the question means.

[Immanuel Can]

Once more you are begging the question.

No. It's called "paying no attention."

That can't be true, you clearly read the post.

That I read it is why I'm paying no attention.

[Will Bouwman]

No. It's called "paying no attention."

That can't be true, you clearly read the post.

That I read it is why I'm paying no attention.

Well again, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Your characterisation of the EU Commissioners as "insane ideologues" is undermined by facts which you have been shown. You paid no attention to those.
You called me "very, very silly" for pointing out that you had called them unaccountable. When it was shown that you had done so, you could neither acknowledge it nor apologise.
You have little integrity and less humility. If you want to pretend to be a philosopher, you should at least learn to act like one, rather than the fragile, deluded narcissist you are currently showing.

[Immanuel Can]

That can't be true, you clearly read the post.

That I read it is why I'm paying no attention.

Well again, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

I'm sure you've discovered that.

[Will Bouwman]

...the easiest person to fool is yourself.

I'm sure you've discovered that.

Well, snarkiness aside, of course; anyone doing a degree in Philosophy is taught to avoid doing so. Confirmation bias defines much of your thinking, so it seems unlikely that you have ever studied philosophy in an academic environment and there is no way you are an academic yourself.
You should look up psychological rigidity. I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, but you display the symptoms. You don't make it easy, but I do feel sorry for you.

[Belinda]

...the easiest person to fool is yourself.

I'm sure you've discovered that.

Well, snarkiness aside, of course; anyone doing a degree in Philosophy is taught to avoid doing so. Confirmation bias defines much of your thinking, so it seems unlikely that you have ever studied philosophy in an academic environment and there is no way you are an academic yourself.
You should look up psychological rigidity. I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, but you display the symptoms. You don't make it easy, but I do feel sorry for you.

Despite Immanuel's apparent inability to do philosophy it's good that he trusts the Christian moral code , even in a punitive way. The result of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions tended ,averaged over the centuries ,to civilise people's emotional reactions and make people more able to inhibit unsocial responses.

[BigMike]

I'm sure you've discovered that.

Well, snarkiness aside, of course; anyone doing a degree in Philosophy is taught to avoid doing so. Confirmation bias defines much of your thinking, so it seems unlikely that you have ever studied philosophy in an academic environment and there is no way you are an academic yourself.
You should look up psychological rigidity. I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, but you display the symptoms. You don't make it easy, but I do feel sorry for you.

Despite Immanuel's apparent inability to do philosophy it's good that he trusts the Christian moral code , even in a punitive way. The result of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions tended ,averaged over the centuries ,to civilise people's emotional reactions and make people more able to inhibit unsocial responses.

Ah, Belinda, what a charmingly backhanded compliment to Immanuel! It’s like saying, "Despite your inability to play basketball, it’s good that you’re tall enough to hang Christmas lights without a ladder."

As for the civilizing effects of religion, I suppose we can thank it for at least a few centuries of relative peace—well, when people weren’t, you know, burning each other at the stake or engaging in holy wars. But hey, let’s not quibble over the details. If Immanuel’s philosophical stylings are the result of that civilizing influence, maybe it’s proof we need a refresher course. Or, as the philosophers say, Sapere aude! Dare to be a bit less... punitive.

[promethean75]

You know he still has the tree up and the red ribbon wreath with the two pine cones and the little brass bell still on the front door.

How far might IC have gone this year decorating his yard and house? Just a few lights or full retard nativity scene, reindeer and inflatable snowmen?

Discuss.

[FlashDangerpants]

You know he still has the tree up and the red ribbon wreath with the two pine cones and the little brass bell still on the front door.

How far might IC have gone this year decorating his yard and house? Just a few lights or full retard nativity scene, reindeer and inflatable snowmen?

Discuss.

A simple triptych featuring the ghosts of penitence past, sobriety present, and sadness future.

[Belinda]

Well, snarkiness aside, of course; anyone doing a degree in Philosophy is taught to avoid doing so. Confirmation bias defines much of your thinking, so it seems unlikely that you have ever studied philosophy in an academic environment and there is no way you are an academic yourself.
You should look up psychological rigidity. I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, but you display the symptoms. You don't make it easy, but I do feel sorry for you.

Despite Immanuel's apparent inability to do philosophy it's good that he trusts the Christian moral code , even in a punitive way. The result of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions tended ,averaged over the centuries ,to civilise people's emotional reactions and make people more able to inhibit unsocial responses.

Ah, Belinda, what a charmingly backhanded compliment to Immanuel! It’s like saying, "Despite your inability to play basketball, it’s good that you’re tall enough to hang Christmas lights without a ladder."

As for the civilizing effects of religion, I suppose we can thank it for at least a few centuries of relative peace—well, when people weren’t, you know, burning each other at the stake or engaging in holy wars. But hey, let’s not quibble over the details. If Immanuel’s philosophical stylings are the result of that civilizing influence, maybe it’s proof we need a refresher course. Or, as the philosophers say, Sapere aude! Dare to be a bit less... punitive.

Indeed refresher course are badly needed.I am working on refreshing my own ideas along the following lines from Benjamin Franklin 1790 :

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire,

I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes,
and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity;
though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.
I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed;
especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.




Jesus of Nazareth knew that parables were a useful medium for teaching children and others who could not deal in abstract concepts.