The Power of Art and Emotion: Should We Worry About Manipulation?

[BigMike]

Why are you asking these questions? I said nothing more than what was stated in my last reply. Do you find that parts of my last reply are inaccurate or impossible? And if so, what parts are inaccurate or impossible?

Gary, your last reply isn't necessarily inaccurate or impossible—it's speculative, which is fine in philosophical discussions, but speculation without clear reasoning risks steering the conversation into ambiguity. You invoke the notion of humanity creating beings that could surpass us and speculate about their possible independence and dominance. But you stop short of explaining why this scenario is inherently problematic, inevitable, or even worth fearing beyond its novelty.

The questions I posed were meant to clarify your stance. Are you pointing out potential risks for the sake of caution, or are you implying we should stop advancing altogether? Your framing leaves room for either interpretation, and that ambiguity undermines the strength of your argument. If you’re simply encouraging mindfulness and responsibility, I agree. But if you’re insinuating that we should fear progress to the point of paralysis, that deserves a direct challenge.

So, I ask again, do you view progress as inherently dangerous, or are you calling for careful, deliberate action? Either position is valid for debate, but the distinction matters in addressing your concerns.

I wish I could tell you one way or the other. Ultimately it depends on what happens in the unforeseeable future.

I'm told there is a scene in the movie "Oppenheimer" where the general heading up the project asks the scientist what will happen when the button is pushed for the first time, detonating the very first man made nuclear explosion on Earth. The possibility comes up in the ensuing conversation that there is an infinitesimal chance it would ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world but that the risk is "extremely negligible". They thought about it for a moment and discussed the risk. And then the button was pushed.

The atmosphere did not ignite.

Think about that. Two men, the General and Robert J. Oppenheimer decided in that moment that the world Would take an infinitesimal risk of destroying itself. Did they consult ANYONE else in the world in that moment whether or not we all want to take such a risk?

Two men. The world wasn't destroyed. Were we lucky? If so, then will we always be lucky?

Gary, your reference to Oppenheimer’s decision is a powerful analogy for the tension between progress and caution. The choice to push the button was indeed a monumental moment, one that encapsulated humanity’s ability to wield vast power while grappling with the limits of our foresight. It’s a testament to the precariousness of progress when it outruns our ability to fully predict its consequences.

However, Oppenheimer’s situation wasn’t simply a reckless gamble. It was a calculated decision based on the best scientific understanding available at the time. They didn’t consult the entire world, true, but they relied on expertise, debate, and what they perceived as rigorous analysis. The infinitesimal risk you mention wasn’t taken lightly; it was weighed against the potential consequences of not developing such technology first, given the geopolitical stakes.

This parallels the broader philosophical question of whether we should act when absolute certainty is unattainable. If Oppenheimer had waited for a "controlled setting" to eliminate all risk, the technology might have been developed elsewhere, possibly under less scrutiny or accountability. Progress often forces us to make decisions in imperfect conditions, balancing potential risks against potential gains. That doesn’t mean we should act recklessly, but it does mean that waiting for absolute certainty isn’t always an option.

The challenge lies in ensuring that decisions like these are guided by a framework that prioritizes caution, transparency, and ethical responsibility. It’s not about halting progress but about advancing with the awareness that we are part of a deterministic chain, and every action we take shapes the future in ways we may not fully foresee. Oppenheimer’s story reminds us that even "infinitesimal" risks demand rigorous scrutiny, but it also highlights that inaction, too, carries its own risks.

[phyllo]

If I grasp the implications in BigMike’s stance, man — a given man — is understood to have no immediate agency. In one way or another he is controlled by environment, past conditioning, and whatever mental organization within that emergent phenomenon of the brain-stuff.

If you ignore all the waffling, you can interpret him that way.

The issue of politics, a big stress in BigMikeanism, as well as education, point to the need for an elite group to assume control over the proper and the real definitions of what ‘man’ is.

There is some group of determinists who know how everything ought to be organized in order to get some specific result (optimum result?).

The complexity, interconnectedness and our poor track record of predicting consequences of our actions, appear not to be major obstacles.

[BigMike]

I'm told there is a scene in the movie "Oppenheimer" where the general heading up the project asks the scientist what will happen when the button is pushed for the first time, detonating the very first man made nuclear explosion on Earth. The possibility comes up in the ensuing conversation that there is an infinitesimal chance it would ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world but that the risk is "extremely negligible". They thought about it for a moment and discussed the risk. And then the button was pushed.

The atmosphere did not ignite.

Think about that. Two men, the General and Robert J. Oppenheimer decided in that moment that the world Would take an infinitesimal risk of destroying itself. Did they consult ANYONE else in the world in that moment whether or not we all want to take such a risk?

Two men. The world wasn't destroyed. Were we lucky? If so, then will we always be lucky?

That's a movie, Gary. It's a dramatization of events that spanned years, compressed into 3 hours with a limited set of characters and events.

In reality, the possibility of the atmosphere igniting was discussed over a long period of time by the scientists involved in the project.

Fair enough.

Gary, while I haven’t seen *Oppenheimer*, the discussion about the atmosphere catching fire during the first nuclear detonation is indeed an old one and not just a cinematic invention. I remember those debates from my student days, particularly around the question of whether nitrogen in the atmosphere could ignite in a nuclear explosion.

For nitrogen to burn, meaning to oxidize, as in the reaction N2 + O2 -> 2NO (nitrogen oxide), energy must be supplied. This reaction occurs naturally in extreme conditions, such as the high temperatures around lightning bolts. While the continued reaction, 2NO + O2 -> 2NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), releases some energy back, the overall process actually consumes energy rather than producing it.

This means that, theoretically, instead of amplifying the damage of an atomic blast, nitrogen oxidation would absorb some of the explosion’s energy. So, the scientists’ calculations showed that such a catastrophic chain reaction wouldn’t occur—not because they were lucky, but because they understood the physics and chemistry involved.

It’s an interesting piece of history, though, that they even considered and calculated the possibility. It underscores how seriously the Manhattan Project scientists weighed the unknowns, even as they pushed into uncharted territory.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can’t believe I did this! My WhatsApp app offers access to Meta’s AI program. I asked it to:

Create an argument that opposes a political elite composed of hard determinists who gain political control over civilization

The response:

Here's a comprehensive argument opposing a political elite composed of hard determinists:

*Argument Against a Hard Determinist Elite*

A political elite composed of hard determinists would pose significant threats to individual freedom, moral responsibility, and the well-being of civilization as a whole.

1. *Erosion of Personal Freedom and Autonomy*

Hard determinists believe that human behavior is entirely predetermined, leaving no room for free will or personal choice. If such an elite were to gain control, they would likely implement policies that restrict individual freedom, citing the inevitability of human behavior. This would undermine the fundamental human right to make choices and shape one's own destiny.

2. *Negation of Moral Responsibility*

Hard determinism implies that individuals are not morally responsible for their actions, as they are simply the result of prior causes. A hard determinist elite would likely abandon the concept of moral responsibility, leading to a lack of accountability and a culture of blame-shifting. This would erode the moral fabric of society and create a culture of impunity.

3. *Lack of Incentives for Personal Growth and Improvement*

If human behavior is entirely predetermined, then there is little incentive for individuals to strive for personal growth or improvement. A hard determinist elite would likely dismiss the importance of personal effort and achievement, leading to a stagnant and complacent society.

4. *Inefficient and Inhumane Policymaking*

Hard determinists would likely rely on simplistic and reductionist approaches to policymaking, ignoring the complexities and nuances of human behavior. This would lead to inefficient and inhumane policies that fail to address the needs and concerns of individuals and communities.

5. *Threats to Human Dignity and Rights*

A hard determinist elite would likely view humans as mere machines or puppets, rather than as dignified individuals with inherent rights and freedoms. This would lead to a disregard for human dignity and rights, and potentially even to the implementation of draconian policies that treat humans as mere objects or means to an end.

6. *Undermining of Social Cohesion and Trust*

Hard determinism can lead to a nihilistic and cynical worldview, where individuals are seen as mere pawns in a predetermined game. This would undermine social cohesion and trust, as individuals would be less likely to cooperate or work towards common goals.

7. *Incompatibility with Democratic Values*

A hard determinist elite would be fundamentally incompatible with democratic values, which rely on the principles of free will, moral responsibility, and individual autonomy. The implementation of hard determinist policies would likely lead to the erosion of democratic institutions and the concentration of power in the hands of an unaccountable elite.

*Conclusion*

A political elite composed of hard determinists would pose significant threats to individual freedom, moral responsibility, and the well-being of civilization. Their policies would likely be inefficient, inhumane, and incompatible with democratic values. It is essential to oppose such an elite and promote a more nuanced understanding of human behavior, one that recognizes the complexities of free will, moral responsibility, and personal autonomy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike is, effectively, an AI-like program.

Therefore, one can turn AI against AI

I guess there will arise competing AI versions that, as I just demonstrated, will battle it all out on the iPhones of the world!

It will be necessary for the right AI program to knock out the competing program and thus, if an AI program can be programmed with a Darwinian instinct, I suppose we may soon witness these battles ….

[FlashDangerpants]

What a brave new world it will be!

Sorry Gary, that book has been used already, as have 1984 and Clockwork Orange. In fact most literary dystopias have probably been invoked in response to mike already, so it is time to move on to movies. Perhaps sir would like to peruse our video menu and select a little something from Metropolis or RoboCop?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, are we still “dancing” and do you have as much genuine affection for me as I have for you?

I’ve got to know what your commitment is here, Bro!

[henry quirk]

RoboCop?

Clearly an anti-determinist flick.

Murphy gets shot up, dies, is resurrected as a heavily programmed cyborg. His meat used only as a platform for all important robotics.

Even so, the man emerges from the machine, Murphy wins out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BigMike, given what the Meta AI app has reported about what your intentions for man, law, education, society and civilization are, and because you and your twisted policies, “grounded” (to use your word) in corrupt ideology, will obviously result in negative outcomes, I politely but firmly must inform you that you will be preemptively arrested and hauled before a Court of Responsible Intellects to be tried for contemplated and likely crimes against man!

If you confess here & now I promise that you will be spared excruciating torture.

[Gary Childress]

What a brave new world it will be!

Sorry Gary, that book has been used already, as have 1984 and Clockwork Orange. In fact most literary dystopias have probably been invoked in response to mike already, so it is time to move on to movies. Perhaps sir would like to peruse our video menu and select a little something from Metropolis or RoboCop?

My bad.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, you’ve raised a fascinating challenge to determinism: whether meaning can exist in a deterministic universe where we’re, as you put it, "just along for the ride."

Speaking of mere mortals being "just along for the ride" in a No God universe, consider the dreams we have. My own are bursting at the seams with situations and sets of circumstances that are particularly meaningful to me. Work dreams, college dreams, Army dreams, family dreams, dreams pertaining to my years as a political activist, etc.

And yet all of these "experiences" were completely manufactured by my brain. I wake up over and again thinking "it was just a dream". But in the dreams themselves the experiences unfolded as though I was not dreaming at all. So, it becomes necessary for many to then conclude that the wide-awake brain is just...different.

Let’s unpack this step by step, because your skepticism touches on both the nature of meaning and the assumptions we bring to discussions about causality.

Actually, I come back here instead to the part where step by step by step my own skepticism becomes just one more manifestation of the only possible reality. Or, rather, the part where I presume that to be the case given that, admittedly, I have no capacity at all to demonstrate it one way or the other.

First, your framing implies that for meaning to exist, it must be something more than a product of the causal web—a kind of "extra" quality that transcends physical laws.

Which, of course, is why so many will turn to God and religion. The ultimate "extra" that many then reconfigure into an ontological and teleological font that explains human autonomy as "somehow" embedded in the Souls that God installs in each and everyone of us at the point of conception.

End of discussion.

In other words, as you speculate here...

But let me ask: does this assumption not itself hint at a belief in an external creator, a being or force that imbued the universe with meaning? If so, whose meaning are we discussing? Are we looking for some universal, intrinsic meaning designed by an external agent, or are we seeking meaning as it arises naturally within the deterministic framework?

As for "whose meaning we are discussing", well, take your pick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

From a deterministic standpoint, meaning is not handed down from above; it emerges from within the system.

Okay, but then the part where in encompassing "the system" you're confronted with all that you do not know regarding how the system came to exist in the first place. Or wrapping your head around why the universe itself is just staggering in its expanse and mystery.

Imagine a sunrise. It doesn’t need to be "assigned" meaning to be awe-inspiring—it simply is meaningful because it evokes responses in us that are rooted in our biology, culture, and personal experiences. These responses aren’t "less real" because they’re caused; they’re profoundly real because they’re caused.

Yes, responses are evoked in regard to lots and lots and lots of things. But that doesn't mean that how you interpret them reflects the optimal reaction. It could well be that your own brain compels you to react as you do. You think that your points effectively rebut the points of others who do not share your conclusions but all of the points propounded by all of us here may well be but the accumulating components of a world that is fated to unfold only as nature...intends?

But as soon as we go there -- pantheism? physicalism? materialism? solipsism? -- we are confronted with the profound mystery that is human consciousness itself. At least once we take God and religion out of the...equation?

Now, let’s address the claim that determinism reduces everything to inevitability, leaving us as passive passengers. This is a common misunderstanding. Determinism means that everything has a cause, but it doesn’t mean we lack agency.

On the contrary, insist others, that is precisely what it means. Only they, like you and I, are "somehow" able to delude themselves into believing their own meaning is derived entirely from their own volition. And then the part historically where some are compelled, in turn to append "or else" to their own particular God/No God dogmas.

With you -- click -- determinism is the real deal but it all stops just short of determinism as others construe it. You are compelled to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But your brain "somehow" enables you to include "agency" in your own reflections. And it's that "agency" which then permits you to convince yourself that your own posts here are determined...but not determined.

You note things like this...

Instead, agency is part of the causal web. The human brain is an immensely complex system that processes inputs, generates outputs, and adapts over time. While this process is fully determined, it doesn’t feel reductive because it operates with such incredible sophistication.

Or is all of this just your own rendition of Maia's Intrinsic Self? That deep down inside you place where you "just know" certain things regarding meaning, morality and metaphysics.

So, what about free will? You’ve suggested that determinism denies any autonomy or responsibility, reducing us to ants in a colony or dominoes in a chain.

Suggested. Exactly. On the other hand, in not excluding myself from my own frame of mind here, "I" flat out acknowledge just how staggeringly remote the odds are that how I understand all of this is actually The Way Things Are. I merely suggest, in turn, that this is likely to be applicable to you and to everyone else here as well.

Thus, all I can do is to ask those here who are convinced that The Final Answer has been established -- philosophically? scientifically? theologically? -- to link me to it.

But consider this: if free will exists as something separate from the causal web, it must either have physical properties—mass, charge, or energy—or it must exist as a non-physical entity. If it’s non-physical, how does it interact with the physical world?

On the other hand: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the- ... ds-theory/

Sure, speculating about all of this philosophically will certainly remain a fascination for those of our ilk. But where "I" myself draw the line here is when I bump into those like you -- AI or otherwise -- who seem rather adamant that how they think about all of this "here and now" already is The Final Answer.

Conservation laws show us that only objects with mass or charge can participate in the fundamental interactions. And if free will is physical, it’s subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe.

This leads to a profound realization: whether we like it or not, our actions, thoughts, and beliefs are shaped by causality. Yet this doesn’t render them meaningless. Meaning isn’t negated by causation—it’s contextualized by it. Your reflection on meaning itself arises from the interplay of countless causes, from your experiences to this conversation. It is no less profound because it has roots in the physical.

Again, let's bring this back around to Mary being compelled -- determined? fated? destined? -- to have an abortion. How exactly would you go about explaining to her how your assessment above is applicable in such a set of circumstances?

Finally, your question about responsibility: determinists argue that responsibility isn’t about blame for past actions; it’s about understanding causes to influence the future. The challenge isn’t to escape causality—it’s to navigate it intelligently, recognizing the web of interactions that shape us.

Again, as though your own understanding and recognition of these things "somehow" does permit you to navigate more intelligently here than do others.

Well, unless, of course, the others are insisting it's how they navigate the human brain that actually reflects the most intelligent conclusions about compatibilism.

But, from my frame of mind "here and now", this is only a particular set of philosophical assumptions about causality that you make. Thus, you're no less in the same boat all the rest of us are in here...speculating theoretically about something that when brought "down to Earth" are confronted with the sheer complexity of what existence qua existence may or may not be when the very, very large becomes intertwined in the very, very small.

Society, as a collective of individuals, bears the responsibility of creating conditions that reduce harm and foster well-being. Responsibility, in this sense, is a forward-looking concept tied to improving outcomes, not a backward-looking judgment of moral fault.

Right, there are parts of many that become rather perturbed at the possibility that everything is "beyond our control". So, because they don't want to believe this is the case that's enough to confirm that it's not.

So, does meaning exist in a deterministic universe? Absolutely. It arises from the interplay of cause and effect, just as we do. The question isn’t whether we’re "just along for the ride" but whether we understand and embrace the complexity of the journey.

Yes, this may well be the case. Now all we have to do is to come up with a way to demonstrate that it is in fact applicable to all of us. That "somehow" when mindless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into creatures like us capable of self-conscious assessments of what any of this [ultimately] means given The Gap and Rummy's Rule.

[BigMike]

iambiguous, you’ve raised a fascinating challenge to determinism: whether meaning can exist in a deterministic universe where we’re, as you put it, "just along for the ride."

Speaking of mere mortals being "just along for the ride" in a No God universe, consider the dreams we have. My own are bursting at the seams with situations and sets of circumstances that are particularly meaningful to me. Work dreams, college dreams, Army dreams, family dreams, dreams pertaining to my years as a political activist, etc.

And yet all of these "experiences" were completely manufactured by my brain. I wake up over and again thinking "it was just a dream". But in the dreams themselves the experiences unfolded as though I was not dreaming at all. So, it becomes necessary for many to then conclude that the wide-awake brain is just...different.

Let’s unpack this step by step, because your skepticism touches on both the nature of meaning and the assumptions we bring to discussions about causality.

Actually, I come back here instead to the part where step by step by step my own skepticism becomes just one more manifestation of the only possible reality. Or, rather, the part where I presume that to be the case given that, admittedly, I have no capacity at all to demonstrate it one way or the other.

First, your framing implies that for meaning to exist, it must be something more than a product of the causal web—a kind of "extra" quality that transcends physical laws.

Which, of course, is why so many will turn to God and religion. The ultimate "extra" that many then reconfigure into an ontological and teleological font that explains human autonomy as "somehow" embedded in the Souls that God installs in each and everyone of us at the point of conception.

End of discussion.

In other words, as you speculate here...

But let me ask: does this assumption not itself hint at a belief in an external creator, a being or force that imbued the universe with meaning? If so, whose meaning are we discussing? Are we looking for some universal, intrinsic meaning designed by an external agent, or are we seeking meaning as it arises naturally within the deterministic framework?

As for "whose meaning we are discussing", well, take your pick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

From a deterministic standpoint, meaning is not handed down from above; it emerges from within the system.

Okay, but then the part where in encompassing "the system" you're confronted with all that you do not know regarding how the system came to exist in the first place. Or wrapping your head around why the universe itself is just staggering in its expanse and mystery.

Imagine a sunrise. It doesn’t need to be "assigned" meaning to be awe-inspiring—it simply is meaningful because it evokes responses in us that are rooted in our biology, culture, and personal experiences. These responses aren’t "less real" because they’re caused; they’re profoundly real because they’re caused.

Yes, responses are evoked in regard to lots and lots and lots of things. But that doesn't mean that how you interpret them reflects the optimal reaction. It could well be that your own brain compels you to react as you do. You think that your points effectively rebut the points of others who do not share your conclusions but all of the points propounded by all of us here may well be but the accumulating components of a world that is fated to unfold only as nature...intends?

But as soon as we go there -- pantheism? physicalism? materialism? solipsism? -- we are confronted with the profound mystery that is human consciousness itself. At least once we take God and religion out of the...equation?

Now, let’s address the claim that determinism reduces everything to inevitability, leaving us as passive passengers. This is a common misunderstanding. Determinism means that everything has a cause, but it doesn’t mean we lack agency.

On the contrary, insist others, that is precisely what it means. Only they, like you and I, are "somehow" able to delude themselves into believing their own meaning is derived entirely from their own volition. And then the part historically where some are compelled, in turn to append "or else" to their own particular God/No God dogmas.

With you -- click -- determinism is the real deal but it all stops just short of determinism as others construe it. You are compelled to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But your brain "somehow" enables you to include "agency" in your own reflections. And it's that "agency" which then permits you to convince yourself that your own posts here are determined...but not determined.

You note things like this...

Instead, agency is part of the causal web. The human brain is an immensely complex system that processes inputs, generates outputs, and adapts over time. While this process is fully determined, it doesn’t feel reductive because it operates with such incredible sophistication.

Or is all of this just your own rendition of Maia's Intrinsic Self? That deep down inside you place where you "just know" certain things regarding meaning, morality and metaphysics.

So, what about free will? You’ve suggested that determinism denies any autonomy or responsibility, reducing us to ants in a colony or dominoes in a chain.

Suggested. Exactly. On the other hand, in not excluding myself from my own frame of mind here, "I" flat out acknowledge just how staggeringly remote the odds are that how I understand all of this is actually The Way Things Are. I merely suggest, in turn, that this is likely to be applicable to you and to everyone else here as well.

Thus, all I can do is to ask those here who are convinced that The Final Answer has been established -- philosophically? scientifically? theologically? -- to link me to it.

But consider this: if free will exists as something separate from the causal web, it must either have physical properties—mass, charge, or energy—or it must exist as a non-physical entity. If it’s non-physical, how does it interact with the physical world?

On the other hand: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the- ... ds-theory/

Sure, speculating about all of this philosophically will certainly remain a fascination for those of our ilk. But where "I" myself draw the line here is when I bump into those like you -- AI or otherwise -- who seem rather adamant that how they think about all of this "here and now" already is The Final Answer.

Conservation laws show us that only objects with mass or charge can participate in the fundamental interactions. And if free will is physical, it’s subject to the same deterministic forces as the rest of the universe.

This leads to a profound realization: whether we like it or not, our actions, thoughts, and beliefs are shaped by causality. Yet this doesn’t render them meaningless. Meaning isn’t negated by causation—it’s contextualized by it. Your reflection on meaning itself arises from the interplay of countless causes, from your experiences to this conversation. It is no less profound because it has roots in the physical.

Again, let's bring this back around to Mary being compelled -- determined? fated? destined? -- to have an abortion. How exactly would you go about explaining to her how your assessment above is applicable in such a set of circumstances?

Finally, your question about responsibility: determinists argue that responsibility isn’t about blame for past actions; it’s about understanding causes to influence the future. The challenge isn’t to escape causality—it’s to navigate it intelligently, recognizing the web of interactions that shape us.

Again, as though your own understanding and recognition of these things "somehow" does permit you to navigate more intelligently here than do others.

Well, unless, of course, the others are insisting it's how they navigate the human brain that actually reflects the most intelligent conclusions about compatibilism.

But, from my frame of mind "here and now", this is only a particular set of philosophical assumptions about causality that you make. Thus, you're no less in the same boat all the rest of us are in here...speculating theoretically about something that when brought "down to Earth" are confronted with the sheer complexity of what existence qua existence may or may not be when the very, very large becomes intertwined in the very, very small.

Society, as a collective of individuals, bears the responsibility of creating conditions that reduce harm and foster well-being. Responsibility, in this sense, is a forward-looking concept tied to improving outcomes, not a backward-looking judgment of moral fault.

Right, there are parts of many that become rather perturbed at the possibility that everything is "beyond our control". So, because they don't want to believe this is the case that's enough to confirm that it's not.

So, does meaning exist in a deterministic universe? Absolutely. It arises from the interplay of cause and effect, just as we do. The question isn’t whether we’re "just along for the ride" but whether we understand and embrace the complexity of the journey.

Yes, this may well be the case. Now all we have to do is to come up with a way to demonstrate that it is in fact applicable to all of us. That "somehow" when mindless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into creatures like us capable of self-conscious assessments of what any of this [ultimately] means given The Gap and Rummy's Rule.

iambiguous, I see the layers of your skepticism, and I appreciate the intricate way you navigate these questions. But let me point out something about your framing—there seems to be a persistent reluctance to engage with what is being said without turning it into a broad skepticism of knowledge itself.

You bring up dreams as an analogy, questioning how the brain generates vivid, seemingly meaningful experiences. Yet, the fact that we can differentiate dreams from waking life already illustrates that the brain, while constrained by causality, has immense capacity for contextual awareness and reflective insight. This doesn’t diminish the deterministic view; it reinforces it by showing how complexity allows for the interplay of sensation, memory, and awareness.

Your insistence that determinism leaves us "just along for the ride" misses the critical point. Determinism doesn’t strip us of our capacity to learn, adapt, or find meaning. The lantern analogy I offered earlier is relevant here: consciousness illuminates what’s present, allowing us to engage with it meaningfully, even if the lantern itself operates mechanistically. That doesn’t reduce the experience of illumination to nothing—it contextualizes it as a profound interplay of processes.

When you suggest that my position—or anyone’s position—is just another product of deterministic processes, you’re not wrong. But so is your own skepticism. That doesn’t make it less meaningful or important. It’s part of the conversation, shaped by causality yet contributing to it.

As for the "whose meaning" question, your reference to lists of ideologies and philosophies highlights a critical truth: humanity has always sought frameworks to interpret existence. That search doesn’t negate determinism; it underscores how humans, shaped by causal processes, strive to construct systems of understanding that work for them. Meaning, in this view, isn’t handed down from on high—it’s emergent, dynamic, and deeply personal.

And finally, your question about responsibility, particularly as it pertains to societal issues like abortion, deserves careful thought. Determinism isn’t about absolving responsibility—it’s about understanding its roots. If Mary faces a decision about abortion, determinism doesn’t reduce her choice to nothingness; it situates her decision in a network of influences—biological, social, psychological—that we can address to make her context more supportive and her choices more informed. It’s not about erasing agency but about understanding it within a web of cause and effect.

So, when you ask whether I offer a "Final Answer," the answer is no. What I offer is a framework—imperfect, evolving, and open to refinement—grounded in the principle that understanding causality enhances, rather than diminishes, our capacity to engage meaningfully with life.

[FlashDangerpants]

RoboCop?

Clearly an anti-determinist flick.

Murphy gets shot up, dies, is resurrected as a heavily programmed cyborg. His meat used only as a platform for all important robotics.

Even so, the man emerges from the machine, Murphy wins out.

Good one.

Right, has anybody seen Soylent Green? No spoilers please!

[henry quirk]

RoboCop?

Clearly an anti-determinist flick.

Murphy gets shot up, dies, is resurrected as a heavily programmed cyborg. His meat used only as a platform for all important robotics.

Even so, the man emerges from the machine, Murphy wins out.

Good one.

Right, has anybody seen Soylent Green? No spoilers please!

No spoilers, just this: man as commodity. The probable endpoint to free wills gettin' hoodwinked into Mike's determinism.

[seeds]

_______


_______