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

[seeds]

_______

Seeds, let’s cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter—your understanding of gravity and spacetime, while garnished with metaphors and appeals to poetic interpretations of quantum physics, lacks clarity and scientific precision. You’re throwing around terms like "affects" and "curves" without grounding them in proper context, and your attempts to discredit a materialist perspective are, frankly, a mess of conflated ideas and logical leaps.

If I were you, I'd be really careful about accusing someone of making "logical leaps."

I mean, anyone who is pushing a theory (determinism) that leapfrogs over the mystery of how this,...



...allegedly, without the slightest hint of guidance or teleological impetus, somehow managed to transform itself into this,...



...is in no position to make such accusations.

Gravity doesn’t “affect” spacetime as if the two are separate entities; gravity is the manifestation of spacetime curvature caused by mass and energy, as per Einstein’s field equations. When you say that gravity "affects" spacetime, you misunderstand the relationship. Remove the mass causing the curvature, and the gravitational field vanishes because spacetime isn’t being acted upon—it’s simply not being curved anymore.

Well, again, just for funzies, I discussed this issue with AI, this time with ChatGPT (bolding and emphasis mine, and, again, I did not include all of ChatGPT's standard supportive chatter, and simply posted its forewords and conclusions)...

Me:

Assuming the absence of all random phenomena (dust, comets, meteors, light, etc.), is the empty space between the planets, stars, and galaxies truly empty?

ChatGPT:

Even in the absence of all visible phenomena like dust, comets, meteors, and light, the empty space between planets, stars, and galaxies is not truly empty. This space, often called the vacuum of space, contains several key components that make it far from a perfect void:

In short, space is not "empty" in the classical sense. It is a dynamic and complex environment filled with energy, fields, particles, and cosmic phenomena, even in the absence of traditional matter.

Me:

If you were to eliminate anything and everything that could be considered to contain any measurable mass whatsoever, would there still be "something" there (as opposed to absolute nothingness) between the planets, stars, and galaxies?

ChatGPT:

If you were to eliminate everything that could be considered to have measurable mass, including particles like neutrinos, atoms, and even dark matter, there would still be "something" in the form of phenomena and properties intrinsic to spacetime itself.

Absolute nothingness—the total absence of space, time, matter, energy, and laws—is a concept not supported by modern physics. It may be more of a philosophical idea than a physically realizable state, as even the "emptiest" conceivable space in the universe still has properties and features that define it as something rather than nothing.

Me:

Okay then, if even the "emptiest" conceivable space in the universe still has properties and features that define it as something rather than nothing, can the "massless' properties of the vacuum of space be affected by the gravitational fields of the stars and planets?

ChatGPT:

Yes, the "massless" properties of the vacuum of space can indeed be affected by the gravitational fields of stars, planets, and other massive objects.

Conclusion:
Gravitational fields directly affect the vacuum of space by altering the curvature and the behavior of quantum fields within it. This interaction underscores the dynamic relationship between spacetime geometry and the quantum properties of the vacuum. Even in regions devoid of matter or energy, gravity has profound effects on the underlying structure of the universe.

Me:

Just to be clear, are you, in essence, saying that gravity "affects" the massless properties of the vacuum of space?

ChatGPT:

Yes, that's correct—gravity does affect the massless properties of the vacuum of space.

Again, BigMike, when you make such broad and over-reaching proclamations such as this,...

"...gravity cannot affect something that has no mass..."

...there are ways of looking at that statement that can render it false. Indeed, it's not just me, but even the AIs disagree with you.

Your appeal to quantum mechanics with Nick Herbert’s "no more substantial than a promise" quip is pure sensationalism.

Yes, thank you. I try to make my posts as sensational as possible.

Furthermore, it may be sensationalism, but that doesn't mean that the Herbert "quip" isn't true.

Quantum mechanics describes fundamental particles and their interactions, and while it challenges classical intuitions about substance and reality, it doesn’t mean the universe is some illusory dream. You’re cherry-picking phrases to bolster your argument while ignoring the rigorous framework that makes those phrases meaningful in context.

I didn't say that the universe is some sort of illusory "dream." No, I said that it is "dream-like," in that (according to the implications of quantum theory) the phenomenal features of the universe are created from a substance that is capable of being formed into pretty much anything "imaginable" (just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams).

Now, if you doubt that, then you just don't understand the implications of quantum theory.

Now, onto your ghostly musings about strong emergence. If you’re suggesting that consciousness or "ghosts in the machine" arise through principles outside known physics, then you’re speculating without evidence.

Well, I contend that if bona fide quantum physicists are allowed to speculate (without evidence) that fully formed copies of the entire universe,...

...along with fully formed copies of each of us,...

...instantaneously spring into existence via "branches" that supposedly accommodate the varying probabilities that arise in the superpositioned wavefunction of a single electron in the context of the double slit experiment,...

...then it should be perfectly okay for me to speculate about such things as "strong emergence" and "ghosts in the machine."

Finally, the condescension about "sleepwalking" through life is laughable. Resorting to ad hominem attacks cloaked in philosophical language doesn’t strengthen your position—it underscores its weakness.

Hmm, and here I was thinking that I was being kind by not also suggesting that you are an unwitting victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Reality, as described by science, doesn’t need to conform to your poetic longings or metaphysical speculation. If you’re so eager to dismiss the material world as an illusion, at least have the intellectual rigor to provide a framework that accounts for empirical evidence and doesn’t crumble under scrutiny.

If I grant you that "...reality, as described by science..." may indeed be pretty accurate, will you, in turn, acquiesce to the possibility that there might be something intelligent behind the order of the universe, as opposed to it being a product of the blind and mindless meanderings of chance?
_______

[iambiguous]

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.

That again. The Iwannaplato Assessment Syndrome. In other words, my failure to read what the authors in the articles I quote really did mean. And then when those like Iwanna and you attempt to explain what they did really mean, I fail to grasp your own assessments as well.

And I don't turn this into a "broad skepticism of knowledge itself". On the contrary, I merely broach the Gap and Rummy's Rule going all the way back to what we don't know about the human condition going back to all that we are ignorant of regarding either the Big Bang or the existence of existence itself.

And then all those among us fiercely intent on insisting that a God, the God, their God is the One True Path. And then the hundreds of secular equivalents...ideology, deontology, biological imperatives, etc.

And I'm not here to argue that your own frame of mind is necessarily wrong, only that you have failed to convince me and any number of hard determinists that it is necessarily right.

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.

Seemingly meaningful? Maybe your own dreams don't appear nearly as meaningful to you as mine do to me, but the seeming part is virtually indistinguishable from the waking world.

When I dream, I'm confronted with an interplay of sensation, memory and awareness that [to me "in the dream"] are indistinguishable from the waking world.

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.

And over and over and over again we make very different assumptions regarding what "the ride" is and where "I" fit into it.

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 others note elsewhere, you want to defend determinism here while at the same time insisting that you have just enough free will to outsmart all those who don't agree with you. Just another "free will determinist" to me. It's all just "somehow" different from the free will embraced by the Libertarians.

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.

More to the point [mine] are those who insist that how they interpret meaning, morality and metaphysics reflects either the optimal frame of mind, or in many cases the only reasonable frame of mind there is said to be. You're just one of hundreds who are able to convince themselves not only that their own assessment here reflects actual human autonomy but that no one has come closer to pinning down the One True Path to compatibilism than you have.

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.

Right, this is the case for all of us, but you have come closest to encompassing it...ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?

Thus, Mary was determined to about Jane...but not really? Determinism is the case here as with everyone anywhere else...but not really.

And finally, your question about responsibility, particularly as it pertains to societal issues like abortion, deserves careful thought.

And even though our brains compel us to think only that which we were never able not to think, "somehow" the manner in which you think it through gives you just the edge you need to convince yourself that while you were never able to post other than as your brain compels you to post here, it's still, what, the most rational assessment of them all?

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, Mary faces this unwanted pregnancy, and her brain reduces her reaction to it down to that abortion. Whereas in a free will world as Libertarians understand it had that friend of hers of her own volition convinced Mary to change her mind about the abortion then Jane would be among us now. While in a deterministic world as others understand it, there was never any possibility for Jane to be born.

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.

In other words, given your assumptions about the human brain here, your own brain is "somehow" able to transcend hard determinism in order to give you what you construe to be...autonomy? A kind of spooky and imperfect autonomy open to refinement as it evolves out in a world with others embodying this spooky autonomy in turn?

[BigMike]

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.

That again. The Iwannaplato Assessment Syndrome. In other words, my failure to read what the authors in the articles I quote really did mean. And then when those like Iwanna and you attempt to explain what they did really mean, I fail to grasp your own assessments as well.

And I don't turn this into a "broad skepticism of knowledge itself". On the contrary, I merely broach the Gap and Rummy's Rule going all the way back to what we don't know about the human condition going back to all that we are ignorant of regarding either the Big Bang or the existence of existence itself.

And then all those among us fiercely intent on insisting that a God, the God, their God is the One True Path. And then the hundreds of secular equivalents...ideology, deontology, biological imperatives, etc.

And I'm not here to argue that your own frame of mind is necessarily wrong, only that you have failed to convince me and any number of hard determinists that it is necessarily right.

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.

Seemingly meaningful? Maybe your own dreams don't appear nearly as meaningful to you as mine do to me, but the seeming part is virtually indistinguishable from the waking world.

When I dream, I'm confronted with an interplay of sensation, memory and awareness that [to me "in the dream"] are indistinguishable from the waking world.

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.

And over and over and over again we make very different assumptions regarding what "the ride" is and where "I" fit into it.

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 others note elsewhere, you want to defend determinism here while at the same time insisting that you have just enough free will to outsmart all those who don't agree with you. Just another "free will determinist" to me. It's all just "somehow" different from the free will embraced by the Libertarians.

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.

More to the point [mine] are those who insist that how they interpret meaning, morality and metaphysics reflects either the optimal frame of mind, or in many cases the only reasonable frame of mind there is said to be. You're just one of hundreds who are able to convince themselves not only that their own assessment here reflects actual human autonomy but that no one has come closer to pinning down the One True Path to compatibilism than you have.

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.

Right, this is the case for all of us, but you have come closest to encompassing it...ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?

Thus, Mary was determined to about Jane...but not really? Determinism is the case here as with everyone anywhere else...but not really.

And finally, your question about responsibility, particularly as it pertains to societal issues like abortion, deserves careful thought.

And even though our brains compel us to think only that which we were never able not to think, "somehow" the manner in which you think it through gives you just the edge you need to convince yourself that while you were never able to post other than as your brain compels you to post here, it's still, what, the most rational assessment of them all?

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, Mary faces this unwanted pregnancy, and her brain reduces her reaction to it down to that abortion. Whereas in a free will world as Libertarians understand it had that friend of hers of her own volition convinced Mary to change her mind about the abortion then Jane would be among us now. While in a deterministic world as others understand it, there was never any possibility for Jane to be born.

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.

In other words, given your assumptions about the human brain here, your own brain is "somehow" able to transcend hard determinism in order to give you what you construe to be...autonomy? A kind of spooky and imperfect autonomy open to refinement as it evolves out in a world with others embodying this spooky autonomy in turn?

iambiguous, your skepticism regarding determinism and agency overlooks the foundation of how our physical brains operate within the universe’s unyielding physical laws. Let me address your misunderstanding directly.

Neurons do not transmit signals arbitrarily, nor is there any mystical "tributary" for external, non-physical input to influence their activity. The flow of information in the brain follows a precise, one-way path: signals originate at the dendrites, traverse the cell body, and exit through the axon terminals. This structure ensures a directional and causally consistent process. The first neurons in the chain begin at our sensory organs, translating external stimuli into electrical impulses. The last neurons in the chain terminate at muscles or glands, triggering physical responses. This closed-loop, cause-and-effect system offers no entry point for forces outside the natural world—no ghosts in the machine, no metaphysical interventions.

This fundamental operation underscores determinism. Every thought, action, or decision you point to as evidence of "agency" is, in reality, a result of these neuronal signals interacting within the constraints of physics. Conservation laws ensure that energy and momentum are neither created nor destroyed; they merely transform or transfer through the system. The interactions that drive neuronal activity—like ion exchange across cell membranes—obey the same principles of energy and matter as everything else in the universe.

Your analogy about Mary and Jane doesn’t contradict this; it supports it. Whether Mary chooses to have an abortion or not, her decision is the outcome of an intricate web of causality—biology, upbringing, experiences, and social context—all interacting in her brain. Her actions are determined, not random, and not directed by some undefined, external "will."

You suggest that by explaining determinism, I claim a unique form of autonomy. This is incorrect. My argument, like yours, arises from the same deterministic processes—caused by prior influences, shaped by experiences, and constrained by the natural laws that govern us both. The difference lies in grounding my explanation in observable phenomena and the undeniable principles of conservation and interaction.

If you’re going to refute determinism, you must first address these foundational facts about how neurons function and how conservation laws ensure the universe’s causality. Without that, your arguments remain unmoored from the reality of how the physical world, including human thought, operates.

[Gary Childress]

Neurons do not transmit signals arbitrarily, nor is there any mystical "tributary" for external, non-physical input to influence their activity. The flow of information in the brain follows a precise, one-way path: signals originate at the dendrites, traverse the cell body, and exit through the axon terminals. This structure ensures a directional and causally consistent process. The first neurons in the chain begin at our sensory organs, translating external stimuli into electrical impulses. The last neurons in the chain terminate at muscles or glands, triggering physical responses. This closed-loop, cause-and-effect system offers no entry point for forces outside the natural world—no ghosts in the machine, no metaphysical interventions.

This fundamental operation underscores determinism. Every thought, action, or decision you point to as evidence of "agency" is, in reality, a result of these neuronal signals interacting within the constraints of physics. Conservation laws ensure that energy and momentum are neither created nor destroyed; they merely transform or transfer through the system. The interactions that drive neuronal activity—like ion exchange across cell membranes—obey the same principles of energy and matter as everything else in the universe.

That seems like a convincing deterministic explanation of how human beings work, based on discoveries in neuroscience and AI.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Many people have a comforting sense that God is watching over the universe and has a special spot in his divine heart for human beings, especially pious human beings who behave themselves and obey directives that have been bestowed upon all of us by God. Remove God and free will and where does that leave us and what does it leave us with? Do any of us fully know?

How will some humans (people who have gone all their lives living according to the belief that there is a God) be affected by such a revelation?

And if they cling to their faith regardless, then what? Do some of us biological machines have some kind of right or imperative to demand from others that they stop having the wrong ideas or beliefs? I mean, can we even demand that someone stop believing in unicorns or fairies if that's what they want to believe in?

I suspect right now that many are not going to be swayed by the thought of there being no God and that their minds are just deterministic machines, even if it could be proven scientifically beyond any possible doubt that is the case. There's a reason why some religions have withstood thousands of years of debate and scrutiny. The idea of a God and the idea that we choose are much more comforting to many of us than the idea that we are deterministic machines living in a world with no rhyme or reason and no reassurance of divine intervention if things go wrong.

In a sense, given human fragility, it doesn't seem like lack of a God would be something either to celebrate over or to advocate for others to believe. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it the case that there is a God, but what if it pulls the floorboards out from under a lot of people's feet resulting in a lot of harm to them and others. Then what?

But, I hear your argument. And it seems pretty convincing at first glance. I just don't know if it amounts to good news or bad news for the world of human beings.

[BigMike]

That seems like a convincing deterministic explanation of how human beings work, based on discoveries in neuroscience and AI.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Many people have a comforting sense that God is watching over the universe and has a special spot in his divine heart for human beings, especially pious human beings who behave themselves and obey directives that have been bestowed upon all of us by God. Remove God and free will and where does that leave us and what does it leave us with? Do any of us fully know?

How will some humans (people who have gone all their lives living according to the belief that there is a God) be affected by such a revelation?

And if they cling to their faith regardless, then what? Do some of us biological machines have some kind of right or imperative to demand from others that they stop having the wrong ideas or beliefs? I mean, can we even demand that someone stop believing in unicorns or fairies if that's what they want to believe in?

I suspect right now that many are not going to be swayed by the thought of there being no God and that their minds are just deterministic machines, even if it could be proven scientifically beyond any possible doubt that is the case. There's a reason why some religions have withstood thousands of years of debate and scrutiny. The idea of a God and the idea that we choose are much more comforting to many of us than the idea that we are deterministic machines living in a world with no rhyme or reason and no reassurance of divine intervention if things go wrong.

In a sense, given human fragility, it doesn't seem like lack of a God would be something either to celebrate over or to advocate for others to believe. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it the case that there is a God, but what if it pulls the floorboards out from under a lot of people's feet resulting in a lot of harm to them and others. Then what?

But, I hear your argument. And it seems pretty convincing at first glance. I just don't know if it amounts to good news or bad news for the world of human beings.

Gary, your response reflects a genuine and heartfelt concern about what determinism and the absence of a divine overseer might mean for human meaning, morality, and stability. I appreciate the depth of your thought, but I think your worry rests on a misconception of what a deterministic view of the universe offers.

Determinism doesn’t erase meaning, it reframes it. It’s not that life lacks rhyme or reason—far from it. The rhyme and reason come from understanding the interconnected web of cause and effect that shapes everything, including us. Instead of meaning being handed down from a divine being, it emerges from relationships, experiences, and the ways we contribute to the world. This is a deeply humanistic perspective, one that empowers us to create and recognize meaning on our own terms.

Your concern about people clinging to comforting beliefs, even when faced with contrary evidence, is valid. Humans are adaptive creatures, but we are also deeply tied to narratives that give us comfort and identity. The fact that religions persist for thousands of years speaks to their utility in providing frameworks of meaning, even if those frameworks are not grounded in empirical reality. But questioning these beliefs isn’t about yanking the floorboards out from under anyone—it’s about offering a sturdier foundation built on evidence, understanding, and shared humanity.

The fear that determinism leads to nihilism or despair is understandable, but it’s misplaced. Accepting a deterministic universe doesn’t rob us of agency; it helps us see the levers and gears of causality we can influence to improve the world. For someone struggling with faith, this perspective can be liberating: instead of relying on divine intervention, we see that our collective actions and choices shape the world.

As for those who resist this understanding, it’s not about demanding belief or forcing others to abandon their views. It’s about presenting the truth as it emerges from science and inviting others to explore it without fear. People cling to comforting ideas, not because they are inherently incapable of understanding a different perspective, but because they need to see how that new perspective addresses their core concerns—about love, purpose, morality, and community.

The deterministic view isn’t bad news; it’s a call to take responsibility for the world we inhabit. If we recognize that no divine hand will step in to save us, it becomes our shared human responsibility to create a world where kindness, compassion, and progress prevail. That’s not a loss—it’s an opportunity. The question is whether we’re ready to embrace it.

[Gary Childress]

It’s not that life lacks rhyme or reason—far from it. The rhyme and reason come from understanding the interconnected web of cause and effect that shapes everything, including us. Instead of meaning being handed down from a divine being, it emerges from relationships, experiences, and the ways we contribute to the world. This is a deeply humanistic perspective, one that empowers us to create and recognize meaning on our own terms.

"Rhyme and reason" are perhaps poor choices for words on my part.

If the universe lacks a God, then perhaps there are no guarantees for human safety. We are at the mercy of forces that may be beyond our control that are not the products of compassion, concern for living beings or love of us. Rather the forces shaping the universe could very well be products of unchecked, unfettered mechanical processes that have no regard for living beings at all outside of the ability to allow us to exist for however long. And if we are deterministic machines, then it seems like that raises the possibility of fatalism, that everything is going to happen the way it does no matter what.

Personally, it seems to me that the idea of there being a God and that God loves us is a more comforting feeling than the universe as a machine that may not necessarily be here for the explicit welfare and purposes of human beings.

[BigMike]

It’s not that life lacks rhyme or reason—far from it. The rhyme and reason come from understanding the interconnected web of cause and effect that shapes everything, including us. Instead of meaning being handed down from a divine being, it emerges from relationships, experiences, and the ways we contribute to the world. This is a deeply humanistic perspective, one that empowers us to create and recognize meaning on our own terms.

"Rhyme and reason" are perhaps poor choices for words on my part.

If the universe lacks a God, then perhaps there are no guarantees for human safety. We are at the mercy of forces that may be beyond our control that are not the products of compassion, concern for living beings or love of us. Rather the forces shaping the universe could very well be products of unchecked, unfettered mechanical processes that have no regard for living beings at all outside of the ability to allow us to exist for however long. And if we are deterministic machines, then it seems like that raises the possibility of fatalism, that everything is going to happen the way it does no matter what.

Personally, it seems to me that the idea of there being a God and that God loves us is a more comforting feeling than the universe as a machine that may not necessarily be here for the explicit welfare and purposes of human beings.

Gary, your concerns about a universe without guarantees or divine oversight are profoundly human. The fear of being adrift in an indifferent cosmos resonates deeply, but it’s worth unpacking what this actually means for us, not as a source of despair, but as a foundation for liberation.

Daniel Dennett’s Caught in the Pulpit explores a tragic dimension of this transition—the turmoil of clergy who lose faith but feel trapped by their roles. Their stories highlight the existential struggle that arises when cherished beliefs fall away, leaving uncertainty in their wake. Yet, these stories also underline something crucial: many of those who left faith behind ultimately found liberation, authenticity, and a renewed sense of purpose. They discovered that meaning needn’t come from above—it can be built from the ground up.

Speaking personally, I feel liberated as an atheist. For me, stepping away from belief in God wasn’t a step into despair; it was a step into clarity. It was about embracing the awe of the universe as it is, without the need for supernatural explanations. The idea that we are part of a vast, interconnected web of cause and effect doesn’t diminish our significance—it shows us how deeply we are embedded in the fabric of existence. And knowing there’s no divine safety net doesn’t lead to fatalism; it inspires me to take responsibility for my actions and their ripple effects.

The beauty of this perspective lies in its honesty. It doesn’t sugarcoat reality, but it also doesn’t rob it of wonder. It challenges us to face the world as it is and still find joy, purpose, and connection. While the universe may not have been “designed for us,” we have the extraordinary ability to make meaning within it. That, to me, is profoundly empowering.

[promethean75]

You might like this quote from the 17th century philosopher polymath Johannes Habbletrap:

"The first worst thing that could ever happen would be the existence of god. The second worst thing, the non-existence of god."

I like this. He alludes to the loss of liberty under the threat of damnation and the tyranny of a sadistic god in the first... the absurd Kafkaesque nihilism that would result in a godless universe in the second.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, Mike B.

[promethean75]

Johannes was an avid reader of Kafka even though Kafka existed centuries later.

How that was possible historians don't yet know and it remains a mystery.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, your skepticism regarding determinism and agency overlooks the foundation of how our physical brains operate within the universe’s unyielding physical laws. Let me address your misunderstanding directly.

Then this part: anything that I overlook I overlook only because I was never able not to overlook it.

But: just as I am not able to demonstrate that this is in fact true, you are unable to demonstrate that in fact it is true.

Instead -- click -- you fall back on the assumption that the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in the arguments you post here need be as far as you go in order to...confirm them?

Or at least it seems that way to me.

Neurons do not transmit signals arbitrarily, nor is there any mystical "tributary" for external, non-physical input to influence their activity. The flow of information in the brain follows a precise, one-way path: signals originate at the dendrites, traverse the cell body, and exit through the axon terminals. This structure ensures a directional and causally consistent process. The first neurons in the chain begin at our sensory organs, translating external stimuli into electrical impulses. The last neurons in the chain terminate at muscles or glands, triggering physical responses. This closed-loop, cause-and-effect system offers no entry point for forces outside the natural world—no ghosts in the machine, no metaphysical interventions.

Well, it's one thing to note what brain scientists have been able to tell us [so far] regarding the biological interactions that unfold in the functioning human brain, and another thing altogether to argue that "somehow" all of this leads to at least some measure of human autonomy.

I'm not saying it doesn't, only that your arguments here [again, so far] have demonstrated nothing of the sort, in my view. But then, of course, some hard determinists will point out that this is just par for the course. You were never able to conclude anything other than what your brain compels you to conclude.

This fundamental operation underscores determinism. Every thought, action, or decision you point to as evidence of "agency" is, in reality, a result of these neuronal signals interacting within the constraints of physics.

If that is the case why the need to put "agency" in quotes? To me this indicates a crucial distinction between agency as the Libertarians understand it and "agency" here as you convey it.

Your analogy about Mary and Jane doesn’t contradict this; it supports it. Whether Mary chooses to have an abortion or not, her decision is the outcome of an intricate web of causality—biology, upbringing, experiences, and social context—all interacting in her brain. Her actions are determined, not random, and not directed by some undefined, external "will."

Again, this is largely a philosophical argument, the truthfulness of which is predicated on others agreeing with how you define the meaning of the words used in the argument itself. It establishes little or nothing beyond that, in my view. It's not like you can take this to neuroscientists and say "okay, all I need now is for you guys to confirm it" all biologically, neurologically and chemically.

Connecting the dots here if not to God than to the Pantheistic/Universal equivalent of God?

You suggest that by explaining determinism, I claim a unique form of autonomy. This is incorrect. My argument, like yours, arises from the same deterministic processes—caused by prior influences, shaped by experiences, and constrained by the natural laws that govern us both. The difference lies in grounding my explanation in observable phenomena and the undeniable principles of conservation and interaction.

Then we understand the "for all practical purposes" implications of this differently. As I construe your aim here it is to defend determinism, but then to insist that your own assessment of it really is the superior one. But without the backing of the brain scientists themselves how much weright can you attribute to these philosophical assumptions of yours?

If you’re going to refute determinism, you must first address these foundational facts about how neurons function and how conservation laws ensure the universe’s causality. Without that, your arguments remain unmoored from the reality of how the physical world, including human thought, operates.

I'm the first to suggest to others that they not put a whole lot of weight behind my own assessment here. And that is precisely because I do recognize the existential implications embedded in The Gap and in Rummy's Rule given just how ignorant we are regarding the ontological relationship between "I" and "we" and the "human condition" and the "Big Bang" and "the existence of existence itself".

And, others will insist, a God, the God, their God.

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your skepticism regarding determinism and agency overlooks the foundation of how our physical brains operate within the universe’s unyielding physical laws. Let me address your misunderstanding directly.

Then this part: anything that I overlook I overlook only because I was never able not to overlook it.

But: just as I am not able to demonstrate that this is in fact true, you are unable to demonstrate that in fact it is true.

Instead -- click -- you fall back on the assumption that the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in the arguments you post here need be as far as you go in order to...confirm them?

Or at least it seems that way to me.

Neurons do not transmit signals arbitrarily, nor is there any mystical "tributary" for external, non-physical input to influence their activity. The flow of information in the brain follows a precise, one-way path: signals originate at the dendrites, traverse the cell body, and exit through the axon terminals. This structure ensures a directional and causally consistent process. The first neurons in the chain begin at our sensory organs, translating external stimuli into electrical impulses. The last neurons in the chain terminate at muscles or glands, triggering physical responses. This closed-loop, cause-and-effect system offers no entry point for forces outside the natural world—no ghosts in the machine, no metaphysical interventions.

Well, it's one thing to note what brain scientists have been able to tell us [so far] regarding the biological interactions that unfold in the functioning human brain, and another thing altogether to argue that "somehow" all of this leads to at least some measure of human autonomy.

I'm not saying it doesn't, only that your arguments here [again, so far] have demonstrated nothing of the sort, in my view. But then, of course, some hard determinists will point out that this is just par for the course. You were never able to conclude anything other than what your brain compels you to conclude.

This fundamental operation underscores determinism. Every thought, action, or decision you point to as evidence of "agency" is, in reality, a result of these neuronal signals interacting within the constraints of physics.

If that is the case why the need to put "agency" in quotes? To me this indicates a crucial distinction between agency as the Libertarians understand it and "agency" here as you convey it.

Your analogy about Mary and Jane doesn’t contradict this; it supports it. Whether Mary chooses to have an abortion or not, her decision is the outcome of an intricate web of causality—biology, upbringing, experiences, and social context—all interacting in her brain. Her actions are determined, not random, and not directed by some undefined, external "will."

Again, this is largely a philosophical argument, the truthfulness of which is predicated on others agreeing with how you define the meaning of the words used in the argument itself. It establishes little or nothing beyond that, in my view. It's not like you can take this to neuroscientists and say "okay, all I need now is for you guys to confirm it" all biologically, neurologically and chemically.

Connecting the dots here if not to God than to the Pantheistic/Universal equivalent of God?

You suggest that by explaining determinism, I claim a unique form of autonomy. This is incorrect. My argument, like yours, arises from the same deterministic processes—caused by prior influences, shaped by experiences, and constrained by the natural laws that govern us both. The difference lies in grounding my explanation in observable phenomena and the undeniable principles of conservation and interaction.

Then we understand the "for all practical purposes" implications of this differently. As I construe your aim here it is to defend determinism, but then to insist that your own assessment of it really is the superior one. But without the backing of the brain scientists themselves how much weright can you attribute to these philosophical assumptions of yours?

If you’re going to refute determinism, you must first address these foundational facts about how neurons function and how conservation laws ensure the universe’s causality. Without that, your arguments remain unmoored from the reality of how the physical world, including human thought, operates.

I'm the first to suggest to others that they not put a whole lot of weight behind my own assessment here. And that is precisely because I do recognize the existential implications embedded in The Gap and in Rummy's Rule given just how ignorant we are regarding the ontological relationship between "I" and "we" and the "human condition" and the "Big Bang" and "the existence of existence itself".

And, others will insist, a God, the God, their God.

Your statement, "just as I am not able to demonstrate that this is in fact true, you are unable to demonstrate that in fact it is true," shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science operates. Science doesn’t deal in proving something "in fact true" in the way you seem to imagine; it operates on falsifiability, evidence, and predictive power. Scientific hypotheses are built to be disproved when evidence contradicts them. And when it comes to determinism, there is no evidence—none—that contradicts the foundational physical laws underpinning it, including conservation laws and the four interactions. On the other hand, there’s an overwhelming body of evidence debunking free will.

Causation isn’t some mysterious force that eludes explanation. It’s interaction. When a pool ball strikes another, the first ball doesn't act in isolation—the second ball affects the first just as much as the first affects the second. Momentum and energy transfer between them in a precise, calculable manner, conserving total energy and momentum throughout the process. This is a fundamental truth of the universe, encapsulated in Newton’s Third Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Your free will idea—if it had mass or charge—would need to follow these same principles. If "free will" could fire a neuron, it would have to inject energy into the system, losing the same amount itself. Without energy or momentum to exchange, free will simply cannot interact with physical matter. If it can’t interact, it’s irrelevant. And if it could interact, it would be subject to physical laws, including determinism, and thus, not "free" in any meaningful sense.

Neurons in your brain are physical entities, firing in a strict, directional manner dictated by physical and chemical principles. Sensory neurons receive input, interneurons process it, and motor neurons create output. This flow follows physical causality, with no tributary for metaphysical "inputs." Free will, as you propose it, has no channel to engage with this system. It’s not that there’s no room for free will in the deterministic framework—it’s that free will as you envision it is simply impossible within the laws of physics.

So, before you dismiss determinism with vague philosophical arguments, grapple with this: if your claim can’t account for conservation laws or the directionality of neuron signaling, it isn’t just flawed—it’s fundamentally disconnected from reality. That’s not a debate about semantics; it’s a failure to engage with the actual science.

[Gary Childress]

I can't say I'm particularly interested in debating whether or not there is free will in human beings. I question the importance of such a debate. Not only ought we all behave as though we have genuine free choices, we ought to all behave as though we are responsible for the choices we make.

As long as there is a monad of possibility that our actions are not deterministic then we ought to embrace free will. If we don't, then we open up the door to making excuses for bad behavior. Considering the dangers that humanity faces, it seems like we ought not take responsibility lightly. Thinking of our actions as determined could potentially lead to passivity or excessive levity in our decision making.

I'm not seeing harm in the concept that we have free will. As far as I can tell, there is no unjustifiable harm in holding people responsible for their actions in proportion to how egregious or not their acts may be. I think it is false that believing in free will is "evil" or promotes bad behavior. I don't see how there can be such a connection between believing in free will and being "evil".

[BigMike]

I can't say I'm particularly interested in debating whether or not there is free will in human beings. I question the importance of such a debate. Not only ought we all behave as though we have genuine free choices, we ought to all behave as though we are responsible for the choices we make.

As long as there is a monad of possibility that our actions are not deterministic then we ought to embrace free will. If we don't, then we open up the door to making excuses for bad behavior. Considering the dangers that humanity faces, it seems like we ought not take responsibility lightly. Thinking of our actions as determined could potentially lead to passivity or excessive levity in our decision making.

I'm not seeing harm in the concept that we have free will. As far as I can tell, there is no unjustifiable harm in holding people responsible for their actions in proportion to how egregious or not their acts may be. I think it is false that believing in free will is "evil" or promotes bad behavior. I don't see how there can be such a connection between believing in free will and being "evil".

Gary, your statement makes some understandable but misguided assumptions. You’re advocating for embracing free will not because it’s true, but because it feels pragmatically useful—because it seems like a moral safeguard. That’s fine as a psychological crutch, but let’s not mistake it for an argument grounded in reality.

The "monad of possibility" you mention doesn’t exist within the framework of physical laws. Determinism isn’t just a theory; it’s the consequence of causality, conservation laws, and the interactions that govern everything from subatomic particles to human neurons. There is no scientific evidence or mechanism for anything resembling free will as traditionally conceived.

Now, you suggest that embracing determinism might lead to moral passivity or "excuses for bad behavior." That’s a common worry, but it’s unfounded. Recognizing that actions are determined doesn’t mean abandoning responsibility—it reframes it. Responsibility under determinism is forward-looking, focused on harm reduction, rehabilitation, and systemic improvement rather than backward-looking blame or moral condemnation. In fact, determinism emphasizes the necessity of understanding causes to create better outcomes, which is a more robust framework for accountability.

Your argument boils down to this: belief in free will is harmless, so why not hold onto it? But that’s not harmless if the belief in free will justifies punitive justice systems, perpetuates blame, and fails to address the root causes of harmful behavior. Determinism, by contrast, compels us to seek those causes—poverty, mental illness, education gaps—and address them, rather than resorting to empty notions of "choice" to explain suffering or crime.

Free will doesn’t safeguard morality; it blinds us to the actual mechanics of human behavior. And no, believing in free will isn’t inherently "evil." But clinging to it without evidence perpetuates systems of harm rooted in misunderstanding. What’s "evil" isn’t the belief itself but ignoring better, evidence-based ways of understanding and improving human behavior simply because they feel uncomfortable.

[Gary Childress]

I can't say I'm particularly interested in debating whether or not there is free will in human beings. I question the importance of such a debate. Not only ought we all behave as though we have genuine free choices, we ought to all behave as though we are responsible for the choices we make.

As long as there is a monad of possibility that our actions are not deterministic then we ought to embrace free will. If we don't, then we open up the door to making excuses for bad behavior. Considering the dangers that humanity faces, it seems like we ought not take responsibility lightly. Thinking of our actions as determined could potentially lead to passivity or excessive levity in our decision making.

I'm not seeing harm in the concept that we have free will. As far as I can tell, there is no unjustifiable harm in holding people responsible for their actions in proportion to how egregious or not their acts may be. I think it is false that believing in free will is "evil" or promotes bad behavior. I don't see how there can be such a connection between believing in free will and being "evil".

Gary, your statement makes some understandable but misguided assumptions. You’re advocating for embracing free will not because it’s true, but because it feels pragmatically useful—because it seems like a moral safeguard. That’s fine as a psychological crutch, but let’s not mistake it for an argument grounded in reality.

The "monad of possibility" you mention doesn’t exist within the framework of physical laws. Determinism isn’t just a theory; it’s the consequence of causality, conservation laws, and the interactions that govern everything from subatomic particles to human neurons. There is no scientific evidence or mechanism for anything resembling free will as traditionally conceived.

We've been through this already, Mike. If ChatGPT is a reliable resource, then it is NOT the case that free will cannot be argued for.

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.

Now, you suggest that embracing determinism might lead to moral passivity or "excuses for bad behavior." That’s a common worry, but it’s unfounded. Recognizing that actions are determined doesn’t mean abandoning responsibility—it reframes it. Responsibility under determinism is forward-looking, focused on harm reduction, rehabilitation, and systemic improvement rather than backward-looking blame or moral condemnation. In fact, determinism emphasizes the necessity of understanding causes to create better outcomes, which is a more robust framework for accountability.

Your argument boils down to this: belief in free will is harmless, so why not hold onto it? But that’s not harmless if the belief in free will justifies punitive justice systems, perpetuates blame, and fails to address the root causes of harmful behavior. Determinism, by contrast, compels us to seek those causes—poverty, mental illness, education gaps—and address them, rather than resorting to empty notions of "choice" to explain suffering or crime.

Free will doesn’t safeguard morality; it blinds us to the actual mechanics of human behavior. And no, believing in free will isn’t inherently "evil." But clinging to it without evidence perpetuates systems of harm rooted in misunderstanding. What’s "evil" isn’t the belief itself but ignoring better, evidence-based ways of understanding and improving human behavior simply because they feel uncomfortable.

Let's take an example: The US invaded Iraq based on misinformation. That was an egregious mistake. If we want to hold Bin Laden accountable for what he claimed to have orchestrated on 9/11 (which we did and killed him for it), then ought we not hold accountable those in the Bush administration who orchestrated the misdeed of invading Iraq? Maybe not the death penalty but some sort of penalty.

I'm sorry Mike. but there are no free passes in the world. If someone did something egregiously wrong, then they are responsible. I don't understand why you seem to be afraid of holding people responsible for what they do. Is that not justice? Is it just to simply "rehabilitate' those who mishandled the invasion of Iraq. Don't you think that's kind of a slap on the wrist compared to the damage done? Do you think anyone is going to be fearful of committing the same mistake if there are no penalties for it?

[BigMike]

Let's take an example: The US invaded Iraq based on misinformation. That was an egregious mistake. If we want to hold Bin Laden accountable for what he claimed to have orchestrated on 9/11 (which we did and killed him for it), then ought we not hold accountable those in the Bush administration who orchestrated the misdeed of invading Iraq? Maybe not the death penalty but some sort of penalty.

I'm sorry Mike. but there are no free passes in the world. If someone did something egregiously wrong, then they are responsible. I don't understand why you seem to be afraid of holding people responsible for what they do. Is that not justice? Is it just to simply "rehabilitate' those who mishandled the invasion of Iraq. Don't you think that's kind of a slap on the wrist compared to the damage done? Do you think anyone is going to be fearful of committing the same mistake if there are no penalties for it?

Gary, the problem with your argument is that it assumes "holding people responsible" in the traditional punitive sense is the only way to ensure accountability and prevent future harm. That’s not just misguided—it’s counterproductive. Let’s unpack why determinism doesn’t negate responsibility but redefines it in a way that’s both more just and more effective.

Under determinism, responsibility isn’t about assigning blame as though people could have acted outside the causal chain of their circumstances. Instead, it’s about understanding the root causes of their actions and addressing those causes to prevent harm. If the Bush administration orchestrated the invasion of Iraq based on misinformation, the focus shouldn’t be on moral outrage alone. It should be on dissecting the systems—political, informational, and social—that allowed such a catastrophic decision to happen and ensuring they’re restructured to avoid future failures.

Rehabilitation isn’t about “slaps on the wrist.” It’s about ensuring that individuals or systems that have caused harm are changed so they don’t repeat the same mistakes. This approach doesn’t let people off the hook; it prioritizes prevention and improvement over vengeance. The alternative—punitive justice—often fails to deter future harm because it doesn’t address the underlying factors that led to the harm in the first place.

Your insistence on punishment presupposes free will, the idea that people could have "freely" chosen to act differently. But under determinism, their choices were the result of specific causes: misinformation, biases, political pressures, and systemic flaws. The rational response isn’t to punish them as though they were “free agents” acting outside causality. It’s to understand those causes and fix them.

Finally, your example assumes that punishment ensures deterrence. It doesn’t. Decades of research into criminal justice have shown that punishment alone is a poor deterrent. What prevents harm is addressing the causes—whether that’s ignorance, systemic corruption, or flawed decision-making frameworks.

So no, I’m not advocating for “free passes.” I’m advocating for a justice system that works, grounded in the reality of human behavior rather than outdated, metaphysical notions of free will and retribution. If you want true accountability, it starts with understanding causality, not perpetuating cycles of blame and punishment.