Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:09 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:49 am
Alexiev, your ignorance is staggering. If you think determinism hasn’t improved or reshaped societal systems, you’re not just uninformed—you’re willfully blind.
Let’s start with medicine. Understanding the deterministic causes of illnesses—be they bacterial infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors—has led directly to the development of targeted therapies. Antibiotics weren’t discovered by waving chicken entrails around; they came from studying the causal relationships between microorganisms and disease. Cancer treatments? Rooted in understanding the genetic and molecular causes of tumor growth. Vaccines? Deterministic knowledge of how viruses function and spread. Do you think these advancements happened by accident or sheer guesswork? Is this news to you?
Now let’s talk about technology. Understanding the deterministic nature of electrical sparks and currents has revolutionized human life. From harnessing electricity to power homes, to developing the internet, to enabling lifesaving medical devices, all of this stems from studying the deterministic principles of electromagnetism. None of this was achieved by invoking "uncaused causes" or magical thinking.
The list goes on: agriculture, engineering, climate science—all of these fields rely on deterministic models to improve human life and shape societal systems.
The deterministic approach has saved billions of lives, increased quality of life across the globe, and continues to be the foundation of every technological and scientific breakthrough.
As for your laughable comment about gravity: yes, our descriptions of gravity have evolved. That’s how science works—it refines its models as we gather better data. But the underlying phenomenon hasn’t changed. Objects still fall toward Earth, planets still orbit stars, and gravity still governs the large-scale structure of the universe. Descriptions aren’t prescriptive—they’re explanatory frameworks for what’s consistently observed. Confusing this for some kind of cosmic subjectivity only reveals your intellectual laziness.
So, Alexiev, I’ve laid out multiple ways determinism has reshaped society for the better. Unless you’re living under a rock (and judging by your comment, you might be), you’ve benefited from it, too.
The only question left is: will you retract your ridiculous claim, or double down on the ignorance?
So, let me repeat: Grow some balls and deal with my argument.
If determinism is irrelevant, prove it. If the four fundamental interactions don’t govern the universe, show me. If you can’t, just admit that you’re out of your depth and move on. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point: empty rhetoric, no substance.
Science is not necessarily determinism. Of course there have been scientific advances that have benefited mankind. Any moron (even you) can see that.
However, none of these scientific discoveries contradict free will. That's what the discussion involves, isn't it?
So you have yet to give a single example of how a deterministic model that contradicts free will has improved human welfare. Instead, you blather on about medical discoveries, which every non- deterministic world view recognizes and supports (except for a few whackos).
Nobody thinks there's anything wrong with science. But there is something wrong with thinking science can (or at least HAS, we don't know what's possible) improve the human condition in a great many important ways. How does it inform art, or politics, or human relations? In those areas, it has been a flop.
So don't take the cowardly approach of simply repeating what everyone already knows. Science is great. But it has been unable to predict human decisions, and is therefore worthless in supporting an argument about determinism vs. free will.
Why do you keep selling when nobody is buying? Are you
determined never to learn?
Alexiev, your response is a masterclass in evasion, conflation, and intellectual laziness. You’re deliberately moving the goalposts because you can’t address the core argument:
the deterministic framework governs all physical phenomena, including the human brain, rendering "free will" an incoherent fantasy.
You smugly assert that science and determinism aren’t the same—no kidding. But here’s the thing:
science operates within the deterministic framework of cause and effect. It doesn’t matter if the subject is medicine, technology, or human behavior—the success of science lies in its ability to uncover the causes of phenomena and use that knowledge predictively. If "free will" existed, science would be unable to reliably improve lives, because causeless, unpredictable events would constantly interfere. Yet, here we are, living in a world transformed by deterministic insights.
Your claim that "none of these scientific discoveries contradict free will" is absurd. Determinism leaves no room for magical, uncaused choices. Every choice, every thought, and every decision is the product of neural processes governed by physical laws. If free will existed, you’d need to show how it interacts with those processes without violating the conservation laws. You’ve provided nothing—just rhetoric and hand-waving.
You scoff at determinism’s influence on art, politics, and human relations. Let’s take a closer look:
- Art: Understanding psychology (a deterministic science) has revolutionized how artists connect with their audience, from cinema to advertising to literature.
- Politics: Deterministic insights into economics, sociology, and behavioral science have informed policy decisions that shape nations.
- Human Relations: Behavioral psychology, a deterministic field, underpins therapies that help millions navigate relationships, mental health, and personal development.
You demand an example of a deterministic model improving human welfare while rejecting the entire premise that human behavior is governed by deterministic processes. That’s a laughable contradiction. If you can’t grasp how understanding the causes of behavior leads to better outcomes—less punitive justice, more targeted education, therapies, and interventions—you’re beyond reason.
Science doesn’t need to predict every human decision to support determinism. That’s a strawman argument. Science works by identifying patterns and probabilities within constraints. The fact that you equate this with "worthlessness" only highlights your ignorance.
So, Alexiev, let me spell it out for you one last time:
- Determinism isn’t just a useful framework—it’s reality. Everything we observe follows the rules of the universe’s four fundamental interactions and conservation laws.
- Free will, as you defend it, requires rejecting these foundational principles. If you’re going to argue otherwise, show your work. Which conservation law does free will violate, and how does it interact with the physical brain?
- Stop dodging, stop deflecting, and stop acting as if your vacuous rhetoric is clever. It’s not. It’s cowardice masquerading as intellect.
