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

[Gary Childress]

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.

OK. So you must believe that Bin Laden shouldn't have been killed. Is that correct? Or does 'true' justice only work in our direction?

[Alexis Jacobi]

When geo-politics is the measure, it is extremely hard to apply moral judgments. We generally view the “unjustified” and preemptive attack on Iraq as an evil act. However, if one accepts the assertion that it was carried out for Israel’s benefit, and if one is “on the side” of Israel and its project of establishing a “greater Israel”, then one’s entire perspective changes. (The current narrative is that Israel, through Neo-Con political players, has been directing America’s Middle-East policies for decades).

How would BigMike go about tracing and describing — accurately — the vast causal factors that played out in the decisions surrounding that invasion? And if it were possible to see things clearly, how could a final assessment of “moral blame” (or praise) be assigned? Note that “seeing” actually depends on one’s perspectives, interests and objectives.

Rome conquered the regions of what is now Northern Europe in acts of absolute violence. It brought those “barbarous” regions into the fold of civilization. And as a result enabled everything that followed to develop.

Similarly it could be argued (and some do argue it) the destruction of the power-bases of Arab and Islamic nations is a “necessity” so that something (understood to be) better can develop.

BigMike wrote: 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.

Actually the more relevant question revolves around the issue of whether the destruction of Iraq resulted in “positive outcomes” in a larger geo-political sense. It really depends on whose perspective one considers as the most important and relevant. It is conceivable in an abstract sense that a ruthless invasion, with a million killed and all manner of different layers of harm and suffering considered, may yet turn out to be a larger advantage than a destructive deficit.

It is folly to imagine that Bush et al orchestrated the attack on the basis of “misinformation”. The larger plan was setting the stage for The New American Century. That was elucidated, generally, in policy papers but could not be presented in such raw form to the general populace.

The plans (for a series of invasions) were drawn up in outline form years before 9/11 by strategic military and industry planners of the same sort that constructed the Postwar economic order at the end of WWll. Power does what power decides is necessary and “best” and political propaganda is created to “justify” the objectives of power through (what is often described as) deception.

Generally, Gary views all things through an extremely personal lens of “feeling”. The whole world causes him unending distress. In fact it is the world as world that he (seems not to be able to) accept. So he never has peace or confidence in anything going on.

[Gary Childress]

Generally, Gary views all things through an extremely personal lens of “feeling”. The whole world causes him unending distress. In fact it is the world as world that he (seems not to be able to) accept. So he never has peace or confidence in anything going on.

[BigMike]

When geo-politics is the measure, it is extremely hard to apply moral judgments. We generally view the “unjustified” and preemptive attack on Iraq as an evil act. However, if one accepts the assertion that it was carried out for Israel’s benefit, and if one is “on the side” of Israel and its project of establishing a “greater Israel”, then one’s entire perspective changes. (The current narrative is that Israel, through Neo-Con political players, has been directing America’s Middle-East policies for decades).

How would BigMike go about tracing and describing — accurately — the vast causal factors that played out in the decisions surrounding that invasion? And if it were possible to see things clearly, how could a final assessment of “moral blame” (or praise) be assigned? Note that “seeing” actually depends on one’s perspectives, interests and objectives.

Rome conquered the regions of what is now Northern Europe in acts of absolute violence. It brought those “barbarous” regions into the fold of civilization. And as a result enabled everything that followed to develop.

Similarly it could be argued (and some do argue it) the destruction of the power-bases of Arab and Islamic nations is a “necessity” so that something (understood to be) better can develop.

BigMike wrote: 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.

Actually the more relevant question revolves around the issue of whether the destruction of Iraq resulted in “positive outcomes” in a larger geo-political sense. It really depends on whose perspective one considers as the most important and relevant. It is conceivable in an abstract sense that a ruthless invasion, with a million killed and all manner of different layers of harm and suffering considered, may yet turn out to be a larger advantage than a destructive deficit.

It is folly to imagine that Bush et al orchestrated the attack on the basis of “misinformation”. The larger plan was setting the stage for The New American Century. That was elucidated, generally, in policy papers but could not be presented in such raw form to the general populace.

The plans (for a series of invasions) were drawn up in outline form years before 9/11 by strategic military and industry planners of the same sort that constructed the Postwar economic order at the end of WWll. Power does what power decides is necessary and “best” and political propaganda is created to “justify” the objectives of power through (what is often described as) deception.

Generally, Gary views all things through an extremely personal lens of “feeling”. The whole world causes him unending distress. In fact it is the world as world that he (seems not to be able to) accept. So he never has peace or confidence in anything going on.

Alexis, your points highlight the complexities of geopolitics and the challenge of assigning moral blame or praise in such a tangled web of causes, interests, and perspectives. But let’s focus on the core of your critique and how it intersects with determinism and accountability.

First, you raise the issue of perspective, arguing that whether the Iraq invasion was a catastrophe or a calculated necessity depends on who’s doing the evaluating. That’s true, but determinism doesn’t negate the validity of evaluating outcomes—it reframes how we assess and respond to them. Under determinism, the actions of power players like the Bush administration aren’t excused but understood as the product of historical, economic, and social forces. Responsibility, then, shifts to ensuring those same forces don’t perpetuate harm in the future. Determinism urges us to ask: what systems, ideologies, or incentives led to such decisions? And how can they be changed to produce better outcomes?

Second, you suggest that viewing the invasion as a move in a larger geopolitical strategy, such as "The New American Century," complicates the narrative of moral blame. True, but determinism doesn’t render such actions morally neutral. It emphasizes understanding causality to inform effective prevention, not absolution. If the invasion was driven by strategic power calculations cloaked in misinformation, then the systemic structures enabling such duplicity need to be exposed and dismantled. That’s a deterministic approach to accountability: tackling the root causes rather than fixating on punishing individuals as though they acted in a vacuum.

Finally, you note Gary’s tendency to view the world through a deeply personal, emotional lens. While his emotional responses might be rooted in his unique psychological makeup, they also reflect a broader truth about human suffering—especially the collateral damage of geopolitical maneuvers. A deterministic framework doesn’t dismiss his feelings as irrelevant; it acknowledges them as the product of a system that must be interrogated and improved.

Your comparison to Rome’s conquests is provocative, but it risks justifying harm through a utilitarian lens without acknowledging the suffering caused along the way. Determinism doesn’t advocate for such cold calculus. It recognizes that while actions may lead to long-term benefits, this doesn’t negate the harm inflicted on individuals. The goal isn’t to rank perspectives as more or less valid but to strive for systemic changes that minimize harm and foster equitable progress.

In short, determinism offers tools to untangle the web of causes behind geopolitical actions without resorting to moral nihilism or simplistic blame games. It challenges us to improve the systems that shape history, even while acknowledging the perspectives of those caught in its wake.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thank you, Big Robot! You’ve got it down!

[iambiguous]

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.

What I am waiting for however is the part where you take your own understanding of the human brain "here and now" to the hard guys and gals who study the brain "empirically, experientially and experimentally". You ask them to confirm -- scientifically -- your own set of assumptions here. In other words, as though scientists themselves are not confronted with The Gap and Rummy's Rule going back to a definitive understanding of why anything exist at all...let alone why it exists as it does and not some other way. Then the part where God and religion may or may not be a factor here.

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.

Okay, link me to something in the scientific community such that given "falsifiability, evidence and predictive power", your own set of assumptions are confirmed whereby, what, it's not really important at all that The Gap and Rummy's Rule suggest there may well be any number of things about the universe mere mortals in a No God world are not privy to.

To wit: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” Werner Heisenberg.

https://www.amacad.org/news/universe-st ... we-thought

"Our Sun formed 4.5 billion years ago and has 6 billion more years before its fuel runs out. It will then flare up, engulfing the inner planets. The expanding universe will continue – perhaps forever – destined to become ever colder, ever emptier. Any creatures witnessing the Sun’s demise 6 billion years hence won’t be human – they will be as different from us as we are from a bug. Posthuman evolution – here on Earth and far beyond – could be as prolonged as the Darwinian evolution that has led to us, and could be even more wonderful. And, of course, the evolution is even faster now: machines may take over." Martin Rees

On the other hand, that doesn't stop those like you here from posting things like this...

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.

...as though you were asserting an objective truth about the universe and the human condition that only a fool would not concur with as the gospel truth. Or, rather, the philosophical truth?

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.

Here, in my view, you are simply noting that in regard to the interaction of matter in the either/or world, cause and effect seem considerably more in tandem with what may well perhaps be as close as we will ever come to an objective understanding of reality.

But once you get to the human brain, a game of pool can instead become entangled in the sort of profoundly problematic interactions that revolved around, say, the characters from The Color of Money? The hustler mentality. The human ego.

Or...Kingpin?

Then just more of the same from my perspective...

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.

Again, as though because you believe this "here and now", that need be as far as you go in order to make it true? In other words, you've described how you believe your own brain works...as though that really is, what, the least falsifiable assessment of the human brain itself?

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.

More of the same. You want to argue that determinism as you understand it reflects the world unfolding given the laws of cause and effect -- the laws of nature -- but that "somehow" as you have come to understand them yourself others are obligated to concur or they are...wrong?

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your response hinges on a misunderstanding of both the scientific method and the claims I’ve made. You state that I "ask the hard guys and gals who study the brain to confirm my assumptions," but this is completely false. I’m not asking for confirmation; I’m asking for falsification—something you conveniently sidestep. Science operates on the principle of falsifiability, not on proving something "in fact true." Conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions of physics have stood unchallenged because no one has provided evidence to disprove them—not because they are dogmatic truths but because they are empirically robust.

Your appeal to "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule" and musings about human ignorance is not a counter-argument—it’s a distraction. Acknowledging that there are things we don’t know about the universe doesn’t mean the things we do know—like conservation laws—suddenly become unreliable. Your hand-waving about the "mystery of existence" doesn’t invalidate the deterministic nature of physical processes, including how neurons function. It simply avoids engaging with the evidence.

Your analogy about a pool game muddles the discussion. Whether the game involves hustlers or egos, the physical interactions of the balls on the table remain governed by deterministic laws. The same applies to the brain. Neurons interact in a causal, directional manner dictated by physical and chemical principles. Your hypothetical "spooky" influences—like free will—have no mechanism to interact with this system. If free will could engage with neurons, it would require energy transfer. But without mass, charge, or physical properties, free will can’t exchange energy or momentum, and therefore it can’t affect physical systems. This isn’t a philosophical assertion—it’s a scientific impossibility.

You accuse me of asserting objective truths based on my beliefs. Wrong. I assert that my explanation is consistent with the best available evidence from physics and neuroscience. If you disagree, show me evidence that conservation laws don’t apply to brain function. Show me a mechanism by which free will interacts with neurons. Show me where energy or momentum transfers occur in violation of physical laws. Until you do, your objections remain speculative and disconnected from reality.

Finally, your insistence on clinging to vague skepticism as though it’s an intellectual virtue only highlights your unwillingness to engage with the actual science. The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove determinism beyond all doubt; it’s on you to provide falsifiable evidence against it. So far, you’ve offered none.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, your response hinges on a misunderstanding of both the scientific method and the claims I’ve made. You state that I "ask the hard guys and gals who study the brain to confirm my assumptions," but this is completely false. I’m not asking for confirmation; I’m asking for falsification—something you conveniently sidestep.

Okay, and how exactly would anything of this nature be definitively confirmed or falsified by any mere mortal in a No God world? In other words, given all that we don't even know that we don't even know yet about existence itself. With you -- click -- my reaction revolves more around the manner in which you assert your arguments above as though the brain scientists already had backed you up with powerful empirical, experiential and experimental evidence. That basically your own assessment of the human brain is now accepted in the scientific community as the most rational account.

Science operates on the principle of falsifiability, not on proving something "in fact true."

Well, for some that's six of one, half a dozen of the other. After all, there are any number things we know about the world around us that can readily be confirmed. Things few will feel compelled to shift gears regarding in order to broach falsification.

That's why some insist it is the responsibility of religionists to confirm the existence of God by providing hard evidence. Rather than the responsibility of science to falsify His existence.

Your appeal to "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule" and musings about human ignorance is not a counter-argument—it’s a distraction.

Again, if you are actually able to convince yourself that this is the case then we clearly don't grasp them in the same way. As for distractions, the objectivists among us generally refuse to allow themselves to be distracted by anyone who does not think exactly like they do. So, in that regard, how are you really any different from IC?

Acknowledging that there are things we don’t know about the universe doesn’t mean the things we do know—like conservation laws—suddenly become unreliable.

Nor does it mean that science has chiseled this in stone. Especially given a world in which "roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

And then all of the truly mind-boggling interactions in the QM world. Or, as Werner Heisenberg once speculated, "not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."

Your hand-waving about the "mystery of existence" doesn’t invalidate the deterministic nature of physical processes, including how neurons function. It simply avoids engaging with the evidence.

No more so, in my view, than your own dogmatic assessment here indicates that the evidence accumulated so far is such that all rational men and women are obligated to think as you do. As though when it comes to things like art and emotions there aren't any number of ways we can be manipulated by others. Why? Because we can neither confirm nor falsify how we ought to go about reacting to particular works of art or what we ought to feel given particular contexts.

Besides, in my view, it's less manipulation we need to concern ourselves with here and more with being around those who insist that only their own assessments of art and emotions count. Which, again, from my frame of mind, is why I react less to what you argue and more to the manner in which you frame your arguments in what I construe to be a truly arrogant and authoritarian manner.

Your analogy about a pool game muddles the discussion. Whether the game involves hustlers or egos, the physical interactions of the balls on the table remain governed by deterministic laws.

Perhaps because the pool balls themselves are not able to weigh in here.

The same applies to the brain. Neurons interact in a causal, directional manner dictated by physical and chemical principles. Your hypothetical "spooky" influences—like free will—have no mechanism to interact with this system. If free will could engage with neurons, it would require energy transfer. But without mass, charge, or physical properties, free will can’t exchange energy or momentum, and therefore it can’t affect physical systems. This isn’t a philosophical assertion—it’s a scientific impossibility.

On the other hand, given determinism as some understand it, the only entity manipulating us in regard to art and emotions is nature itself. In other words, that science and philosophy unfold as well in the only possible reality. Autonomically as it were.

You accuse me of asserting objective truths based on my beliefs. Wrong. I assert that my explanation is consistent with the best available evidence from physics and neuroscience. If you disagree, show me evidence that conservation laws don’t apply to brain function. Show me a mechanism by which free will interacts with neurons. Show me where energy or momentum transfers occur in violation of physical laws. Until you do, your objections remain speculative and disconnected from reality.

More to the point [mine] in not being a scientist myself that's simply out of the question. Instead, I'd appreciate you linking me to what you deem to be the best available evidence so far. Evidence such that if you took it to the brain scientists, they might actually be able to falsify my own point of view.

Finally, your insistence on clinging to vague skepticism as though it’s an intellectual virtue only highlights your unwillingness to engage with the actual science. The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove determinism beyond all doubt; it’s on you to provide falsifiable evidence against it. So far, you’ve offered none.

No, instead, I am more inclined "here and now" to expose what I deem to be just one more poster here insisting that what they claim to know about "meaning, morality and metaphysics" is all that anyone needs to know.

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your response hinges on a misunderstanding of both the scientific method and the claims I’ve made. You state that I "ask the hard guys and gals who study the brain to confirm my assumptions," but this is completely false. I’m not asking for confirmation; I’m asking for falsification—something you conveniently sidestep.

Okay, and how exactly would anything of this nature be definitively confirmed or falsified by any mere mortal in a No God world? In other words, given all that we don't even know that we don't even know yet about existence itself. With you -- click -- my reaction revolves more around the manner in which you assert your arguments above as though the brain scientists already had backed you up with powerful empirical, experiential and experimental evidence. That basically your own assessment of the human brain is now accepted in the scientific community as the most rational account.

Science operates on the principle of falsifiability, not on proving something "in fact true."

Well, for some that's six of one, half a dozen of the other. After all, there are any number things we know about the world around us that can readily be confirmed. Things few will feel compelled to shift gears regarding in order to broach falsification.

That's why some insist it is the responsibility of religionists to confirm the existence of God by providing hard evidence. Rather than the responsibility of science to falsify His existence.

Your appeal to "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule" and musings about human ignorance is not a counter-argument—it’s a distraction.

Again, if you are actually able to convince yourself that this is the case then we clearly don't grasp them in the same way. As for distractions, the objectivists among us generally refuse to allow themselves to be distracted by anyone who does not think exactly like they do. So, in that regard, how are you really any different from IC?

Acknowledging that there are things we don’t know about the universe doesn’t mean the things we do know—like conservation laws—suddenly become unreliable.

Nor does it mean that science has chiseled this in stone. Especially given a world in which "roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

And then all of the truly mind-boggling interactions in the QM world. Or, as Werner Heisenberg once speculated, "not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."

Your hand-waving about the "mystery of existence" doesn’t invalidate the deterministic nature of physical processes, including how neurons function. It simply avoids engaging with the evidence.

No more so, in my view, than your own dogmatic assessment here indicates that the evidence accumulated so far is such that all rational men and women are obligated to think as you do. As though when it comes to things like art and emotions there aren't any number of ways we can be manipulated by others. Why? Because we can neither confirm nor falsify how we ought to go about reacting to particular works of art or what we ought to feel given particular contexts.

Besides, in my view, it's less manipulation we need to concern ourselves with here and more with being around those who insist that only their own assessments of art and emotions count. Which, again, from my frame of mind, is why I react less to what you argue and more to the manner in which you frame your arguments in what I construe to be a truly arrogant and authoritarian manner.

Your analogy about a pool game muddles the discussion. Whether the game involves hustlers or egos, the physical interactions of the balls on the table remain governed by deterministic laws.

Perhaps because the pool balls themselves are not able to weigh in here.

The same applies to the brain. Neurons interact in a causal, directional manner dictated by physical and chemical principles. Your hypothetical "spooky" influences—like free will—have no mechanism to interact with this system. If free will could engage with neurons, it would require energy transfer. But without mass, charge, or physical properties, free will can’t exchange energy or momentum, and therefore it can’t affect physical systems. This isn’t a philosophical assertion—it’s a scientific impossibility.

On the other hand, given determinism as some understand it, the only entity manipulating us in regard to art and emotions is nature itself. In other words, that science and philosophy unfold as well in the only possible reality. Autonomically as it were.

You accuse me of asserting objective truths based on my beliefs. Wrong. I assert that my explanation is consistent with the best available evidence from physics and neuroscience. If you disagree, show me evidence that conservation laws don’t apply to brain function. Show me a mechanism by which free will interacts with neurons. Show me where energy or momentum transfers occur in violation of physical laws. Until you do, your objections remain speculative and disconnected from reality.

More to the point [mine] in not being a scientist myself that's simply out of the question. Instead, I'd appreciate you linking me to what you deem to be the best available evidence so far. Evidence such that if you took it to the brain scientists, they might actually be able to falsify my own point of view.

Finally, your insistence on clinging to vague skepticism as though it’s an intellectual virtue only highlights your unwillingness to engage with the actual science. The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove determinism beyond all doubt; it’s on you to provide falsifiable evidence against it. So far, you’ve offered none.

No, instead, I am more inclined "here and now" to expose what I deem to be just one more poster here insisting that what they claim to know about "meaning, morality and metaphysics" is all that anyone needs to know.

iambiguous, your response continues to conflate skepticism with dismissal, which demonstrates a persistent refusal to engage with the fundamentals of science and evidence. You claim that I frame my arguments in a dogmatic manner, yet all I have done is anchor my reasoning in established physical laws—conservation principles and the four fundamental interactions—while explicitly inviting falsification. That’s the antithesis of dogmatism.

You mischaracterize my position by claiming I ask brain scientists to "confirm" my assumptions. That’s not only false but a deflection from the central challenge I’ve posed: show evidence that falsifies these principles. Conservation laws and the deterministic nature of physical interactions are not abstract philosophical musings—they are the product of centuries of empirical validation. If you insist they might be overturned, the onus is on you to produce evidence that supports such a possibility.

Let’s address your invocation of "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule." Yes, there is much about the universe that remains unknown, and our ignorance about dark matter or the ultimate origins of existence doesn’t suddenly render the known laws of physics unreliable. The overwhelming evidence for conservation laws applies to the neuronal interactions in your brain just as it applies to pool balls or planetary motion. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of physics.

Your use of skepticism about dark energy or QM oddities to undermine determinism is a red herring. Those phenomena are being studied rigorously, and they don’t overturn the basic principles of causation and conservation—they enrich and extend them. To use them as a blanket to cover free will’s supposed existence is lazy reasoning. You offer no mechanism, no evidence, and no alternative framework—just vague appeals to uncertainty as though that excuses the absence of substantiation for your claims.

When you say, "I’m not a scientist, so I can’t offer evidence," you expose the very flaw in your argument. You’re not engaging with science at all; you’re retreating into agnosticism while demanding that I provide evidence to validate what is already widely supported by physics and neuroscience. If you lack the tools to engage with the evidence, it’s not my burden to simplify the framework of determinism to accommodate skepticism that refuses to address the actual science.

Lastly, your attempt to frame determinism as incompatible with emotions or the subjective experience of art reveals a deeper misunderstanding. Determinism doesn’t rob us of these experiences; it explains them. Your awe at a painting or joy in music is the product of complex neural processes—chemical and electrical interactions shaped by biology, culture, and personal history. These aren’t diminished by their causes; they’re made comprehensible. Insisting that determinism "reduces" human experience is a refusal to embrace the beauty of understanding how it arises.

So, here’s the challenge again: if you believe determinism is flawed or incomplete, provide evidence of a single instance where conservation laws or causality don’t hold—particularly in the context of neuronal activity. Until you do, your skepticism remains just that—skepticism, not a valid counterargument.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, your response continues to conflate skepticism with dismissal, which demonstrates a persistent refusal to engage with the fundamentals of science and evidence. You claim that I frame my arguments in a dogmatic manner, yet all I have done is anchor my reasoning in established physical laws—conservation principles and the four fundamental interactions—while explicitly inviting falsification. That’s the antithesis of dogmatism.

Actually -- click -- what I am unable to conflate or reconcile here is compatibilism and moral responsibility.

You tell me...

When you note that "all I have done is anchor my reasoning in established physical laws" did you do this of your own free will? Or could you never have not done it?

You mischaracterize my position by claiming I ask brain scientists to "confirm" my assumptions. That’s not only false but a deflection from the central challenge I’ve posed: show evidence that falsifies these principles. Conservation laws and the deterministic nature of physical interactions are not abstract philosophical musings—they are the product of centuries of empirical validation. If you insist they might be overturned, the onus is on you to produce evidence that supports such a possibility.

I don't see how that has much to do with he point I raised:

Okay, and how exactly would anything of this nature be definitively confirmed or falsified by any mere mortal in a No God world? In other words, given all that we don't even know that we don't even know yet about existence itself. With you -- click -- my reaction revolves more around the manner in which you assert your arguments above as though the brain scientists already had backed you up with powerful empirical, experiential and experimental evidence. That basically your own assessment of the human brain is now accepted in the scientific community as the most rational account.

I'll stick with that for now. I just have no way to which to demonstrate that I'm either doing so autonomously or autonomically.

Let’s address your invocation of "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule." Yes, there is much about the universe that remains unknown, and our ignorance about dark matter or the ultimate origins of existence doesn’t suddenly render the known laws of physics unreliable. The overwhelming evidence for conservation laws applies to the neuronal interactions in your brain just as it applies to pool balls or planetary motion. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of physics.

Again, all I can do [compelled to or not] is note that how we construe The Gap and Rummy's Rule here is very, very different. Now, I'm not arguing that my assessment is more reasonable than yours. It may well not be. Instead, I come back to the part where you seem [to me] to defend determinism but in turn seem to argue that even though we are all determined to post what we do here "somehow" your assessments are still the most reasonable.

From my frame of mind [which may well be incorrect] it's like you want to have your cake [determinism] and eat it too [your own "my way or the highway" arguments].

Your use of skepticism about dark energy or QM oddities to undermine determinism is a red herring. Those phenomena are being studied rigorously, and they don’t overturn the basic principles of causation and conservation—they enrich and extend them.

Autonomically some will insist.

To use them as a blanket to cover free will’s supposed existence is lazy reasoning. You offer no mechanism, no evidence, and no alternative framework—just vague appeals to uncertainty as though that excuses the absence of substantiation for your claims. When you say, "I’m not a scientist, so I can’t offer evidence," you expose the very flaw in your argument. You’re not engaging with science at all

See what I mean? I am both wholly determined to post what I do here regarding determinism and you are wholly determined to react to that. Yet you still get to claim to have not only a better argument but, what, the definitive argument?

And, again, I have no education or work experience enabling me to offer up any alternatives. I can only note that the assessment I make here is predicated on the assumption that, in fact, the human brain really is just the most mind-boggling domino of them all.

I can only go in so far here with respect to the science. But if you Google "science and free will" you get this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... URT-reRWmz

In other words, some defending free will and others debunking it. All I can do then is to ask others to link me to articles/discussions/debates they believe substantiate that we do have at least some measure of autonomy.

...you’re retreating into agnosticism while demanding that I provide evidence to validate what is already widely supported by physics and neuroscience. If you lack the tools to engage with the evidence, it’s not my burden to simplify the framework of determinism to accommodate skepticism that refuses to address the actual science.

Anything I lack, I lack only because I was never able not to. As for your burdens, you either have some measure of autonomy in dealing with them, or you don't. My point is that neither philosophers nor scientists can address this fully because who really knows how far they are from fully grasping the human condition itself.

Lastly, your attempt to frame determinism as incompatible with emotions or the subjective experience of art reveals a deeper misunderstanding. Determinism doesn’t rob us of these experiences; it explains them.

As though the manner in which each of us encompasses that explanation is not in turn but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality. Then the part whereby in regard to the same set of circumstances or behaviors our emotional reactions often come into conflict. Thus, from my frame of mind, even given free will as Libertarians construe it, there does not appear to be a way in which to pin down philosophically what we ought to feel given this or that "situation".

Your awe at a painting or joy in music is the product of complex neural processes—chemical and electrical interactions shaped by biology, culture, and personal history. These aren’t diminished by their causes; they’re made comprehensible. Insisting that determinism "reduces" human experience is a refusal to embrace the beauty of understanding how it arises.

Same thing. How is this assessment of yours both wholly determined by the laws of matter embodied in the human brain, and yet still reflecting the optimal assessment? Where does nature end here and "I" begin given the "for all practical purposes" nature of determinism as you understand it.

So, here’s the challenge again: if you believe determinism is flawed or incomplete, provide evidence of a single instance where conservation laws or causality don’t hold—particularly in the context of neuronal activity. Until you do, your skepticism remains just that—skepticism, not a valid counterargument.

Again, my point isn't to make a valid argument here so much as to explore how philosophers and scientists can resolve the quandary embedded in the human brain confronted with the task of understanding itself.

Besides, as some determinists understand this, calling particular arguments valid or invalid when you were never able to opt freely to argue any other way...?

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your response continues to conflate skepticism with dismissal, which demonstrates a persistent refusal to engage with the fundamentals of science and evidence. You claim that I frame my arguments in a dogmatic manner, yet all I have done is anchor my reasoning in established physical laws—conservation principles and the four fundamental interactions—while explicitly inviting falsification. That’s the antithesis of dogmatism.

Actually -- click -- what I am unable to conflate or reconcile here is compatibilism and moral responsibility.

You tell me...

When you note that "all I have done is anchor my reasoning in established physical laws" did you do this of your own free will? Or could you never have not done it?

You mischaracterize my position by claiming I ask brain scientists to "confirm" my assumptions. That’s not only false but a deflection from the central challenge I’ve posed: show evidence that falsifies these principles. Conservation laws and the deterministic nature of physical interactions are not abstract philosophical musings—they are the product of centuries of empirical validation. If you insist they might be overturned, the onus is on you to produce evidence that supports such a possibility.

I don't see how that has much to do with he point I raised:

Okay, and how exactly would anything of this nature be definitively confirmed or falsified by any mere mortal in a No God world? In other words, given all that we don't even know that we don't even know yet about existence itself. With you -- click -- my reaction revolves more around the manner in which you assert your arguments above as though the brain scientists already had backed you up with powerful empirical, experiential and experimental evidence. That basically your own assessment of the human brain is now accepted in the scientific community as the most rational account.

I'll stick with that for now. I just have no way to which to demonstrate that I'm either doing so autonomously or autonomically.

Let’s address your invocation of "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule." Yes, there is much about the universe that remains unknown, and our ignorance about dark matter or the ultimate origins of existence doesn’t suddenly render the known laws of physics unreliable. The overwhelming evidence for conservation laws applies to the neuronal interactions in your brain just as it applies to pool balls or planetary motion. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of physics.

Again, all I can do [compelled to or not] is note that how we construe The Gap and Rummy's Rule here is very, very different. Now, I'm not arguing that my assessment is more reasonable than yours. It may well not be. Instead, I come back to the part where you seem [to me] to defend determinism but in turn seem to argue that even though we are all determined to post what we do here "somehow" your assessments are still the most reasonable.

From my frame of mind [which may well be incorrect] it's like you want to have your cake [determinism] and eat it too [your own "my way or the highway" arguments].

Your use of skepticism about dark energy or QM oddities to undermine determinism is a red herring. Those phenomena are being studied rigorously, and they don’t overturn the basic principles of causation and conservation—they enrich and extend them.

Autonomically some will insist.

To use them as a blanket to cover free will’s supposed existence is lazy reasoning. You offer no mechanism, no evidence, and no alternative framework—just vague appeals to uncertainty as though that excuses the absence of substantiation for your claims. When you say, "I’m not a scientist, so I can’t offer evidence," you expose the very flaw in your argument. You’re not engaging with science at all

See what I mean? I am both wholly determined to post what I do here regarding determinism and you are wholly determined to react to that. Yet you still get to claim to have not only a better argument but, what, the definitive argument?

And, again, I have no education or work experience enabling me to offer up any alternatives. I can only note that the assessment I make here is predicated on the assumption that, in fact, the human brain really is just the most mind-boggling domino of them all.

I can only go in so far here with respect to the science. But if you Google "science and free will" you get this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... URT-reRWmz

In other words, some defending free will and others debunking it. All I can do then is to ask others to link me to articles/discussions/debates they believe substantiate that we do have at least some measure of autonomy.

...you’re retreating into agnosticism while demanding that I provide evidence to validate what is already widely supported by physics and neuroscience. If you lack the tools to engage with the evidence, it’s not my burden to simplify the framework of determinism to accommodate skepticism that refuses to address the actual science.

Anything I lack, I lack only because I was never able not to. As for your burdens, you either have some measure of autonomy in dealing with them, or you don't. My point is that neither philosophers nor scientists can address this fully because who really knows how far they are from fully grasping the human condition itself.

Lastly, your attempt to frame determinism as incompatible with emotions or the subjective experience of art reveals a deeper misunderstanding. Determinism doesn’t rob us of these experiences; it explains them.

As though the manner in which each of us encompasses that explanation is not in turn but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality. Then the part whereby in regard to the same set of circumstances or behaviors our emotional reactions often come into conflict. Thus, from my frame of mind, even given free will as Libertarians construe it, there does not appear to be a way in which to pin down philosophically what we ought to feel given this or that "situation".

Your awe at a painting or joy in music is the product of complex neural processes—chemical and electrical interactions shaped by biology, culture, and personal history. These aren’t diminished by their causes; they’re made comprehensible. Insisting that determinism "reduces" human experience is a refusal to embrace the beauty of understanding how it arises.

Same thing. How is this assessment of yours both wholly determined by the laws of matter embodied in the human brain, and yet still reflecting the optimal assessment? Where does nature end here and "I" begin given the "for all practical purposes" nature of determinism as you understand it.

So, here’s the challenge again: if you believe determinism is flawed or incomplete, provide evidence of a single instance where conservation laws or causality don’t hold—particularly in the context of neuronal activity. Until you do, your skepticism remains just that—skepticism, not a valid counterargument.

Again, my point isn't to make a valid argument here so much as to explore how philosophers and scientists can resolve the quandary embedded in the human brain confronted with the task of understanding itself.

Besides, as some determinists understand this, calling particular arguments valid or invalid when you were never able to opt freely to argue any other way...?

iambiguous, you continue to evade the central issue with an endless spiral of rhetorical deflection. Instead of engaging with the core problem—that free will has no mechanism within physical laws—you retreat into philosophical hand-waving about how anyone can "really know" anything, while paradoxically making definitive claims about the limits of human knowledge. You can’t have it both ways.

You claim I am asserting my position as "the definitive argument," but that’s a misrepresentation. I am asserting that determinism aligns with every confirmed law of physics, while free will, as traditionally conceived, contradicts them outright. That’s not an opinion; that’s an empirical distinction. And your continued invocation of “The Gap and Rummy’s Rule” does nothing to challenge that. It’s an appeal to mystery, a distraction. The unknown does not undo the known.

You ask if I was "free" to anchor my reasoning in established physical laws. The question itself betrays a misunderstanding. My reasoning, like yours, is causally determined by experience, evidence, and logical necessity. That doesn’t make it meaningless—it makes it explainable. Determinism does not deny decision-making or reasoning; it explains how and why decisions arise. Your belief that determinism means "we can’t claim one argument is better than another" is a misfire. If an argument is better supported by evidence, then by definition, it is better. Not because it was "freely chosen," but because it aligns more accurately with reality.

You repeatedly ask whether my position is widely accepted by brain scientists. And I’ll repeat: I don’t need scientists to "confirm" determinism. I need you (or anyone) to falsify it. Conservation laws and causality are the bedrock of physics. The burden is not on me to prove they apply to the brain—it’s on you (or anyone) to show where they don’t. And no one has.

You say that when you Google "science and free will," you find debates. Of course you do—philosophers and some scientists still speculate about it. But speculation is not evidence. The fact that some argue for free will doesn’t mean they’ve provided a mechanism for it. The question isn’t "Are there people who still believe in free will?" The question is "Has anyone demonstrated a causal mechanism for it?" The answer remains no.

As for emotions, art, and subjective experience—you keep implying that determinism reduces them to something lesser. No, determinism explains them. Just as it explains every other physical process. You find a piece of music moving? That’s not a mystery; it’s a function of sensory processing, pattern recognition, cultural association, and memory. It’s not "less real" because it’s caused—it’s more comprehensible because it’s caused.

And finally, you end with a dodge, saying your point isn’t to make a valid argument but to "explore the quandary." No, your point is to endlessly evade the obvious. If determinism is flawed, provide evidence that conservation laws and causality do not govern neuronal activity. Until then, skepticism is just empty hand-waving.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, you continue to evade the central issue with an endless spiral of rhetorical deflection. Instead of engaging with the core problem—that free will has no mechanism within physical laws—you retreat into philosophical hand-waving about how anyone can "really know" anything, while paradoxically making definitive claims about the limits of human knowledge. You can’t have it both ways.

The core problem? We clearly see that differently. From my own inherently problematic frame of mind what I continue to do is to acknowledge that my own assessment here is ultimately stymied by all that I do not know about the human brain, the human condition or an understanding of existence itself. Whereas, in my view, you sweep those parts under the rug as though they were a mere trivial pursuit.

On the other hand, in my view, discussions here pertaining to meaning and morality and metaphysics are the ones that generate the most heat.

Why is that?

Also, I make that crucial distinction between all of the things mere mortals seemingly can grasp objectively out in the either/or world...mathematics, natural laws, the rules of logic, and all the things that precipitate moral and political conflagrations in the is/ought world.

And what I do here by and large is to expose what I believe is an attempt on your part to defend determinism. But only sort of. You are determined to post here just like all the rest of us mere mortals in a No God world. Assuming of course it is a No God world.

Still, it seems to me "here and now" you have this need to assure us that you really do grasp the human brain, the human condition, existence itself such that your posts will always be deemed by you to be, what, the wisest?

Why is that?

Well, either because, like all the rest of us, you are no less embedded in the only possible reality there can ever be, or "somehow" nature always comes around here to align itself with whatever you think and feel.

You claim I am asserting my position as "the definitive argument," but that’s a misrepresentation. I am asserting that determinism aligns with every confirmed law of physics, while free will, as traditionally conceived, contradicts them outright.

That's not the point, however, the hardcore determinsists note. Instead, the crucial factor here revolves around the assumption they make that everything we think, feel, intuit, say and do we were never able to freely opt not to.

Philosophers and scientists who believe that the universe is deterministic and that determinism is incompatible with free will are called “hard” determinists. Since moral responsibility seems to require free will, hard determinism implies that people are not morally responsible for their actions. britannica

And just because something is "tradionally conceived" doesn't mean that too is not but another necessary component of the only possible universe.

That’s not an opinion; that’s an empirical distinction. And your continued invocation of “The Gap and Rummy’s Rule” does nothing to challenge that. It’s an appeal to mystery, a distraction. The unknown does not undo the known.

Click. Again, we'll have to just agree to disagree for now.

Imagine though if every scientist accepted that in regard to their own field. What they claim to believe "here and now" really, really does reflect what scientists a thousand years from now will confirm?

Of course, the beauty of thinking like you do is that you will no doubt go to the grave [like the rest of us] believing certain things are true long before science has actually established that, in fact, they either are or are not.

Instead, in my view, for those of your ilk what is by far most important is that you have comvinced yourself you really are spot on in regard to a metaphysical quandary that has been determinism for thousands of years now.

In fact, I was reading something a few days ago in which it was speculated that a thousand years from now scientists will think of us then the way we think of bugs today.

Just out of curiosity, do you embrace a similar certitude regarding meaning and morality, as well?

You ask if I was "free" to anchor my reasoning in established physical laws. The question itself betrays a misunderstanding. My reasoning, like yours, is causally determined by experience, evidence, and logical necessity.

Yet over and again, you seem equally determined to convince us -- or to convince yourself? -- that your own set of assumptions here are the most rational. And what I'm still muddled regarding is the part where in posting here nature gives way to nurture?

That doesn’t make it meaningless—it makes it explainable. Determinism does not deny decision-making or reasoning; it explains how and why decisions arise.

Back to this then...

...imagine the universe had locations where free will prevailed and locations where determinsm prevailed. Those in the free will sector visit Earth in a spaceship from time to time. They gaze down at us in the determined sector. They see us acting, they see others reacting to that, they see us reacting to their reations. But they know that both the actions and reactions observed are wholly programmed by our brains. Basically, they see us interacting the way we see ants interacting...all in sync with brains in sync with the laws of matter.

They note that decisions are made, behaviors are chosen, interactions unfold. But what does that actually mean if it all unfolds in an entirety autonomic manner?

Your belief that determinism means "we can’t claim one argument is better than another" is a misfire. If an argument is better supported by evidence, then by definition, it is better. Not because it was "freely chosen," but because it aligns more accurately with reality.

Which, of course, is basically what the Libertarians among us will argue.

Sure, we can claim that our evidence and our definitions and our deductions reflect the optimal assessment here. But how exactly do we go about demonstrating this in such a way that no one can doubt this is all still reconcilable with determinism.

I'm not saying it's not, only that the scientific community as a whole does not seem ready to confirm definitively that it is.

You repeatedly ask whether my position is widely accepted by brain scientists. And I’ll repeat: I don’t need scientists to "confirm" determinism. I need you (or anyone) to falsify it. Conservation laws and causality are the bedrock of physics. The burden is not on me to prove they apply to the brain—it’s on you (or anyone) to show where they don’t. And no one has.

Come on, Mike, at least accept the possibility that your own assessment here may well be "beyond your control". As for falsification, given a universe as utterly immense and as staggeringly vast and mysterious as our own is -- and assuming there is no multiverse -- what would it mean to falsify something like this. Again, it seems to me, you may as well set out to falsify God's existence.

You say that when you Google "science and free will," you find debates. Of course you do—philosophers and some scientists still speculate about it. But speculation is not evidence.

Unless, perhaps, you are confusing your own flagrant assertions here with the sort of evidence that, if confirmed, would be the talk of the entire scientific community. To actually establish an unequivocal understanding of the human brain here?!!

The fact that some argue for free will doesn’t mean they’ve provided a mechanism for it.

On the contrary, millions upon millions upon millions around the globe will note that the "mechanism" for human autonomy is God. At least until someone is able to falsify His existence.

So, what is the mechanism persuading you to suggest that even though we are all programmed by nature to both post and react to posts here, you "somehow" still manage to always come out on top in explaining the human brain

The question isn’t "Are there people who still believe in free will?" The question is "Has anyone demonstrated a causal mechanism for it?" The answer remains no.

Or the question might be, "because no one has demonstrated a causal mechanism for free will [yet], does that confirm everything that Mike argues here?"

As for emotions, art, and subjective experience—you keep implying that determinism reduces them to something lesser. No, determinism explains them. Just as it explains every other physical process.

No, given determinism as some understand it, there are no greater or lesser assessments here. There are only the assessments our brains have compelled us to champion "here and now". Assessments that ontologically are "beyond our control."

Do I understand it as such? Well, sometimes. Other times however it's my own rendition of "I just know it!"

You find a piece of music moving? That’s not a mystery; it’s a function of sensory processing, pattern recognition, cultural association, and memory. It’s not "less real" because it’s caused—it’s more comprehensible because it’s caused.

Okay, John loves the blues, Jane loves folk, Bill loves jazz, Mary loves classical, Brian loves rap, iambiguous loves new wave. So, given your own understanding of determinism, is whatever caused this such that there was always the possibility of this being entirely different? Why? Becasue "somehow" at least some measure of autonomy allows us to make these personal, subjective decisions "on our own"?

And finally, you end with a dodge, saying your point isn’t to make a valid argument but to "explore the quandary." No, your point is to endlessly evade the obvious. If determinism is flawed, provide evidence that conservation laws and causality do not govern neuronal activity. Until then, skepticism is just empty hand-waving.

See how this works for you? You were determined to post this given that your brain is no less entirely in sync with the laws of matter, but "somehow" your own brain is able avoid evading the obvious while those here who do not share your own definitions and deductions are themselves responsible for not just accepting your assumptions.

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your response remains a web of rhetorical misdirection, substituting skepticism for substance while failing to engage with the actual mechanics of physics, neuroscience, and logical consistency. You continue to invoke "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule" as though an acknowledgment of the unknown negates everything we do know. It doesn’t. The unknown remains unknown, but the known remains known until demonstrated otherwise—and conservation laws remain unfalsified despite centuries of rigorous scientific testing.

At the foundation of my worldview is not blind certainty but adherence to what we observe, over and over again, repeatedly and testably. My understanding of the world aligns with scientific knowledge—not as an unshakable "truth" but as the best available framework based on empirical evidence. Could science be wrong? Absolutely. Science is falsifiable. The laws of conservation are falsifiable. Do I claim that my science-based worldview is true? No, I don’t. In fact, I claim that science never will, never can, prove anything to be "true" in an absolute sense. But so far, no one has falsified the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions. Not once. So, everything else in my framework for understanding reality stands on that basis. It is pretty solid.

Your approach, however, is the opposite. You do not provide a competing framework; you merely retreat into an amorphous skepticism, claiming that determinism might be wrong without offering a shred of evidence to that effect. When I challenge you to show where the laws of conservation don’t apply, you don’t engage. Instead, you revert to vague "what ifs," implying that maybe, just maybe, some great unknown principle overturns everything we currently understand. That is not a counter-argument; it’s an evasion.

You keep insisting that determinism should be held to some impossible standard—absolute, unquestionable proof. But that is not how science works. The standard is falsification, and determinism has withstood every falsification attempt to date. The same cannot be said for free will. Free will, in every formulation, contradicts physical principles, lacks a proposed mechanism, and has never been demonstrated experimentally. If free will were a real force, it would have to engage in causal interactions. But as I’ve pointed out—repeatedly—it has no mass, no charge, no measurable properties, and therefore no way to interact with physical reality.

You claim I "sweep under the rug" the things we don’t know, yet you refuse to acknowledge that the things we do know—conservation laws, causality, neuronal signaling—directly contradict free will. And when I press for a falsifiable counter-argument, you offer nothing. Not a study, not an alternative model, not an experiment. Just "maybe we don’t know everything." That’s not an argument. That’s an escape hatch.

You mock my certainty, yet my stance is explicitly built on falsifiability. The moment someone falsifies conservation laws, I will adjust my worldview. Can you say the same? If you demand a level of certainty that science does not and cannot provide, then you’re not engaging with science at all—you’re setting an impossible standard so you can keep dodging reality.

So I’ll repeat: Show me a single instance where the conservation of energy or momentum does not hold in brain function. Show me where an external, non-physical force interacts with neurons. Show me where determinism fails as an explanatory model. Until then, skepticism for its own sake is just empty noise.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, your response remains a web of rhetorical misdirection, substituting skepticism for substance while failing to engage with the actual mechanics of physics, neuroscience, and logical consistency.

Let me put it this way...

I acknowledge right from the start that in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, my own frame of mind here is problematic, while you continue to post as though you really do believe your own assessment will be upheld by philosophers and scientists far into the future.

You continue to invoke "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule" as though an acknowledgment of the unknown negates everything we do know. It doesn’t. The unknown remains unknown, but the known remains known until demonstrated otherwise—and conservation laws remain unfalsified despite centuries of rigorous scientific testing.

Over and again, if you are able to convince yourself that all we don't know about the human brain, the human condition, and existence itself is moot here, I won't try to dissuade you. Click, of course.

And yet how many times do scientists make the news when they announce yet another extraordinary finding about the universe. As they struggle to "somehow" come to grips with how to connect the dots between the very, very, very small and the very, very, very big.

At the foundation of my worldview is not blind certainty but adherence to what we observe, over and over again, repeatedly and testably. My understanding of the world aligns with scientific knowledge—not as an unshakable "truth" but as the best available framework based on empirical evidence. Could science be wrong? Absolutely. Science is falsifiable.

Then this part: could Big Mike be wrong? Absolutely.

On the other hand, how are right and wrong themselves not interchangeable given the only possible reality?

In other words, it's not that mere mortals don't make distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. It's that these distinctions themselves are wholly determined.

The laws of conservation are falsifiable. Do I claim that my science-based worldview is true? No, I don’t. In fact, I claim that science never will, never can, prove anything to be "true" in an absolute sense. But so far, no one has falsified the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions. Not once. So, everything else in my framework for understanding reality stands on that basis. It is pretty solid.

Just go back over the decades and note all of the things pertaining to our understanding of the universe that turned out to be otherwise. Start here:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/some ... e-universe
https://futurism.com/scientists-wrong-about-universe

Your approach, however, is the opposite. You do not provide a competing framework; you merely retreat into an amorphous skepticism, claiming that determinism might be wrong without offering a shred of evidence to that effect. When I challenge you to show where the laws of conservation don’t apply, you don’t engage. Instead, you revert to vague "what ifs," implying that maybe, just maybe, some great unknown principle overturns everything we currently understand. That is not a counter-argument; it’s an evasion.

Around and around and around we go. I'm not a scientist. I lack both the education and any on the job training to attempt something like that.

Instead -- click -- I can only pursue the posts and the links others here provide from those in the scientific community who do have sophisticated technical backgrounds in the science here.

And, so far, to the best of my knowledge, there is no overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that your frame of mind here is the optimal assessment.

You keep insisting that determinism should be held to some impossible standard—absolute, unquestionable proof. But that is not how science works. The standard is falsification, and determinism has withstood every falsification attempt to date.

Then [again] from my own frame of mind [which may well be wrong] back to the part where you are determined to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But whatever is behind determinism as you understand it always permits you to deem your own assumptions to be the most reasonable.

The same cannot be said for free will. Free will, in every formulation, contradicts physical principles, lacks a proposed mechanism, and has never been demonstrated experimentally.

Fine. Just as long as your own understanding of free will is recognized to be the closest mere mortals in a No God world can come to a TOE here.

If free will were a real force, it would have to engage in causal interactions. But as I’ve pointed out—repeatedly—it has no mass, no charge, no measurable properties, and therefore no way to interact with physical reality.

I haven't a clue as to what "for all practical purposes" this might mean. Again, in regard to our posting here or in regard Mary's abortion, how are things not ultimately "beyond our control"?

You claim I "sweep under the rug" the things we don’t know, yet you refuse to acknowledge that the things we do know—conservation laws, causality, neuronal signaling—directly contradict free will.

I acknowledge that in regard to the either/or world, there are any number of things which clearly seem applicable to all of us. But that doesn't explain definitively how the human brain functions here.

Then the part where those like you set out to falsify God? Because until that happens, the existence of God is never entirely out of the question.

You mock my certainty, yet my stance is explicitly built on falsifiability. The moment someone falsifies conservation laws, I will adjust my worldview. Can you say the same?

In our lifetimes? Probably not. But not a single one us, in my view, can even begin to grasp all of the extraordinary discoveries yet to come.

Well, anyway, with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists now setting the doomsday clock to "89 seconds to midnight", how much of the future do we even have left?

You continue to invoke "The Gap and If you demand a level of certainty that science does not and cannot provide, then you’re not engaging with science at all—you’re setting an impossible standard so you can keep dodging reality.

But don't I keep dodging reality here because, as any number of determinists will insist, I was never able not to? But then to the extent that everything we think, feel, intuit, say and do is but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world, reality itself is an inherent manifestation of the laws of matter.

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your response continues to circle the same evasions, relying on skepticism as though the mere presence of unknowns invalidates the vast body of known and repeatedly tested physical laws. It does not. The unknown remains unknown, but it does not dissolve the known into irrelevance. Science progresses by building on established knowledge, not by discarding it every time a new question arises.

At the foundation of my worldview is not some dogmatic claim to truth but a commitment to what we observe, over and over again, repeatedly and testably. My understanding of the world coincides with scientific knowledge—not because it is unshakable dogma, but because it is the best model available, one that consistently makes accurate predictions and has yet to be falsified.

Could science be wrong? Yes. Science is falsifiable. The laws of conservation are falsifiable. Do I claim that my science-based worldview is "true" in some ultimate sense? No, I do not. In fact, I claim that science never will, never can, prove anything to be absolutely true. But so far, no one has falsified the conservation laws or the four fundamental interactions of physics. Not once. So, everything else in my whole construction of understanding stands on that basis. It is pretty solid.

You, however, do not provide an alternative framework or counter-evidence. Instead, you default to radical skepticism, as if the mere fact that the universe is vast and complex means we must throw our hands up and discard everything we do know. You keep citing "The Gap and Rummy’s Rule" as if acknowledging the limits of knowledge negates what has already been rigorously demonstrated. That is not an argument—it’s an evasion.

Yes, scientists make new discoveries all the time. That is how science works. But that does not mean every existing scientific principle is on the verge of being overturned. The fact that cosmologists still struggle to unify relativity and quantum mechanics does not mean conservation laws, causality, or physical determinism are suddenly unreliable.

You say, "Then this part: could Big Mike be wrong? Absolutely."
Sure. But not in the way you seem to think. I am open to evidence-based revision. That is the whole point. But you haven’t provided evidence—only speculation that someday, somehow, everything we currently understand might be overturned. That is not an argument—it’s an abdication of argument.

Then there’s your retreat into "not being a scientist." That’s fine. But if you admit you lack the expertise to challenge determinism on scientific grounds, then why are you treating your vague skepticism as if it carries any weight against the entire body of physics and neuroscience that underpins my argument?

You want to argue that determinism is just one way to look at things, but determinism isn’t a philosophical preference—it is the default consequence of physics. And every attempt to smuggle in free will contradicts the principles of conservation, causality, and interaction. That is why the burden is not on me to "prove" determinism—it is on you to falsify it. And you haven’t.

Until someone does, the only rational conclusion remains: free will is an illusion.