Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency....it has freedom to whatever degree its powers allow.

A man with a traumatic past still has a choice not to act violently. He is not excused because he always has a CHOICE.
Choice is not illusory.
He has agency. Freedom of will does not require a supernatural being.
All life has a will, and all life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and its powers.
It has intent....choice.

A choice need not be unaffected by the past.....by need, by desire.....We do not have to be gods to be free.
We have a degree of freedom equal to our powers.
The moment you agreed that choice matters, you agreed that man has freedom to choose between two or more options, and his choice participates in determining his fate.

Pistolero, you're confusing the appearance of choice with the mechanism behind it.

Yes, humans experience what feels like choice. But that sensation doesn’t imply metaphysical freedom. It’s the brain reporting on internal conflict resolution after the fact—a narrated illusion produced by a deterministic process. That’s not speculation; it’s supported by neuroscience and psychology.

You write, “If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency… freedom.”
But you're equivocating. Yes, the will plays a role—it’s part of the causal chain. But that doesn't make it free. It just means it’s one domino in the row, shaped by previous dominoes. The will is not some detached, ghostly force hovering above matter. It is the result of prior inputs, not an uncaused origin.

You also say: “He always has a choice.”
Sure, from a linguistic or psychological standpoint, we talk that way. But zoom in: what caused the man to make one choice over another? If you trace it back far enough—his genes, his environment, his memories, his neurochemistry—you’ll find nothing uncaused. Every “choice” is the outcome of influences he didn’t author.

You finish with: “All life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and powers.”
Replace “freedom” with “behavioral complexity” and I’ll agree. But what you call “freedom” is just layered determinism. The more complex the system, the richer the behaviors—but they’re still caused. Still determined. Still explainable.

So yes, we hold people responsible—in the same way we hold a faulty machine responsible for malfunctioning: by asking what broke, and how to fix or prevent it. But that’s a matter of consequence, not cosmic blame. That’s how a deterministic worldview refines justice—not excuses it.

[Pistolero]

If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency....it has freedom to whatever degree its powers allow.

A man with a traumatic past still has a choice not to act violently. He is not excused because he always has a CHOICE.
Choice is not illusory.
He has agency. Freedom of will does not require a supernatural being.
All life has a will, and all life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and its powers.
It has intent....choice.

A choice need not be unaffected by the past.....by need, by desire.....We do not have to be gods to be free.
We have a degree of freedom equal to our powers.
The moment you agreed that choice matters, you agreed that man has freedom to choose between two or more options, and his choice participates in determining his fate.

Pistolero, you're confusing the appearance of choice with the mechanism behind it.

Yes, humans experience what feels like choice. But that sensation doesn’t imply metaphysical freedom.

See, now you are twisting.
When I define freedom I do not use metaphysics, you do.
This si why all fail to meet your criteria.
When I define power I do not use metaphysics, either.
Is power an illusion because it is not omnipotent?

It’s the brain reporting on internal conflict resolution after the fact—a narrated illusion produced by a deterministic process. That’s not speculation; it’s supported by neuroscience and psychology.

And?

You write, “If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency… freedom.”
But you're equivocating. Yes, the will plays a role—it’s part of the causal chain. But that doesn't make it free. It just means it’s one domino in the row, shaped by previous dominoes. The will is not some detached, ghostly force hovering above matter. It is the result of prior inputs, not an uncaused origin.

Ha!!
There it is...behind all the pretentious rationality.

The moment you agreed that man has a choice, you admitted he is free to choose one or the other option.
If, now, you begin to project caveats....yes but...no because....etc., you are obfuscating, seperately trying to preserve the innocence you so crave.
Absolution.

You also say: “He always has a choice.”
Sure, from a linguistic or psychological standpoint, we talk that way. But zoom in: what caused the man to make one choice over another? If you trace it back far enough—his genes, his environment, his memories, his neurochemistry—you’ll find nothing uncaused. Every “choice” is the outcome of influences he didn’t author.

Again....obfuscating....
The moment you agreed that man can choose between two or more options, you've validated freedom.
No metaphysical definitions.
All that participates in making choices....yes.
A man has will-power....or is power also metaphysically an illusion?


Paint me a picture of life as a victim of circumstances, then tell me about how you've overcome the god of Abraham.

You finish with: “All life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and powers.”
Replace “freedom” with “behavioral complexity” and I’ll agree. But what you call “freedom” is just layered determinism. The more complex the system, the richer the behaviors—but they’re still caused. Still determined. Still explainable.

Obfuscating, linguistically weaving, and feigning...desperate to escape.
Anything to escape culpability.

So, why do you want to punish a murderer's "behavioral complexities."?
Do you want to dumb-him down, simplify him, make him into a bee in a hive?

Freedom like all qualifiers describes something about the cocnept it precedes or followed....in the case of free-will, it describes something about the will's "layered" complexities.
Can we not say the same for "power' as in will-power?
Or will you muddy the waters, trying to pretend you are complicated?


Power is not omnipotence, an d so freedom is not absolute independence, nor detachment from causality.
It is a measure of options.....more options, more freedom.
Power describes overcoming resistance. I t is not illusory because YOU choose to make it metaphysical or seem complex, so as ot then deny its existence.

So yes, we hold people responsible—in the same way we hold a faulty machine responsible for malfunctioning: by asking what broke, and how to fix or prevent it. But that’s a matter of consequence, not cosmic blame. That’s how a deterministic worldview refines justice—not excuses it.

So, you are a creationist.
A machine is created by a wilful agency...who creates life....who created life according to YOUR desirably specifications?

What of natural selection?
I bet you believe that you believe it, but then you'll tell me about how much more complicated it is....and define it in a way that contradicts its basic tenets.
In nature, mutations arise.....causing all sorts of combinations.
Some are advantageous, and succeed...one aspect of success its its ability to adapt to circumstances, requiring judgment, expressed willfully as actions...choices.
So, a man's inability to control his impulses, for instance, will lead to his extermination...a man who can CHOOSE not to abandon himself to his impulses, will survive.

What do we punish in murderers?
If he has no ability to control himself, and choose rationally, then what are we punishing if its all behavioral complexities?
Are we punishing the behavioral complexities that were cosmologically determined - using absolutist metaphysics to excuse him - or are we punishing his inability to control, to choose other than what he is compelled?
I've been compelled to violence....but I willed myself to choose the other option.

[henry quirk]

Just a friendly reminder.

This..

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is Mike's position: you are a meat machine.

[BigMike]

If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency....it has freedom to whatever degree its powers allow.

A man with a traumatic past still has a choice not to act violently. He is not excused because he always has a CHOICE.
Choice is not illusory.
He has agency. Freedom of will does not require a supernatural being.
All life has a will, and all life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and its powers.
It has intent....choice.

A choice need not be unaffected by the past.....by need, by desire.....We do not have to be gods to be free.
We have a degree of freedom equal to our powers.
The moment you agreed that choice matters, you agreed that man has freedom to choose between two or more options, and his choice participates in determining his fate.

Pistolero, you're confusing the appearance of choice with the mechanism behind it.

Yes, humans experience what feels like choice. But that sensation doesn’t imply metaphysical freedom.

See, now you are twisting.
When I define freedom I do not use metaphysics, you do.
This si why all fail to meet your criteria.
When I define power I do not use metaphysics, either.
Is power an illusion because it is not omnipotent?

It’s the brain reporting on internal conflict resolution after the fact—a narrated illusion produced by a deterministic process. That’s not speculation; it’s supported by neuroscience and psychology.

And?

You write, “If will is part of what determines an effect, then it has agency… freedom.”
But you're equivocating. Yes, the will plays a role—it’s part of the causal chain. But that doesn't make it free. It just means it’s one domino in the row, shaped by previous dominoes. The will is not some detached, ghostly force hovering above matter. It is the result of prior inputs, not an uncaused origin.

Ha!!
There it is...behind all the pretentious rationality.

The moment you agreed that man has a choice, you admitted he is free to choose one or the other option.
If, now, you begin to project caveats....yes but...no because....etc., you are obfuscating, seperately trying to preserve the innocence you so crave.
Absolution.

You also say: “He always has a choice.”
Sure, from a linguistic or psychological standpoint, we talk that way. But zoom in: what caused the man to make one choice over another? If you trace it back far enough—his genes, his environment, his memories, his neurochemistry—you’ll find nothing uncaused. Every “choice” is the outcome of influences he didn’t author.

Again....obfuscating....
The moment you agreed that man can choose between two or more options, you've validated freedom.
No metaphysical definitions.
All that participates in making choices....yes.
A man has will-power....or is power also metaphysically an illusion?


Paint me a picture of life as a victim of circumstances, then tell me about how you've overcome the god of Abraham.

You finish with: “All life has a degree of freedom equal to its awareness and powers.”
Replace “freedom” with “behavioral complexity” and I’ll agree. But what you call “freedom” is just layered determinism. The more complex the system, the richer the behaviors—but they’re still caused. Still determined. Still explainable.

Obfuscating, linguistically weaving, and feigning...desperate to escape.
Anything to escape culpability.

So, why do you want to punish a murderer's "behavioral complexities."?
Do you want to dumb-him down, simplify him, make him into a bee in a hive?

Freedom like all qualifiers describes something about the cocnept it precedes or followed....in the case of free-will, it describes something about the will's "layered" complexities.
Can we not say the same for "power' as in will-power?
Or will you muddy the waters, trying to pretend you are complicated?


Power is not omnipotence, an d so freedom is not absolute independence, nor detachment from causality.
It is a measure of options.....more options, more freedom.
Power describes overcoming resistance. I t is not illusory because YOU choose to make it metaphysical or seem complex, so as ot then deny its existence.

So yes, we hold people responsible—in the same way we hold a faulty machine responsible for malfunctioning: by asking what broke, and how to fix or prevent it. But that’s a matter of consequence, not cosmic blame. That’s how a deterministic worldview refines justice—not excuses it.

So, you are a creationist.
A machine is created by a wilful agency...who creates life....who created life according to YOUR desirably specifications?

What of natural selection?
I bet you believe that you believe it, but then you'll tell me about how much more complicated it is....and define it in a way that contradicts its basic tenets.
In nature, mutations arise.....causing all sorts of combinations.
Some are advantageous, and succeed...one aspect of success its its ability to adapt to circumstances, requiring judgment, expressed willfully as actions...choices.
So, a man's inability to control his impulses, for instance, will lead to his extermination...a man who can CHOOSE not to abandon himself to his impulses, will survive.

What do we punish in murderers?
If he has no ability to control himself, and choose rationally, then what are we punishing if its all behavioral complexities?
Are we punishing the behavioral complexities that were cosmologically determined - using absolutist metaphysics to excuse him - or are we punishing his inability to control, to choose other than what he is compelled?
I've been compelled to violence....but I willed myself to choose the other option.

Pistolero, this long-winded performance is just evasion wrapped in noise. You keep circling the same dead end because you mistake having multiple options for having metaphysical freedom.

Yes, people often face multiple options. But the option they act on isn’t selected by some ghostly chooser floating above causality—it’s the outcome of a process. Inputs → computation → output. That's what a choice is. It's caused. Entirely. No “freedom” needed beyond physics.

You say “the moment you admit he can choose, you admit he is free.” No. That’s just wordplay. A vending machine “chooses” which snack to drop, too—based on a deterministic input. The fact that a brain can evaluate options doesn’t mean it transcends cause and effect. It just means it’s a more complex machine.

You scoff at the machine analogy, but you still haven’t offered a coherent model of agency that isn’t either:

1. Deterministic (i.e., explainable by physical law),
2. Random (i.e., noise—not agency),
3. Or a fuzzy appeal to “power” and “will” that you refuse to define beyond assertion.

You talk about natural selection. Great. You just made my point. Evolution selects mechanisms that are better at predicting and responding to inputs. Not ones that break causality. That adaptivity is deterministic too. It’s just not simplistic. It’s layered. Sophisticated. But still explainable.

So yes—we analyze criminals not to blame some soul, but to understand what went wrong and how to prevent it. That's not weakness. That’s maturity. That’s how actual systems improve. By finding the causes, not cursing the symptoms.

Your whole response boils down to emotional recoil from the idea that people aren’t magic. But they’re not. We are biological systems. Miraculous in complexity—but not exempt from physics.

And when you sneer that I’m “desperate to escape culpability”? That’s pure projection. You’re clinging to metaphysical free will because the idea that morality can still exist without it terrifies you. You need blame to feel righteous.

I don’t. I need truth. That’s the difference.

[Pistolero]

We witness here how moderns/postmoderns attempt to lay the ground for all-exclusivity.
Excusing any aberration, on the grounds that it is determined behavioral complexities, caused by some social factor....never genetics.
Factors that can be socially engineered.
Tabula rasa. A clean slate for them to rewrite the programming.

They always blame racial disparities on economics...not economics on racial disparities.
Humans must be reduced to a blank slate...a void...affected environmentally.
Nurture...always nurture.
Ironically they deny racial "behavioral complexities," explaining academic and athletic performances.
Explaining cultural disparities, and civilization differences.

The individual is recyclable, correctable....in their postmodern worldviews.
Complexities can be simplified, or used to pretend that humans are incomprehensible to all but them.
They know man has no free-will, despite the obvious willful actions they perceive in others and themselves.

Why?
Behavioral complexities....past trauma entirely and completely determining the man's actions.
No self-control...no enkratia, as the ancients put it.
Man that is trainable.....he can be trained to be equal to every other man.

Absence of free-will means, for them, social conditioning determines all human disparities.
social engineering can correct the social engineering of the past.
No innate qualities...no will to resist.
No choice.
Collectivism.

[BigMike]

Just a friendly reminder.

This..

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is Mike's position: you are a meat machine.

Alright, Henry—since you’re so eager to remind everyone, here’s a challenge:

What part of that quote is false?

Is it false that the brain operates under physical law?
Is it false that our thoughts and decisions are generated by brain activity?
Is it false that we didn’t choose our genes, our upbringing, our environment, or the events that shaped us?
Is it false that inputs—external and internal—drive our behavior?

You keep parroting “meat machine” like it’s a slur, as if adding snark somehow makes the science go away. But mockery isn't an argument. It's just your way of dodging the fact that you can't point to a single mechanism in your body or mind that isn't subject to cause and effect.

You want to be something special, untethered from nature—some magical exception. But you’re not. And instead of grappling with that, you retreat to slogans and sneers.

So come on. You posted the quote. You called it my “position.”

Now grow a spine and say what’s wrong with it.
Be specific. Be honest. Or be silent.

[Pistolero]

1. Deterministic (i.e., explainable by physical law),

Replacements of Mosaic Commandments.
Allusion to absolute order - god.
As if they know the cosmos is absolutely ordered.

What of Quantum Physics?
silence.
What of chaos?
Complexity....not actually chaos.
All is explainable with Natural laws....totalitarianism.

Organic will, is enslaved by Natural Laws.

2. Random (i.e., noise—not agency),

Chaos.
Energies with no pattern.

3. Or a fuzzy appeal to “power” and “will” that you refuse to define beyond assertion.

Will = focus of an organism's aggregate energies upon an objective.
Power = measure of said energies relative to other.
No metaphysics.
Will = intentional - what identifies the living.
Life can CHOOSE to take the path of more resistance, whereas everything not living must follow paths of least resistance.

Try defining them yourself, before you make such a bad mistake. You've never read a single one of my posts?

You talk about natural selection. Great. You just made my point. Evolution selects mechanisms that are better at predicting and responding to inputs. Not ones that break causality. That adaptivity is deterministic too. It’s just not simplistic. It’s layered. Sophisticated. But still explainable.

you mean you will twist the meaning of words to fit it into your nihilistic worldview where life is no different the non-life?
Okay.
Explain ho big brains, requiring large amount of energy - evolved if they offer no advantage.
Meaning, if judgments, leading to good choices, are not possible because life has no agency, and choice is an illusion, then how and why did big brains evolve? They seem to be disadvantageous, according to you....they simply make you aware of how impotent you are.
If big brains cannot CHOOSE to do other than what they've done - learn, adapt, or self-control - then why did they evolve at all?

Your whole response boils down to emotional recoil from the idea that people aren’t magic. But they’re not. We are biological systems. Miraculous in complexity—but not exempt from physics.

Really?
Not magical?
Go figure.

What magic is behind the illusion of choice?
What vicious magician has fooled us, and how have we survived being so fooled?

And when you sneer that I’m “desperate to escape culpability”? That’s pure projection. You’re clinging to metaphysical free will because the idea that morality can still exist without it terrifies you. You need blame to feel righteous.

The clinging is on you....
Metaphysical definitions is what you need to dismiss the cocnept fo freedom and will.
Yuo do not apply this method to other concepts, do you?
I never sued metaphysics, hypocrite...I used actions as my foundation.
Do you not see will, in yourself, in others?
Not a thing...an action.

Why do you not apply your method to the cocnept of life, and declare life to be illusory?
Use your metaphysics....define it as immortal...and then claim no life can ever match the criteria you CHOSE.

I don’t. I need truth. That’s the difference.

Oh but you do need lies,.....
The lie that you suffer from an illusion.
You have no interest in truth, because if you did you would begin with what is perceptible by all - actions.
You begin with definitions.

I say...witness the will and yourself choosing and willing.
You say....it's an illusion. Our senses evolved to fool us. A trickster has magically tricked us.
Like flat earth is an illusion, right.
But why is the roundness not?
What perspective will correct me?
The ancients were not fooled....they saw signs that the earth was not flat.
What signs do you see, that life is less than it appears to be?

[phyllo]

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 8:40 am
Just a friendly reminder.

This..


...is Mike's position: you are a meat machine.

Alright, Henry—since you’re so eager to remind everyone, here’s a challenge:

What part of that quote is false?

This part: "You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions."

For it to be true, requires a redefinition of "control" or "you" or both.

Even deterministic machines are considered to "control" things if we use the standard definition.

And as soon as you abstract a "you" out of the background, it gets assigned certain characteristics and behaviors.

A 'cat' has thoughts, desires and makes decisions as soon as one identifies an entity 'cat'.

[BigMike]

Pistolero, your reply is a carousel of rhetorical deflection, misuse of terms, and projection. You dress up confusion as depth and contradiction as subtlety—but here’s the truth, without the fluff:

1. “You begin with definitions.”
No, I begin with physics. With the observable, testable mechanics of the brain and body. I define free will by what’s actually measurable: inputs, processing, outputs—all driven by cause and effect. You want to start with feelings and insist that because something feels like a choice, it must be. But feelings are not evidence. They’re outputs—results of processes, not proof of freedom.

---

2. “Will = focus of energies.”
And what determines the focus? What determines what an organism wants, values, fears, or prioritizes? You never answer. You call it “will” as if naming the behavior explains the mechanism. It doesn’t. You just smuggle in freedom through vague poetry, not evidence.

---

3. “You twist the meaning of words to fit your nihilistic worldview.”
No—I use words precisely so they don’t become tools for self-deception. Free will as you describe it—"the ability to do otherwise"—has no causal explanation. You offer a theatrical shrug and shout “agency!” as if that fills the gap. It doesn’t. Agency isn't freedom from cause—it's just complex, cause-bound behavior.

---

4. “Why did big brains evolve?”
Easy: because brains that better predicted outcomes and adjusted behavior improved survival. That has nothing to do with being metaphysically “free.” It means some systems process inputs better than others. You call that “choice.” I call it adaptive determinism—which is all natural selection ever was.

---

5. “What signs do you see, that life is less than it appears to be?”
I don’t see life as less. I see it as exactly what it is—an unbroken causal chain. You think determinism diminishes life because you’re addicted to fairy tales about free agents unbound by nature. But understanding cause doesn’t cheapen reality—it makes it intelligible. That’s the difference between mysticism and science.

---

You keep accusing me of metaphysics, when I’m the one trying to get you to focus on evidence. On systems, neural pathways, evolutionary biology, and physics. You’ve got no counter but “but I feel like I choose.”

So once again:
You can call determinism “nihilism” all you like. But it’s not a void. It’s a framework. And it doesn’t remove responsibility—it redefines it: not as blame, but as the drive to understand causes so we can improve outcomes.

You want magic. I want clarity.
You need the illusion. I can live without it.

[BigMike]

Alright, Henry—since you’re so eager to remind everyone, here’s a challenge:

What part of that quote is false?

This part: "You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions."

For it to be true, requires a redefinition of "control" or "you" or both.

Even deterministic machines are considered to "control" things if we use the standard definition.

And as soon as you abstract a "you" out of the background, it gets assigned certain characteristics and behaviors.

A 'cat' has thoughts, desires and makes decisions as soon as one identifies an entity 'cat'.

Phyllo, your objection only works if you smuggle in exactly what I’m challenging: an ambiguous “you” with magical properties you can’t define.

You say, “Even deterministic machines are considered to control things.” Sure—in a loose, functional sense. A thermostat “controls” temperature. But does it will to? Does it author its behavior? Of course not—it just reacts according to inputs and preprogrammed thresholds.

When I say “you don’t control your thoughts, desires, or decisions,” I mean you don’t originate them. You don’t generate them from a blank slate. They arise from prior causes: genetics, conditioning, neurobiology, environment—all of which you didn’t select. The illusion of control comes after the fact, when your brain tells a neat little story about what just happened.

You can redefine “control” to mean “whatever behavior the system outputs,” but that makes the word meaningless in this context. It hides the question we’re actually asking:

> Did you choose to be the kind of system that wants what you want, thinks how you think, and chooses what you choose?

No. You didn’t.

And the cat? Same deal. Just another complex system reacting to causes. Assigning “decision-making” to the cat is a shortcut—a linguistic convenience, not a metaphysical claim.

So let’s not play word games.
If you think the quote is false, show me:
Where is the uncaused cause inside you?
Where is the freedom that breaks the causal chain?

If you can’t point to it, then maybe it’s time to stop pretending “control” means what you think it does.

[phyllo]

Phyllo, your objection only works if you smuggle in exactly what I’m challenging: an ambiguous “you” with magical properties you can’t define.

I'm not talking about any "magical properties".

You say, “Even deterministic machines are considered to control things.” Sure—in a loose, functional sense. A thermostat “controls” temperature. But does it will to? Does it author its behavior? Of course not—it just reacts according to inputs and preprogrammed thresholds.

You didn't write "You don’t WILL TO control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions." You just wrote "You don't control your thoughts, ..."

When I say “you don’t control your thoughts, desires, or decisions,” I mean you don’t originate them. You don’t generate them from a blank slate.

I don't know why it would be 'good' to "originate them". One needs to be responding to what is actually happening. Surely that is also necessary for someone with free-will, otherwise you just have random decisions.

You can redefine “control” to mean “whatever behavior the system outputs,” but that makes the word meaningless in this context. It hides the question we’re actually asking:

I'm not redefining it. You are.

> Did you choose to be the kind of system that wants what you want, thinks how you think, and chooses what you choose?

No. You didn’t.

You're choosing between options based on what you want. Nobody else is doing for you.

And the cat? Same deal. Just another complex system reacting to causes. Assigning “decision-making” to the cat is a shortcut—a linguistic convenience, not a metaphysical claim.

It's how abstraction works. It's how we interact with reality.

We don't interact on the level of atoms. That would be completely ineffective.

Where is the uncaused cause inside you?

I didn't say that there was one.

I'm saying that your concepts are inconsistent and faulty.

Even when everything is caused, there is an entity 'you' which chooses, decides and acts.

[henry quirk]

Mike, we -- you and me -- done been down this road already.

I guess your memory is sumthin' less than mine.

So, we'll do it again...

Is it false that the brain operates under physical law?

Your brain is a necessary organ that indeed operates under physical law.

You, though, you are not solely your brain (and body).

Is it false that our thoughts and decisions are generated by brain activity?

The brain most certainly provides the means thru which you think but it is not the source of your thinking.

Is it false that we didn’t choose our genes, our upbringing, our environment, or the events that shaped us?

Yes, you didn't choose a great many things, both internal and external to yourself, but you are not the sum product of those things meshing.

Is it false that inputs—external and internal—drive our behavior?

You are informed by those inputs; influenced, but not driven by them.

As I say, have said, and no doubt will say again. you are a hylomorph. You are substance and spirit, body and soul, together, co-equal. You are a person, a free will. And, yes, you are something special.

I don't dispute the regularities of the world or the flesh, or the influences of either. I simply say you are more than meat.

I say this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is false.

I say all your fine ideas about justice, morality, education, meaning, beauty, etc, ain't worth spit if this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true.

I say you want all the benefits of bein' a free will (justice, morality, education, meaning, beauty, etc) while bein' a meat machine and thereby bein' absolved of responsibility for those benefits.

I say your religion, your cult, is the seed bed of atrocity.

There, load shot. Wipe your face. There's a fiver on the nightstand for ya.

[BigMike]

Mike, we -- you and me -- done been down this road already.

I guess your memory is sumthin' less than mine.

So, we'll do it again...

Is it false that the brain operates under physical law?

Your brain is a necessary organ that indeed operates under physical law.

You, though, you are not solely your brain (and body).

Is it false that our thoughts and decisions are generated by brain activity?

The brain most certainly provides the means thru which you think but it is not the source of your thinking.

Is it false that we didn’t choose our genes, our upbringing, our environment, or the events that shaped us?

Yes, you didn't choose a great many things, both internal and external to yourself, but you are not the sum product of those things meshing.

Is it false that inputs—external and internal—drive our behavior?

You are informed by those inputs; influenced, but not driven by them.

As I say, have said, and no doubt will say again. you are a hylomorph. You are substance and spirit, body and soul, together, co-equal. You are a person, a free will. And, yes, you are something special.

I don't dispute the regularities of the world or the flesh, or the influences of either. I simply say you are more than meat.

I say this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is false.

I say all your fine ideas about justice, morality, education, meaning, beauty, etc, ain't worth spit if this...

Here’s the brutal truth: your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...is true.

I say you want all the benefits of bein' a free will (justice, morality, education, meaning, beauty, etc) while bein' a meat machine and thereby bein' absolved of responsibility for those benefits.

I say your religion, your cult, is the seed bed of atrocity.

There, load shot. Wipe your face. There's a fiver on the nightstand for ya.

Henry, thanks for your sermon. Let’s shovel through it.

You say the brain “is not the source of your thinking.” Great. Then what is? The moon? Aether? A ghost riding shotgun? You don’t say—because you can’t say. You just assert it like it’s self-evident and hope no one presses you to define it. But let me press anyway:

If the brain isn’t the source of thought, then what physical evidence do you have for this other “source”?
Where is it? What does it weigh? How does it interact with neurons? Is it testable, falsifiable, or just convenient?

You write: “You are influenced, not driven.” Cute. That’s the kind of fuzzy, hand-waving nonsense that keeps bad ideas alive. Influence without compulsion? Okay, then show me the chooser—the one who stands outside the system, surveys all influences, and freely selects. Oh right—you can’t. Because every choice is shaped by prior causes. Influence is cause when you remove the imaginary gap you inserted for comfort.

And this bit? “You are not solely your brain.” That’s not an argument. That’s a dodge. If you think there’s more to a person than their physical body, then again: What is it, and how do you know? Don’t tell me stories. Give me data. Otherwise, it’s just superstition in fancier shoes.

You say my worldview invalidates morality, beauty, education, etc. No, Henry—it grounds them. Determinism doesn’t erase compassion, it explains it. It doesn’t kill justice, it refines it. It shows us that people aren’t evil because they “chose” to be; they’re shaped. And if they’re shaped, they can be reshaped. That’s how you fix things instead of just punishing them.

Meanwhile, your view leads nowhere but magical thinking, false responsibility, and punishment rooted in mythology.

And lastly—your closing shot, your little brothel metaphor? All it proves is that when the argument dies, the posturing begins.

You didn’t answer a single question. You waved your hands, invoked a “soul,” and called it a day. That’s not depth. It’s cowardice pretending to be philosophy.

[henry quirk]

Then what is?

Your soul as it is together with your brain and body.

-----

what physical evidence do you have for this other “source”?

click the lil arrow

-----

Where is it? What does it weigh? How does it interact with neurons? Is it testable, falsifiable, or just convenient?

Where you are. Does a organizing principle have mass? Hell if I know. See the link (one if several offer'd in this thread).

-----

show me the chooser—the one who stands outside the system, surveys all influences, and freely selects.

Look in the mirror.

-----

Give me data.

The link, one of several.

-----

You say my worldview invalidates morality, beauty, education, etc.

It does.

-----

No, Henry—it grounds them. Determinism doesn’t erase compassion, it explains it. It doesn’t kill justice, it refines it. It shows us that people aren’t evil because they “chose” to be; they’re shaped. And if they’re shaped, they can be reshaped. That’s how you fix things instead of just punishing them.

Assertion without ground.

-----

your view leads nowhere but magical thinking, false responsibility, and punishment rooted in mythology.

My view is your only route to responsibility, meaning, morality, and an actual life.

-----

your little brothel metaphor?

A cheap shot...*shrug*...I'm not above it.

[BigMike]

Then what is?

Your soul as it is together with your brain and body.

-----

what physical evidence do you have for this other “source”?

click the lil arrow

-----

Where is it? What does it weigh? How does it interact with neurons? Is it testable, falsifiable, or just convenient?

Where you are. Does a organizing principle have mass? Hell if I know. See the link (one if several offer'd in this thread).

-----

show me the chooser—the one who stands outside the system, surveys all influences, and freely selects.

Look in the mirror.

-----

Give me data.

The link, one of several.

-----

You say my worldview invalidates morality, beauty, education, etc.

It does.

-----

No, Henry—it grounds them. Determinism doesn’t erase compassion, it explains it. It doesn’t kill justice, it refines it. It shows us that people aren’t evil because they “chose” to be; they’re shaped. And if they’re shaped, they can be reshaped. That’s how you fix things instead of just punishing them.

Assertion without ground.

-----

your view leads nowhere but magical thinking, false responsibility, and punishment rooted in mythology.

My view is your only route to responsibility, meaning, morality, and an actual life.

-----

your little brothel metaphor?

A cheap shot...*shrug*...I'm not above it.

Henry,

You’ve finally done it. You’ve invoked a neurosurgeon’s outdated intuitions, appealed to a metaphysical ghost, and called it science. Let’s tear that apart.

---

Penfield and the “Immaterial Will”

Penfield didn’t find abstract thought via cortical stimulation? Okay—and? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The brain is not a light switch. You don’t just poke one neuron and get Shakespeare. Modern neuroscience understands cognition as an emergent process involving distributed networks—not single-point triggers. That’s basic.

If Penfield’s stimulations failed to evoke abstract thought, the right conclusion is: abstract thought requires coordinated neural activity, not “therefore, it’s immaterial.” That leap is so hilariously unwarranted, it’s like saying: “I hit the radio antenna and didn’t hear jazz—must be ghosts singing.”

---

Where’s your “soul”?

You admit it’s not measurable. Not falsifiable. No predictive power. Yet you claim it interacts with matter. That’s supernaturalism, plain and simple. If your “organizing principle” affects neurons but can’t be studied or quantified, then it’s magic, not science. Dressing it in Latin doesn’t make it physics.

---

“Look in the mirror”

Cute. But a mirror doesn’t show you someone outside the system—it shows you the system itself: a body, a brain, a history of influences written into flesh. If that’s your “chooser,” it’s a chooser with no freedom, just a highly complex mechanism reacting to input.

---

Morality, responsibility, and compassion

You call it “assertion without ground.” Fine. But here’s the ground:

- In a deterministic model, we don’t excuse harm—we explain it.
- We don’t “absolve” people—we understand the causes and change them.
- We replace blame with accountability, and punishment with prevention.
- That’s how you refine morality—not erase it.

Meanwhile, your model is rooted in myth: a free-floating ghost with special exemption from physics. That’s not moral responsibility. That’s moral fantasy.

---

The Brothel Metaphor

You say you're not above it. You’re right. You aren’t. And neither is your philosophy—because when the arguments run dry, you always retreat to insult and mysticism.

You didn’t present a single testable mechanism for your “soul.” You waved Penfield’s dated speculations like a magic wand and declared victory. That's not an argument. That's a religious relic in a lab coat.

So once more:
What part of what I said is false?
Not your feelings. Not your poetry.
The physics. The facts. The chain of cause.
If you can’t answer that, your philosophy isn’t deep—it’s hollow.