Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[seeds]

If anything, if the world's despotic pigs are convinced that our momentary "blips" of existence on this planet is all there is to life, then why shouldn't they just go ahead and let their worst instincts be their M.O., and grab for as much wealth and power as they can get their greedy clutches on?
_______

From the looks of it, the world's "despotic pigs" already have that view. And some of them seem to have religious affiliations. I mean, Slavery in the US was justified in some circles by people who used whatever interpretations of the Bible. The Holy Roman Empire doesn't seem like it was all that "holy". Netanyahu is quite a marvel, too. Maybe what the world needs is for people to wake up and realize just how fucked we all are in life. I don't know. Nothing else seems to work.

\_('_')_/

I guess my point was that as bad as the general state of human morality is right now, it might become infinitely worse if it were somehow proven -- beyond any shadow of a doubt -- that our momentary existence on earth is truly all there is to life.

In other words, if the "mental governors," so to speak, were removed from our earthly scenario,...

...I'm talking about the spiritually and religiously induced "mental governors" that help to keep the vast majority of humanity's worst instincts from revving out of control,..

...again, if those "governors" were removed, then I shudder to think of how much worse things could get.
_______

[seeds]

You’ve just seen a flurry of passionate responses, sharp jabs, and philosophical counterpunches — and maybe you’re wondering what all this heat is really about.

It’s about this:

Do we actually choose who we are? Or are we the product of everything that came before us?

It seems pretty obvious that we had absolutely no choice when it came to the manifestation of our personal "I Am-ness" which sits at the throne of our mind and consciousness and represents the locus (or focal point) of our sense of "selfness."

Furthermore, it is also obvious that from the very instant that the proverbial "lights" came on in our minds at the moment of birth, the information storage medium that we call a "brain" from which our minds emerged,...

(which, other than containing operating "programs," so to speak, that work to control vital body processes such as "...breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion, and even basic reflexes like swallowing and blinking..." — AI Overview)

...pretty much started out as almost being completely blank in terms of the memories derived from input from the external world.

And the point is that you, BigMike, are making the egregious error of insisting that "who we are" is somehow dependent on the deterministic-like influences of the sum-total of the memories of our life experiences.

Sure, there's no denying the possibility that the veritable "galaxy" of memories that surrounds our central consciousness (surrounds our "I Am-ness") is what greatly influences (determines) the decisions we make,...

...however, that's not who we really are.

No, I suggest that who we each "really" are, is that singularly unique, self-aware, free-willed - "agent"/"I Am-ness"/"soul" - that was somehow awakened into existence at the moment of birth via what seems to be the process of "Strong Emergence" from the human brain.

There's probably a better analogy,...

...but the point is that the accrued memories that seem to have a deterministic, "cause and affect-like" influence on our decision-making processes are no more a literal part of "who we really are" than that of some random gaming software is a literal part of what computer hard drives really are.

Seeds, let me respond clearly.

Yes, there is an “I Am-ness” — a conscious point of reference, a sense of self.

Come on now, BigMike, there is no "conscious" point of reference in your concept of determinism.

There is no self-aware "I Am-ness" with a "sense (feeling) of selfness" present within the unconscious "cogs and gears" of the "meat machines" you've been describing in your deterministic theory.

No, there is just the metaphorical equivalent of an advanced computer program consisting of a chance-derived amalgam of unconscious algorithmic processes that do nothing more than "mimic" the presence of an "I Am-ness"/"self."

In other words, there is nothing present in the makeup of the "machines" you describe in your theory of determinism that is capable of experiencing the "qualia" of, for example, love, or sorrow, or joy, or pain, or ecstasy, or the taste of an apple, or the color and smell of a lavender bush, etc., etc..

But that awareness doesn’t float above the physical system. It emerges from it.

I get it that you simply don't accept the theory (or implications) of "Strong Emergence," however, if it is possible that Copilot's description of "Strong Emergence" is true and actually applies to consciousness,...

Strong Emergence refers to high-level phenomena that cannot, even in principle, be deduced from the properties or interactions of the system's components. These phenomena are considered irreducible and may involve "downward causation," where the high-level system influences its lower-level components. Consciousness is often debated as a potential example of strong emergence.

...then not only does "awareness" ("consciousness"/the "I Am-ness")...

"...float above the physical system..."

...it also, via "...downward causation...," is capable of influencing the "...lower-level components..." of the body and brain from which it emerged.

In other words, even though "awareness" ("consciousness"/the "I Am-ness") does indeed...

"...float above the physical system..."

...it nevertheless is somehow able to exert control over the physical system.

All of which is exemplified every time "awareness"/"consciousness"/the "I Am-ness" "feels" the "qualia" of an attention grabbing "itch" on the physical system's fleshy (often ample) posterior, and willfully moves an arm to reach around to scratch the itch.

Now, you may ask: "...If "awareness"/"consciousness"/the "I Am-ness"...

"...floats above the physical system..."

...then how does it, via so-called "...downward causation..." actually grab hold of and move the conglomeration of atoms that comprise an arm?

To which I suggest that it is probably something loosely similar to how "awareness"/"consciousness"/the "I Am-ness" is able to move the interior fabric of its own mind around just by thinking and willing it to move.

However, there is an established limit to how much willful control we can have over the fabric of the universe,...

...for, unlike the interior fabric of our own minds, we do not have "direct" control over the infinitely malleable substance from which the phenomenal features of the universe are created and thus can only manipulate it "indirectly."

Otherwise, if humans did indeed possess direct willful control over the fabric of the universe in the same way we can control the fabric of our own minds, then the "order" of the universe...

("order" that is essential in the processes involved in awakening humans into existence)

...would be thrown into utter chaos due to everyone changing this outer reality to fit their personal whims and desires, simply by "thinking" their desires into existence.

Now, just to be clear, what I am suggesting is that whatever the (obviously existing and real) mechanism is that allows us to close our eyes and look within our own minds and see, for example, a basketball on the left side of our field of vision and a golf ball on the right side of our field of vision and then willfully (simply by "thinking") move them into opposite positions,...

...is probably the same basic mechanism that allows us to move our bodies, if not "directly" (which is not what is happening) but by triggering something in our brain and nervous system that does the moving for us, simply by willing (or "thinking") things to move.

You say it’s not the sum of memories or experience, but then what exactly is it?

How many times to I have to point out to you that the "it" in question here is that fixed and permanent, eternal aspect of our being that was initially established at the moment of our birth.

Again, "it"...

"...is that singularly unique, self-aware, free-willed - "agent"/"I Am-ness"/"soul" - that was somehow awakened into existence at the moment of birth via what seems to be the process of "Strong Emergence" from the human brain..."

Where does it come from?

It comes from what I suggest is a "natural" and "organic" process that probably extends as far back as eternity itself, wherein members of the "highest species of being in all of reality" replicate themselves by mentally "conceiving" their own offspring (us) "within" themselves.

You speculate it arises via “strong emergence,” yet offer no testable mechanism for how this “agent” steps outside cause and effect to become something metaphysically distinct.

Reread Copilot's definition of "Strong Emergence" supplied above.

You compare memories influencing decisions to software not being part of the hard drive — but that analogy proves my point, not yours. The software runs on the hardware. Change the code, and the output changes. Likewise, change experience or biology, and the behavior changes. The system doesn't need to be a ghost to be an agent. It just needs structure. And it has one.

You completely missed the point of my, perhaps, lame analogy.

And the point was that the "software"...

(i.e., the random accrued experiences which differ from person to person)

...are ephemeral, irrelevant, and disposable compared to the fixed and indestructible permanence of the "hardware" of the eternal "I Am-ness"/"soul" which is capable of evolving into a God level of being, just like the Being in whose "cosmic womb" (the universe) it was "conceived."

Now ^^^that^^^ is the absolute antithesis of the nihilism implicit in your deterministic philosophy.

(Note: the stuff I am suggesting, as crazy as it may sound, is way beyond (and way more logical) than anything that ol' Deepak has ever promoted, so spare me that comparison. )
_______

[BigMike]

...if by “free will” you simply mean the ability to make choices within constraints—based on reasoning, knowledge, and personal strategy—then yes, that’s perfectly compatible with determinism.

But only perhaps in noting how others construe determinism in different ways. In particular, those hard determinists who reject the possibility that responsibility -- moral responsibility in particular -- is compatible with a brain that is entirely in sync with the laws of matter?

On the other hand, we still don't actually know what that means. Well, unless, say, someone here can link us to the definitive resolution.

But that’s not what most people mean when they defend free will. What they mean is: they could have done otherwise in the exact same situation, with the same brain, same influences, and same state of the world. That’s where the conflict arises.

Actually, from my own frame of mind "here and now", the conflicts revolve more around The Gap and Rummy's Rule. We just don't know how wide this gap is...from a crack in the sidewalk to the Grand Canyon.

As a hard determinist, I absolutely reject individual moral responsibility in the traditional sense—because if our thoughts and actions are entirely the product of causal forces outside our control, then blame becomes a fiction.

But that doesn’t mean giving up on accountability or consequences. I replace backward-looking blame with forward-looking responsibility—collective responsibility. That means understanding the causes behind harmful behavior and altering the conditions that produce it. If we don’t like the effects, we don’t moralize—we fix the causes. That’s how progress works.

Every cause—whether it’s a twitch, a thought, or a war—can ultimately be traced to combinations of the four fundamental physical interactions, all operating within the constraints of the conservation laws. That’s not poetry. It’s physics.

And as for your point about The Gap and Rummy’s Rule—yes, that’s precisely why the scientific method is so essential. We don’t deal in absolutes. We don’t “prove” theories; we falsify hypotheses and narrow uncertainty. We move forward not by declaring truth, but by rigorously eliminating falsehood.

So no, we don’t have a “definitive resolution.” We have a process. And that’s enough—for those of us who don’t need superstition to feel grounded.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But that doesn’t mean giving up on accountability or consequences. I replace backward-looking blame with forward-looking responsibility—collective responsibility. That means understanding the causes behind harmful behavior and altering the conditions that produce it. If we don’t like the effects, we don’t moralize—we fix the causes. That’s how progress works.

A man murders his wife because she left him. He had threatened her dozens of times prior to shooting her.

How will his decisions be described? And how will you determine what “the causes behind harmful behavior” were? A team of investigators who will research his past for example?

What “accountability or consequences” will the man be dealt after the causes have been determined?

[Pistolero]

ironic, Mickey's determinism only goes back to social factors - social causality.
He refuses to go back further, beyond social factors.
As if there is no past before the emergence of human civilizations, about 6 000 years ago.
70 000 years before...no causality applies to the present.

Everything must remain within what Mickey and his willing progressives can choose to "correct"....can "heal."
Ironically, he chooses to "correct" causality by intervening....but he has no free-will and his choices are illusions, so who is intervening and how?

He chooses to intervene and 'correct' social injustices.
How will he achieve this if his actions are not his own, because he has no choice?
Choice is another way of describing an action....presented with a series of options.
How will he choose the 'right option" if his choice is an illusion?

Classic postmodern lefty psychosis.
All "injustices" are "caused" by social factors....which can be "changed".....without intent (willful actions) and good choices.
So the implication is that the cosmos will determine a positive change, to accord with Mickey's utopian future, and will use Mickey as its proxy.
Mickey is a passive lens through which cosmic social justice shines through.
He was chosen....he has no choice.
The cosmos did not choose me, it only chose Mickey.....and Mickey had no choice but to become a 'willing agent' of divine justice.
Biblical.

[BigMike]

ironic, Mickey's determinism only goes back to social factors - social causality.
He refuses to go back further, beyond social factors.
As if there is no past before the emergence of human civilizations, about 6 000 years ago.
70 000 years before...no causality applies to the present.

Everything must remain within what Mickey and his willing progressives can choose to "correct"....can "heal."
Ironically, he chooses to "correct" causality by intervening....but he has no free-will and his choices are illusions, so who is intervening and how?

He chooses to intervene and 'correct' social injustices.
How will he achieve this if his actions are not his own, because he has no choice?
Choice is another way of describing an action....presented with a series of options.
How will he choose the 'right option" if his choice is an illusion?

Classic postmodern lefty psychosis.
All "injustices" are "caused" by social factors....which can be "changed".....without intent (willful actions) and good choices.
So the implication is that the cosmos will determine a positive change, to accord with Mickey's utopian future, and will use Mickey as its proxy.
Mickey is a passive lens through which cosmic social justice shines through.
He was chosen....he has no choice.
The cosmos did not choose me, it only chose Mickey.....and Mickey had no choice but to become a 'willing agent' of divine justice.
Biblical.

Pistolero, you're stacking strawmen like firewood and lighting them all at once.

I don’t claim causality starts with society. Quite the opposite—I insist it doesn’t stop there. Social factors, biological factors, evolutionary history, molecular chemistry, particle interactions—all of it is part of the same continuous causal chain. I’ve said this a dozen times, and I’ll say it again: determinism is not a social theory. It’s a physical one. It reaches back billions of years before the first humans, let alone civilizations.

You ask how someone who doesn’t “choose” can “intervene.” But intervention doesn’t require metaphysical authorship. It just requires that change—any change—can have an effect. And it does. I’m not “correcting causality.” I’m part of it. My arguments, like yours, are outputs of that chain. The difference is, I’m not pretending mine are magic.

As for your sarcasm about being a “passive lens” for cosmic justice—sure, let’s run with that. If I was caused to reject superstition and fight for better systems, then great. That causal thread is doing something useful. If you were caused to sneer at it—so be it. But don’t confuse cynicism with depth. You’re just repeating the same empty jabs every religion has ever thrown at people who take reality seriously.

And yes, I’ll keep advocating for justice. Not because I’m a demigod floating above physics—but because it turns out understanding causes is how we build better outcomes. We’re not free. But we’re still part of the process. That’s not divine. That’s just real.

[Pistolero]

No, you're pretending someone magically convinced you that you have a choice.
Illusions, Mickey, are a Magician's trade....YOU claim choice in an illusion. Not I.
Who tricked us, and to what end? Was it Satan, or Prometheus?
Who was this terrible Magi that convinced us that we were free to choose, when we are not?
You saw through the linguistic magic, didn't you Mickey?
You saw that it was an illusion.

I say will is part of causality - an intentional part of it.
Mickey....being part of the process means will (choice) is part of what determines the future.

But you are linguistically confused, so I don't care to convince you that the illusion is caused by your own choices.

I want to know how I can contribute to your quest to 'correct' the injustices, unintentionally made by 'men' who had no choice in the matter?
These "evil" men had no free-will and could not choose other than what they did....so your injustices were caused by cosmic forces.
What forces determined you to be an agent of justice, and how can I hope to be so compelled, when I have no agency?

How, Mickey, does a big brain's advantage manifest in real time, if choice is an "illusion" and it has no free-will.....that is no will able to choose from among many options?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Classic postmodern lefty psychosis.

All "injustices" are "caused" by social factors....which can be "changed".....without intent (willful actions) and good choices.

So the implication is that the cosmos will determine a positive change, to accord with Mickey's utopian future, and will use Mickey as its proxy.

Mickey is a passive lens through which cosmic social justice shines through.

He was chosen....he has no choice.

It is helpful to give it those names: Left-Progressive and Postmodern.

So the implication is that the cosmos will determine a positive change, to accord with Mickey's utopian future, and will use Mickey as its proxy.

Yes, that is an interesting insight. Presently, what has been determined by Determinism is in a non-favorable phase. Similar to an astrologer’s understanding of badly aspected planetary alignments.

The “causes” have aligned disfavorably for a time. So, we just need to wait until the cosmical hard edge softens. Cosmic harmonies will manifest again.

What provides BigMike with his capability of seeing and understanding so rightly? Or are terms like rightly and wrongly too “backward-looking”?

It could very well be that insofar as The Cosmos desires an outcome, that chaos, strife, enmity and outcomes we generally designate as “negative” are necessary.

Everything about BigMike’s program can only result in series of interventions in the causal chains. And many men, with his obvious skills, who see truly and clearly, are called upon to cone forward and to act in our present. For the good of all.

[BigMike]

No, you're pretending someone magically convinced you that you have a choice.
Illusions, Mickey, are a Magician's trade....YOU claim choice in an illusion. Not I.
Who tricked us, and to what end? Was it Satan, or Prometheus?
Who was this terrible Magi that convinced us that we were free to choose, when we are not?
You saw through the linguistic magic, didn't you Mickey?
You saw that it was an illusion.

I say will is part of causality - an intentional part of it.
Mickey....being part of the process means will (choice) is part of what determines the future.

But you are linguistically confused, so I don't care to convince you that the illusion is caused by your own choices.

I want to know how I can contribute to your quest to 'correct' the injustices, unintentionally made by 'men' who had no choice in the matter?
These "evil" men had no free-will and could not choose other than what they did....so your injustices were caused by cosmic forces.
What forces determined you to be an agent of justice, and how can I hope to be so compelled, when I have no agency?

How, Mickey, does a big brain's advantage manifest in real time, if choice is an "illusion" and it has no free-will.....that is no will able to choose from among many options?

Pistolero, let's cut through your theatrical fog.

You're lobbing riddles like they’re revelations—Prometheus, Satan, Magi—as if invoking myth makes your point stronger. But I don’t believe in a magician, and I don’t need one to explain the illusion of choice. Illusions don’t require tricksters. They emerge naturally when a system feels like it’s in control because it can model outcomes. That’s what the brain does—it predicts, processes, narrates. And like every other evolved system, it runs on cause and effect.

You say, “will is part of causality.” Great—we agree. I never said will doesn’t exist. I said it’s not free. It’s shaped, not sovereign. It's a function of the brain, not a ghost in the machine. You're the one clinging to this fantasy that because we feel like we're choosing, that feeling must be telling the truth. Sorry, but feelings lie. That’s half of what neuroscience is.

As for your dramatic concern about injustice: no, I don’t blame “evil men” for acting outside the causal chain. I blame systems, influences, and incentives that produce predictable harm. And yes, that includes “evil men”—who are themselves products of those systems. We can still respond. We can still build. Because causes don't just run one way—they shape us, and we shape back.

What makes a big brain an advantage? Simple: it models more, predicts better, adapts faster. It doesn’t need magic to be powerful. The advantage isn’t “freedom”—it’s flexibility. A thermostat reacts to one variable. A rat learns a maze. A human re-engineers the maze. That’s not sorcery. That’s complexity.

So no, I’m not a chosen prophet of cosmic justice. I’m just someone who understands that if you want less suffering, you change the causes—not beat your chest about honor and will like a bronze-age poem come to life.

Now, if you want to help, stop obsessing over whether agency is metaphysical. Start asking what incentives and systems actually reduce harm. If you can do that, you're part of the solution—whether you feel free or not.

[BigMike]

Classic postmodern lefty psychosis.

All "injustices" are "caused" by social factors....which can be "changed".....without intent (willful actions) and good choices.

So the implication is that the cosmos will determine a positive change, to accord with Mickey's utopian future, and will use Mickey as its proxy.

Mickey is a passive lens through which cosmic social justice shines through.

He was chosen....he has no choice.

It is helpful to give it those names: Left-Progressive and Postmodern.

So the implication is that the cosmos will determine a positive change, to accord with Mickey's utopian future, and will use Mickey as its proxy.

Yes, that is an interesting insight. Presently, what has been determined by Determinism is in a non-favorable phase. Similar to an astrologer’s understanding of badly aspected planetary alignments.

The “causes” have aligned disfavorably for a time. So, we just need to wait until the cosmical hard edge softens. Cosmic harmonies will manifest again.

What provides BigMike with his capability of seeing and understanding so rightly? Or are terms like rightly and wrongly too “backward-looking”?

It could very well be that insofar as The Cosmos desires an outcome, that chaos, strife, enmity and outcomes we generally designate as “negative” are necessary.

Everything about BigMike’s program can only result in series of interventions in the causal chains. And many men, with his obvious skills, who see truly and clearly, are called upon to cone forward and to act in our present. For the good of all.

Alexis, your entire post is an exercise in bad faith and intellectual cowardice. You twist my position into something it never was—then build a smug little altar to your own distortions and light candles to them like it’s some act of philosophical insight. It's not. It’s dishonesty with a thesaurus.

You know damn well I don’t believe the cosmos “desires” anything. I’ve said repeatedly that cause and effect govern everything, including the outcomes we call justice or injustice. That doesn’t mean I think the universe is steering us toward utopia, or that I’m its “proxy.” That’s your cartoon version, created so you can pat yourself on the back for refuting it.

What I’ve actually argued—for the hundredth time—is that understanding causality allows us to build better systems. That’s it. No magic, no mystical harmonies, no cosmic puppeteer gently plucking strings in my favor. Just the plain recognition that if we want better outcomes, we should understand and alter the causes.

But you can’t deal with that directly, can you? Instead, you invent pseudo-mystical nonsense like “the cosmos is in a disfavoring phase,” as if I ever claimed history was a horoscope. You don’t argue against my view—you argue against a parody, because that’s all your slippery, evasive rhetoric can handle.

You smear my position as utopian, while ignoring that I’m the one insisting we ground everything in physics, neuroscience, and observable reality. What’s your answer? Vague spiritual essentialism and poetic babble about “Ideas that transcend our thoughts.” You act like that’s a rebuttal. It’s not. It’s an escape hatch.

Here’s the truth you can’t handle: I don’t need metaphysics, prophecy, or “cosmic harmony” to understand human behavior. And I certainly don’t need your half-baked misreadings and smirking distortions to tell me what I believe.

You’re not here to engage—you’re here to muddy. So next time you decide to misrepresent my views, do me a favor: at least lie with some style.

[Pistolero]

It is helpful to give it those names: Left-Progressive and Postmodern.

These are its most updated variants.

Yes, that is an interesting insight. Presently, what has been determined by Determinism is in a non-favorable phase. Similar to an astrologer’s understanding of badly aspected planetary alignments.

As I said before, postmodernism is a progression of Abrahamism.
These "atheists" lefties are an updated version of Christianity.
They have only eliminated the last divisive concept, the one-god of Abraham, replacing it with cosmic order.

The “causes” have aligned disfavorably for a time. So, we just need to wait until the cosmical hard edge softens. Cosmic harmonies will manifest again.

Civilizations collapse due to their own self-contradictions.

What provides BigMike with his capability of seeing and understanding so rightly? Or are terms like rightly and wrongly too “backward-looking”?

Language.
Compartmentalization.
He begins with word definitions, not actions.

So, he can define 'choice' in a way that satisfies him psychologically, and then use another term to justify his desire to correct injustice.
Self-deceit is part of it.
Orwellian.
Newspeak.

He can dismiss a term, to negate what troubles him in one context, and then use a synonym to affirm the exact same cocnept in another context.

It could very well be that insofar as The Cosmos desires an outcome, that chaos, strife, enmity and outcomes we generally designate as “negative” are necessary.

We must define 'desire'.
Need = product of lack.
Desire = product of excess.
Only living beings need and desire.
Only life wills - has intent, an objective. Has a choice.

All value-judgements refer to an objective - are intentional.

Everything about BigMike’s program can only result in series of interventions in the causal chains. And many men, with his obvious skills, who see truly and clearly, are called upon to cone forward and to act in our present. For the good of all.

Ys, like all men Mickey wants ot wilful intervene, but he's brainwashed, and has adopted a definition of will, and choice, that contradicts his own desire to intervene and have an effect.
The "problem" is choice....or how Mickey chooses to define the words he uses.
It has confused him.....he alludes to a magical trick, and then accuses me of magical thinking.

The source of his self-contradictions is his linguistic choices.
Wittgenstein went into it.

Two competing objectives are fighting in Mickey.
One, a desire for self-absolution, innocence.
The other for "correcting" what has been determined.
This leads to paradoxical use of words.

Choice is an illusion, but he chooses to define it in that way, and then chooses to contradict it by striving to willfully intervene and heal the world of injustice.
So, he both has and does not have agency.

[Pistolero]

You're lobbing riddles like they’re revelations—Prometheus, Satan, Magi—as if invoking myth makes your point stronger. But I don’t believe in a magician, and I don’t need one to explain the illusion of choice. Illusions don’t require tricksters. They emerge naturally when a system feels like it’s in control because it can model outcomes. That’s what the brain does—it predicts, processes, narrates. And like every other evolved system, it runs on cause and effect.

So, the Magician casting its illusion spell is Nature?
Satan, in Biblical terms, is the trickster. Have you replaced Satan with Nature?

HOW Mickey, does it take advantage of what you said, if it has no agency, and choice is an illusion.
How Mickey, does it convert its judgments into actions, if actions are not free and choice is an action?

Mickey, you want it both ways....you want to remain innocent, and also a proactive agent of change.
No, Mickey...if poverty is caused, then one of the causes is man's own choices.
Not totally Mickey.

Society only began 6 000 years ago.
Genetics entail hundreds of thousands of years of causal chains...like racial traits, determined by environmental conditioning.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, if you want to help, stop obsessing over whether agency is metaphysical. Start asking what incentives and systems actually reduce harm. If you can do that, you're part of the solution—whether you feel free or not.

Agency actually does seem to be “metaphysical” in the sense that an action taken in time requires a perspective to the present from a vantage that stands outside and apart from caused events.

What is curious and questionable, to me, is how you know what is “good” if determinism (in the purely physics sense of the word) is examined. You assume a tremendous authority, it seems to me. You really cone across like you have special knowledge and insight.

You could only be, therefore, part of an élite class of seers, social scientists, reformers, and with a very specific political theory.

But I could just as easily, and just as coherently, assert that Determinism or The Cosmos has other objects in view.

But you know as well as I that The Cosmos has no will! It cannot desire outcomes. Only man can (as far as I know).

Curiously then, a panel of experts might be convened and determine that your vision is anti-cosmical. Against the grain of The Cosmos and the good. They could well determine that you are mad or even “psychotic”, and decide your influence must be curtailed.

How would you defend yourself? On what basis? What would be your reference-point for your specific stances?

[Pistolero]

Is not natural selection based on inequalities?
Is not nature fraught in exploitation?

Mickey wants to heal nature.....this is his willful intent, his choice.

But, he must then claim it is not his.....that he had no chocie but to be that.
So, he was chosen for this role.
He is one of the chosen.

[BigMike]

You're lobbing riddles like they’re revelations—Prometheus, Satan, Magi—as if invoking myth makes your point stronger. But I don’t believe in a magician, and I don’t need one to explain the illusion of choice. Illusions don’t require tricksters. They emerge naturally when a system feels like it’s in control because it can model outcomes. That’s what the brain does—it predicts, processes, narrates. And like every other evolved system, it runs on cause and effect.

So, the Magician casting its illusion spell is Nature?
Satan, in Biblical terms, is the trickster. Have you replaced Satan with Nature?

HOW Mickey, does it take advantage of what you said, if it has no agency, and choice is an illusion.
How Mickey, does it convert its judgments into actions, if actions are not free and choice is an action?

Mickey, you want it both ways....you want to remain innocent, and also a proactive agent of change.
No, Mickey...if poverty is caused, then one of the causes is man's own choices.
Not totally Mickey.

Society only began 6 000 years ago.
Genetics entail hundreds of thousands of years of causal chains...like racial traits, determined by environmental conditioning.

Pistolero, I’m done hand-holding through the same bad-faith arguments that have already been answered a hundred times. You keep circling back to the same nonsense—like if you just repackage it in myth or sarcasm, it suddenly becomes profound. It doesn’t. It’s still shallow, confused, and willfully ignorant.

No, nature isn’t a magician. No, I haven’t “replaced Satan.” That’s your cartoon thinking. I don’t believe in illusion as deception by a being—I explain it as a predictable result of how complex, causally bound systems operate. Brains model possibilities, and that model feels like freedom. That’s the illusion. No cosmic trick required.

You keep asking how a person can act “without agency” when I’ve repeatedly explained that agency is just a word we use to describe complex cause-and-effect systems that can predict and adapt. You're not outside the system—you're part of it. Everything you do has causes. That doesn’t make it meaningless—it makes it explainable.

And your race/genetics tangent? Lazy bait. I’m not here to entertain racial essentialism masquerading as philosophy. If you want to talk about evolution, great—let’s talk about it from a scientific standpoint, not as a dog whistle for outdated biological determinism dressed up as “hard truth.”

This isn’t about keeping me innocent, or magical reform fantasies. It’s about understanding the machinery behind outcomes and changing inputs if we want better ones. If that triggers your need for mysticism, blame, or myth, that’s on you.

I’m not playing along. I’m here to cut through the crap. Either engage honestly, or keep shouting at shadows.