Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Free is a qualifier.

I do not define it as these hypocrites to, by choosing a definition that will satisfy their desires.

Free does not mean independent from existence.

Free, like strong, like power, refers to Will, as a descriptive qualifier, vaulting a relationship.

So will is not absolutely free, as it is not absolutely powerful - it is relatively so.

What is Will - intentional action. Action with an objective.

So, what is free?

A measurement of options.

To propose that “free” (to act freely, to freely choose) is a qualifier (and a linguistic qualifier) is an astute and useful point.

Within any causal complex, the possibility of free action will always be qualified.

Hypocrisy is also an interesting designator.

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk′rĭ-sē)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krīnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krīnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]

I think we are defining hypocrisy as a form of lying and misrepresentation of intentions on one hand. But also lying to one’s own self on the other.

Mike presents himself as Grand Reformer with a new, scientistic anthropology. One can only imagine how such a convoluted social philosophy would play out in reality when handled by factions driven by power objectives.

[Pistolero]

As always....do we not perceive differences?
Do these categories not exhibit testable differences in academic and athletic performances?

Are not sub-species, no matter what name you give them, a necessary part of natural selection?
Nothing to do with which is superior or slavery or brutality...but simply the truth.

Now, we can all perceive three general racial categories but if you want more precision use linguistic families, to trace the genetic boundaries of racial/ethnic types.
I know the shortcoming and the outliers, of this method, but language traces back human cultural development to its origins.
If we combine Language Family Trees, with phenotypes we get a general outline of human sub-species.
They explain historical events and why differences persists, no matter the efforts, the willful choices, of men like little Mike.

[Pistolero]

To propose that “free” (to act freely, to freely choose) is a qualifier (and a linguistic qualifier) is an astute and useful point.

Within any causal complex, the possibility of free action will always be qualified.

This is where these hypocrites start...by corrupting language.
They don't start with the experienced, perceptible act...but with a definition that conveniently makes the cocnept supernatural. Magical.
They "define it out of existence", as they've done with 'god' and 'morality.'

Hypocrisy is also an interesting designator.

The most effective lies begin with self-deceit.

I think we are defining hypocrisy as a form of lying and misrepresentation of intentions on one hand. But also lying to one’s own self on the other.

Yes...and therein is the irony.
They CHOOSE the definition of a cocnept in rider to achieve a desirable objective.
They willfully, intentionally, CHOOSE to make 'free' impossible to exist, even if it is on a subconscious level.

Their self-deceit is always exposed if you push them, using their own logic.

How then did intelligence evovle?
Little Mikey tells us about the advatags do big brains but not how these advantages are applied, if not through actions.
Why are races not accepted as being determined?
Little Mickey does not tell us why the universe does not determine races?
Is it benevolent and just?

In both cases, Little Mickey wants us to deny what we experience...and accept his theories, because they are humanitarian.

Mike presents himself as Grand Reformer with a new, scientistic anthropology. One can only imagine how such a convoluted social philosophy would play out in reality when handled by factions driven by power objectives.

Has not science and academia, not been infected by the same mental virus?
Why do they seek the "beginning of existence"?
Does existence require one?

What of this M-Theory?
Has it not presumed that everything is knowable, and that omniscience is attainable?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pistolero: These hypocrites are amazing.

Magical thinking.

Defensive projections — they accuse you of what they fear they are most guilty of.

Whatever challenges their worldview, is an illusion....a product of the human mind. Like race and gender.

But when it suits them, then no man is responsible for his circumstances.

Underneath many of the conflicts of the present — they all seem to be coming to the surface at the same time — we find conflicts within the idea-realm.

If we start with a statement like “the established Liberal order is being challenged” we then will likely have to turn back and examine the idea-constructs on which this “order” was established.

The “order of ideas” that produces not so much Mike but this idea-edifice that he constructs or, perhaps, like a postmodern hermit crab which he has crawled into and made his “home”, can be, should be, examined by analysis down into its component parts.

Mike, you naughty naughty man! Come back while you still can!

[Pistolero]

Underneath many of the conflicts of the present — they all seem to be coming to the surface at the same time — we find conflicts within the idea-realm.

If we start with a statement like “the established Liberal order is being challenged” we then will likely have to turn back and examine the idea-constructs on which this “order” was established.

Yes....so we must explore the relationship of man with his own existence, determinism how man uses language, i.e., semiotics.
Psychology is a factor.

Do they begin with a perceptible phenomenon, or with text?
Which comes first, physis or metaphysis?

How are words/symbols applied: to engage or to disengage; to clarify or to obscure?

The “order of ideas” that produces not so much Mike but this idea-edifice that he constructs or, perhaps, like a postmodern hermit crab which he has crawled into and made his “home”, can be, should be, examined by analysis down into its component parts.

Mike, you naughty naughty man! Come back while you still can!

In my experience all nihilistic worldviews, whether spiritual, e.g.., Abrahamic triad, or secular, e.g., Marxism, postmodernism, use words to invert the relationship of a subject with its object of interest.
And this is wilful....irony of ironies - even if subconscious.

They begin with the objective, and then use words to adjust reality to fit the objective.
In this case they want to deny life all agency. They want to excuse the poor man, the black man, form his bad behaviors....because if they don't they must admit another cause.
Does low IQ cause poverty or poverty low IQ?
A bit of both, no.
Nature/Nurture.
Nurture exacerbates what is already present as a probability.

Do human systems prevent social migrations?
Yes.
Those in power want to maintain their power.

Are genetics a factor?
Yes.
Are genetic differences caused by social factors?
Not entirely.

Little Mickey stays within the liberal paradigm....social factors are responsible for human disparities.
The victims had no part in the determination of their fate. Race is not a factor. Sex is not a factor.
Only human cruelty.
But how is this possible if men have no agency?
Were these cruel men gods? Did they have free-will, and was choice not an illusion, for them?

Perhaps yes....because fools like little Mickey can easily be manipulate and exploited.

[BigMike]

All right. So let’s take this, piece by piece, no skipping, no rushing, no hiding from the uncomfortable parts.

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.

Yes—and that’s the heart of it, isn’t it? You’re describing what many intuitively feel about agency. That there’s some part of the self, some ghost in the machine, hovering just above the chain of causes, unbound by physics, surveying options from outside the stream of time and then stepping in to choose. But that vantage? If we stay honest—and I mean rigorously, scientifically honest—it’s nowhere to be found in the data. It’s a projection. A story we tell ourselves. And once you apply the conservation laws—the unbroken chain of cause and effect—agency, in that metaphysical sense, begins to dissolve.

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.

And yes, this is the part that bites. If there’s no free will, then how do we talk about morality, about good? If everything is caused—your thoughts, your actions, even this question—then isn’t “good” just a product of causal forces too?

But here’s where it gets interesting: we don’t have to rely on a cosmic definition of good. We observe what produces well-being, what reduces harm, what fosters stability and understanding in a society. We’re not appealing to divine command or metaphysical ideals. We're grounding “the good” in outcomes. Empirical ones. And that’s not authority, that’s method. It’s not special knowledge—it’s just a commitment to truth over ideology.

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.

I get why it might sound like that. But here’s the distinction: the argument isn’t built on personal revelation or academic elitism—it’s built on the laws of nature. Gravity doesn’t care who understands it. Neither does the second law of thermodynamics. And neither do the causal underpinnings of human behavior. What does matter is whether we interpret them honestly and apply them wisely. Anyone can do it. But few want to. Because the implications are inconvenient.

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

That’s the rub, though. The cosmos doesn't have views. It doesn’t prefer. It doesn’t want. There’s no intent there. Just process. Just lawful unfolding. So to say “determinism has an object in view” is to personify it—to slip agency back in through the back door. But determinism isn’t a character in a novel. It’s a structural condition of the universe.

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).

Exactly. That’s the shared foundation. The cosmos is indifferent. Which makes our responsibility greater, not less. If there’s no cosmic shepherd guiding the flock toward goodness, then it’s on us—caused beings though we are—to build systems that reduce suffering and prevent destruction. That’s not delusion. That’s facing reality and choosing—in the deterministic sense—to act in ways that align with what history, science, and empathy tell us is survivable, sustainable, and decent.

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.

Sure, they could. Panels have done that before. Socrates drank hemlock. Galileo was imprisoned. People who challenge deep beliefs often trigger immune responses in the cultural psyche. That’s part of the causal system too. But that doesn’t invalidate the argument. If my conclusions are built from evidence, and my logic is sound, then any attempt to silence or pathologize me becomes part of the problem the argument exposes.

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

Here’s the reference point: the universe is causally closed. Every event has a cause. Belief in uncaused agency has led to systems of punishment, blame, inequality, and war. If we abandon that belief, we can design systems that address causes rather than punishing symptoms. That’s the moral shift. That’s the practical shift. That’s the reference point.

Not because I feel it’s right. Not because I want it to be. But because it’s what the evidence demands.

[Pistolero]

Here we go again with Little Mickey's social activism.

Yes—and that’s the heart of it, isn’t it? You’re describing what many intuitively feel about agency. That there’s some part of the self, some ghost in the machine, hovering just above the chain of causes, unbound by physics, surveying options from outside the stream of time and then stepping in to choose. But that vantage? If we stay honest—and I mean rigorously, scientifically honest—it’s nowhere to be found in the data. It’s a projection. A story we tell ourselves. And once you apply the conservation laws—the unbroken chain of cause and effect—agency, in that metaphysical sense, begins to dissolve.

No ghost, Mickey....agency is an act, nor a ghost.
Everything, threatening your magical worldview, is an act.

Is the act scientific.
How does science build its theories?
It observes what?
Behaviors. Activities, Little Mikey

How does advantage manifest itself, Mickey, if not through actions....choices?

And yes, this is the part that bites. If there’s no free will, then how do we talk about morality, about good? If everything is caused—your thoughts, your actions, even this question—then isn’t “good” just a product of causal forces too?

This is, indeed what "bites" your naive delusions.
Mickey....ALL value judgements - including your religious understanding of good vs evil - are relative to an objective.
YOUR objective, Mickey is social justice, and this taints your judgements.
There is nothing objectively good, Mickey....all is relative...what does 'relative mean'...relative to the subject's objectives.
For you race is 'evil' because your objective is not clarity and truth, but social justice...your ideal utopia where all men live in peace and harmony.
But nature doesn't give a shit about your naive objectives, little pathetic Mickey...little boy with a big bad name.

But here’s where it gets interesting: we don’t have to rely on a cosmic definition of good. We observe what produces well-being, what reduces harm, what fosters stability and understanding in a society. We’re not appealing to divine command or metaphysical ideals. We're grounding “the good” in outcomes. Empirical ones. And that’s not authority, that’s method. It’s not special knowledge—it’s just a commitment to truth over ideology.

What produces fitness, Mickey? Sheltering?
Let's say that you put a herd of sheep, sheeple like you, in a farm and you protect them from wolves and parasites and illness....will you get a healthy herd, Mickey?
What if there are no predators in a park....what happens to it?

What happens if you propagate unfit mutations, Mickey?
Will you get a healthy viable herd or a sickly one?

How is IQ naturally selected, if choice is an illusion and will is not relatively free?
How does advantage manifest in real time, if not through actions, such as choices?

[BigMike]

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.

Your entire philosophy, I think because it is (obviously?) postmodern, lefty and progressive at its very core, is delightfully amenable to parody and also to ridicule.

Okay. Let's start here—with the label. “Postmodern, lefty, progressive.” That’s a cluster of associations you're applying, not an analysis of substance. Now, if your critique is that the conclusions resemble progressive positions—more empathy, more social responsibility, more accountability for systemic causes—sure. I won’t deny that. But that doesn’t make the argument ideological. It makes it convergent with values that emerge when you take cause and effect seriously and apply it to human society.

Now, “amenable to parody.” Fair enough. Any worldview that goes far enough in undermining social myths—especially the myth of free will—can seem absurd when dragged into hyperbole. But if your only basis for ridicule is exaggeration of its implications, that’s not a critique of the logic. That’s theater. The question still stands: is it true?

The function of parody (my use in any case) is to extend your policies into an imagined future.

And there it is: the straw man enters stage left. You’re not critiquing the evidence or structure of the argument. You’re critiquing your own projection of where this leads. Fine—predicting implications is part of the game. But if you’re going to parody the future, you have to ground it in the core principles you’re mocking. Extend the argument faithfully, not as a caricature. Otherwise, it’s not a mirror—it’s just a mask you're painting.

Your view of determined reality is similar to an older cosmological idea about astrological alignment. You cannot get away from this Mike.

No. This needs a clean distinction. Astrology is the claim that celestial positions mysteriously influence human character and fate. Determinism, in the framework I’m laying out, is not about influence in a mystical sense—it’s about causality governed by physical laws: conservation of momentum, thermodynamics, electromagnetic interaction, etc. You might say both involve the idea that things are set in motion, but one is folklore, the other is physics.

So yes, people once sought cosmic patterns in the stars. But that was before we understood atomic structure, statistical mechanics, neurobiology, and the structure of space-time. Saying my view is “like astrology” because it sees humans as part of a causally-closed system is like saying climate science is like divination because both predict the future.

I submit that your views can be submitted to scrutiny. And when carefully examined they self-indicate how bizarre their grounding actually is.

Good. Submit them. Scrutiny is the whole point. But the test isn’t whether something seems bizarre. Quantum mechanics is bizarre. Black holes are bizarre. The bizarre doesn’t invalidate—it just challenges comfortable categories.

What exactly is “self-indicating” here? You’re hinting at a kind of circularity or contradiction, but you haven’t pinpointed one. You’re saying, “When you look at this, it’s crazy.” But that’s not an argument. That’s an impression. If you want to show that the grounding is flawed, isolate the premise. Challenge it with evidence. Don’t just say it “seems strange.” Strange ideas have often turned out to be the most accurate ones.

You know of course that I see such ideas as flowing from a demented mind, a strange and even twisted psychology! (Like a mad professor!)

Yes, and I hear you saying that. Loud and clear. And I also hear the implication: that the ideas are suspect because they emerge from a psychology you find unrelatable or unsettling. But now we’re on shaky ground.

Because when you pathologize the person instead of confronting the argument, you’re not debating anymore. You’re diagnosing. You’ve stepped out of philosophy and into psychiatry. Which, ironically, is precisely the kind of thing that authoritarian regimes have done to political dissidents. And if that’s the lens, then who’s really acting like the ideologue here?

I know that you disagree — vehemently! — that the psychological angle is a fair one to labor with. But I think it is necessary.

I disagree—not because psychology is irrelevant, but because ad hominem speculation can easily become a substitute for engagement. If someone believes, based on physics and biology, that the will is not free, and they can articulate the logic, then the focus must stay on the structure of that argument.

If you want to talk psychology, then talk all psychology. Bring in motivated reasoning. Cognitive dissonance. Confirmation bias. Evolutionary roots of tribal morality. Not just the “twisted” mind of the determinist, but also the coping mind of the believer in free will.

You want it to be necessary to scrutinize the psychology of belief? Fine. Let’s do it. But the blade cuts both ways. If determinism sounds mad to you, let’s explore why belief in undetermined agency sounds sane to you. Because one of those positions has no empirical evidence. And it’s not mine.

[Pistolero]

Here we go again with Little Mickey's social activism.

Yes—and that’s the heart of it, isn’t it? You’re describing what many intuitively feel about agency. That there’s some part of the self, some ghost in the machine, hovering just above the chain of causes, unbound by physics, surveying options from outside the stream of time and then stepping in to choose. But that vantage? If we stay honest—and I mean rigorously, scientifically honest—it’s nowhere to be found in the data. It’s a projection. A story we tell ourselves. And once you apply the conservation laws—the unbroken chain of cause and effect—agency, in that metaphysical sense, begins to dissolve.

No ghost, Mickey....agency is an observable falsifiable act, nor a ghost.
Everything, threatening your magical worldview, is an act.

Is the act scientifically verifiable?
How does science build its theories?
It observes what?
Behaviors. Activities, Little Michelle.

How does advantage manifest itself, Mickey, if not through actions....choices?

And yes, this is the part that bites. If there’s no free will, then how do we talk about morality, about good? If everything is caused—your thoughts, your actions, even this question—then isn’t “good” just a product of causal forces too?

This is, indeed what "bites" your naive delusions.
Mickey....ALL value judgements - including your religious understanding of good vs evil - are relative to an objective.
YOUR objective, Mickey is social justice, and this taints your judgements.
There is no objectively good in existence, Mickey....all is relative...what does 'relative mean'...relative to the subject's objectives.
For you race is 'evil' because your objective is not clarity and truth, but social justice...your ideal utopia where all men live in peace and harmony.
But nature doesn't give a shit about your naive objectives, little pathetic Mickey...little boy with a big bad name.

But here’s where it gets interesting: we don’t have to rely on a cosmic definition of good. We observe what produces well-being, what reduces harm, what fosters stability and understanding in a society. We’re not appealing to divine command or metaphysical ideals. We're grounding “the good” in outcomes. Empirical ones. And that’s not authority, that’s method. It’s not special knowledge—it’s just a commitment to truth over ideology.

What produces fitness, Mickey? Sheltering?
Let's say that you put a herd of sheep, sheeple like you, in a farm, and you protect them from wolves and parasites and illness....will you get a healthy herd, Mickey?

What if there are no predators in a park....what happens to it?

What happens if you propagate unfit mutations, Mickey?
Will you get a healthy viable herd or a sickly one?

How is IQ naturally selected, if choice is an illusion and will is not free?
How does advantage manifest in real time, if not through actions, such as choices?

[BigMike]

Here we go again with Little Mickey's social activism.

Yes—and that’s the heart of it, isn’t it? You’re describing what many intuitively feel about agency. That there’s some part of the self, some ghost in the machine, hovering just above the chain of causes, unbound by physics, surveying options from outside the stream of time and then stepping in to choose. But that vantage? If we stay honest—and I mean rigorously, scientifically honest—it’s nowhere to be found in the data. It’s a projection. A story we tell ourselves. And once you apply the conservation laws—the unbroken chain of cause and effect—agency, in that metaphysical sense, begins to dissolve.

No ghost, Mickey....agency is an observable falsifiable act, nor a ghost.
Everything, threatening your magical worldview, is an act.

Is the act scientifically verifiable?
How does science build its theories?
It observes what?
Behaviors. Activities, Little Michelle.

How does advantage manifest itself, Mickey, if not through actions....choices?

And yes, this is the part that bites. If there’s no free will, then how do we talk about morality, about good? If everything is caused—your thoughts, your actions, even this question—then isn’t “good” just a product of causal forces too?

This is, indeed what "bites" your naive delusions.
Mickey....ALL value judgements - including your religious understanding of good vs evil - are relative to an objective.
YOUR objective, Mickey is social justice, and this taints your judgements.
There is no objectively good in existence, Mickey....all is relative...what does 'relative mean'...relative to the subject's objectives.
For you race is 'evil' because your objective is not clarity and truth, but social justice...your ideal utopia where all men live in peace and harmony.
But nature doesn't give a shit about your naive objectives, little pathetic Mickey...little boy with a big bad name.

But here’s where it gets interesting: we don’t have to rely on a cosmic definition of good. We observe what produces well-being, what reduces harm, what fosters stability and understanding in a society. We’re not appealing to divine command or metaphysical ideals. We're grounding “the good” in outcomes. Empirical ones. And that’s not authority, that’s method. It’s not special knowledge—it’s just a commitment to truth over ideology.

What produces fitness, Mickey? Sheltering?
Let's say that you put a herd of sheep, sheeple like you, in a farm, and you protect them from wolves and parasites and illness....will you get a healthy herd, Mickey?

What if there are no predators in a park....what happens to it?

What happens if you propagate unfit mutations, Mickey?
Will you get a healthy viable herd or a sickly one?

How is IQ naturally selected, if choice is an illusion and will is not free?
How does advantage manifest in real time, if not through actions, such as choices?

You're not looking for answers, Pistolero—you’re looking for a punching bag. But let me make one thing absolutely clear: if you have to distort what I say to keep your arguments afloat, then your problem isn’t with me—it’s with reality.

You go on and on about “observable acts” as if I’ve ever denied them. You throw around terms like “choices” and “will” and pretend I don’t acknowledge them. I do. What I reject—because evidence demands it—is the metaphysical baggage you sneak in alongside those terms. You want to say that just because a brain processes inputs and produces outputs, there must be some “freedom” in there. But what you mean by freedom is never defined in a way that survives basic scrutiny. You want the drama of agency without the burden of explaining how it exists within a universe governed by physical law.

You talk about science “observing behavior” like that saves your case. Sure—science observes behavior. And then it explains it. That’s the difference between you and me. I want explanations. You want poetry that flatters your ego.

As for value—yes, it’s relative. I’ve never pretended otherwise. But once you define an objective—like minimizing harm, or increasing well-being—you can start building toward that end empirically. You might not care about those goals, but don’t pretend nature handed you your own. You didn’t choose them. You were shaped by them. Just like I was.

You ask how advantage manifests if we’re just machines. Easy: by being better machines. Machines that adapt more efficiently, learn faster, predict more accurately. That’s the beauty of determinism—it doesn’t erase complexity, it explains it.

So spare me the sanctimonious frothing about utopias and sickly herds. Your caricature of my view isn’t just dishonest—it’s lazy. You keep mistaking reactionary cynicism for insight. It’s not. It’s just noise.

[Pistolero]

When you explain how big brains, producing better judgments, controvert them to advantages, without actions/choices, I'll take you seriously, Little Mickey.
Social activist.

Why doesn't determinism apply to races, Mickey?
Is existence fair and humane?

How will you bring about your utopian world without free-will and choices?
Magically?

[BigMike]

When you explain how big brains, producing better judgments, controvert them to advantages, without actions/choices, I'll take you seriously, Little Mickey.
Social activist.

Why doesn't determinism apply to races, Mickey?
Is existence fair and humane?

How will you bring about your utopian world without free-will and choices?
Magically?

Pistolero, maybe if you understood how brains actually work, you’d stop waving around “choice” like it’s some kind of magic token.

Big brains are advantageous because they’re better at predicting outcomes, recognizing patterns, and storing relevant experience to optimize survival. That’s not mystical. It’s biology. Neurons don’t just sit around chanting about freedom—they fire in response to inputs, form circuits, and strengthen or weaken connections through use. That’s how memory and learning happen.

When you learn something, like how to navigate terrain or recognize danger, your brain literally rewires itself. Synaptic weights change. New connections form. Patterns stabilize. You store experience in a way that lets you respond better next time. You call that “choice.” I call it adaptive processing—the output of a massively parallel, causally governed system. And that system is constantly updating itself based on feedback from the environment. No magic needed.

So yes—advantage manifests through action. But those actions aren’t free-floating. They’re outputs of a cause-bound, learning system. A system shaped by genetics, environment, history, and experience. The better the system, the better the output. That’s evolution. That’s determinism.

And as for your crack about race—yes, determinism applies there too. Genetics, evolutionary pressures, cultural inheritance, geography—all part of the causal chain. It’s just not as cartoonishly black-and-white as you want it to be.

Now if you're done flailing, maybe take a breath and try engaging with how the system actually functions instead of lobbing the same tired insults every two posts.

[Pistolero]

Big brains are advantageous because they’re better at predicting outcomes, recognizing patterns, and storing relevant experience to optimize survival. That’s not mystical. It’s biology. Neurons don’t just sit around chanting about freedom—they fire in response to inputs, form circuits, and strengthen or weaken connections through use. That’s how memory and learning happen.

Y es, mickey....but you refuse to tell me how this manifests in real time, if not through actions and superior choices.
How does this advantage become actual and not heretical?

I have a theory on the best course of action...how do I test my theory's superiority, Mickey?

When you learn something, like how to navigate terrain or recognize danger, your brain literally rewires itself. Synaptic weights change. New connections form. Patterns stabilize. You store experience in a way that lets you respond better next time. You call that “choice.” I call it adaptive processing—the output of a massively parallel, causally governed system. And that system is constantly updating itself based on feedback from the environment. No magic needed.

Yuo call it "adaptive processing"...and is this not an action, Mickey?
But Mickey, all your fancy words to evade the fact that this must be applied in real time....how Mickey/
How, if will is absolutely not free and chocie is an illusion?
How does this advatage manifest in reality?
Through what means?

So yes—advantage manifests through action. But those actions aren’t free-floating. They’re outputs of a cause-bound, learning system. A system shaped by genetics, environment, history, and experience. The better the system, the better the output. That’s evolution. That’s determinism.

They don;'t need to be "free floating" Mickey....you are infected with your definition of free which you will not offer.
Free does not mean outside causality, Mickey.
I don't have to be a god to be free or to have power, or to know and understand, Mickey.

And as for your crack about race—yes, determinism applies there too. Genetics, evolutionary pressures, cultural inheritance, geography—all part of the causal chain. It’s just not as cartoonishly black-and-white as you want it to be.

But you don't even know what my positions are, Mickey, and you call them "cartoonish."

I never divided the races into black and whiter, did I, Mickey?
Is pigmentation the only thing that we use to discern races?
What about black bears...how do we differentiate them from Polar bears?
Fur pigmentation?

Mickey...your American upbringing is infecting your judgements.
your Liberalism is, definitely, corrupting your choices....of word definitions and objectives.

Mickey....is nature fair and just?
If not, then is it not you, and your ilk, that choose to make it so?
Is it not your naivete driving you to will this future world where all human disparities are erased?

Have you thought this through, Mickey?
What happens to a herd of bovines when they are kept shelter d Ni a barn, away from predators, and taken care of and medicated...what happens to them, Mickey?
Do they live "happily ever after", or do they become increasingly dependent and sickly?

[BigMike]

Big brains are advantageous because they’re better at predicting outcomes, recognizing patterns, and storing relevant experience to optimize survival. That’s not mystical. It’s biology. Neurons don’t just sit around chanting about freedom—they fire in response to inputs, form circuits, and strengthen or weaken connections through use. That’s how memory and learning happen.

Y es, mickey....but you refuse to tell me how this manifests in real time, if not through actions and superior choices.
How does this advantage become actual and not heretical?

I have a theory on the best course of action...how do I test my theory's superiority, Mickey?

When you learn something, like how to navigate terrain or recognize danger, your brain literally rewires itself. Synaptic weights change. New connections form. Patterns stabilize. You store experience in a way that lets you respond better next time. You call that “choice.” I call it adaptive processing—the output of a massively parallel, causally governed system. And that system is constantly updating itself based on feedback from the environment. No magic needed.

Yuo call it "adaptive processing"...and is this not an action, Mickey?
But Mickey, all your fancy words to evade the fact that this must be applied in real time....how Mickey/
How, if will is absolutely not free and chocie is an illusion?
How does this advatage manifest in reality?
Through what means?

So yes—advantage manifests through action. But those actions aren’t free-floating. They’re outputs of a cause-bound, learning system. A system shaped by genetics, environment, history, and experience. The better the system, the better the output. That’s evolution. That’s determinism.

They don;'t need to be "free floating" Mickey....you are infected with your definition of free which you will not offer.
Free does not mean outside causality, Mickey.
I don't have to be a god to be free or to have power, or to know and understand, Mickey.

And as for your crack about race—yes, determinism applies there too. Genetics, evolutionary pressures, cultural inheritance, geography—all part of the causal chain. It’s just not as cartoonishly black-and-white as you want it to be.

But you don't even know what my positions are, Mickey, and you call them "cartoonish."

I never divided the races into black and whiter, did I, Mickey?
Is pigmentation the only thing that we use to discern races?
What about black bears...how do we differentiate them from Polar bears?
Fur pigmentation?

Mickey...your American upbringing is infecting your judgements.
your Liberalism is, definitely, corrupting your choices....of word definitions and objectives.

Mickey....is nature fair and just?
If not, then is it not you, and your ilk, that choose to make it so?
Is it not your naivete driving you to will this future world where all human disparities are erased?

Have you thought this through, Mickey?
What happens to a herd of bovines when they are kept shelter d Ni a barn, away from predators, and taken care of and medicated...what happens to them, Mickey?
Do they live "happily ever after", or do they become increasingly dependent and sickly?

You keep asking the same question like it’s some kind of mic drop—how does advantage manifest in real time? Through action, yes. Through behavior. Through the physical movements of a body whose neural system has processed prior experience and environmental input. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. You’re just pretending I haven’t because it’s the only way you can keep your strawman alive.

You’ve now heard the explanation: A brain, shaped by genetics and environment, processes information, learns from outcomes, rewires its circuitry, and alters its future behavior accordingly. When a human avoids a pit they fell into yesterday, it’s not because of some ghostly “will”—it’s because their neurons stored information that led to new output. We can call that a “choice,” sure, but it’s just an effect with a knowable, traceable cause.

You're demanding that I call it a free choice—as if calling a spade a scepter changes what it is. But your definition of “free” is so rubbery you could slap it on anything from a chess move to a coin flip and call it agency.

And let’s be real: Your obsession with trying to corner me on race reveals more about your agenda than mine. I said determinism applies across the board. Evolution doesn’t care about your politics—it’s a process, not a pamphlet. You want to argue about racial traits? Fine. But drop the games. Acknowledge the cause-and-effect basis that you yourself appeal to, then stop pretending you’re the only one allowed to use it.

And yes, nature is brutal, indifferent, unfair. That’s why your cartoon version of my worldview—where I supposedly want to hug the wolves and make the deer into social workers—isn’t just dishonest, it’s lazy. I want to reduce unnecessary suffering—not deny that nature is cruel.

You keep building these clumsy caricatures of my views because it’s easier than dealing with what I actually say. I don’t need utopias. I don’t believe in “happily ever after.” I believe in systems that respond to data, that reduce harm without the fiction of blame, and that evolve intelligently. You want to sneer at that? Fine. But at least argue with what’s really there.

Now if you’ve got a response, bring it. But maybe try for once to be honest about the position you're attacking.

[Pistolero]

You keep asking the same question like it’s some kind of mic drop—how does advantage manifest in real time? Through action, yes. Through behavior. Through the physical movements of a body whose neural system has processed prior experience and environmental input. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. You’re just pretending I haven’t because it’s the only way you can keep your strawman alive.

Through actions, Mickey....choices being actions.
How, then, are they naturally selected if they are not free and illusions?

You’ve now heard the explanation: A brain, shaped by genetics and environment, processes information, learns from outcomes, rewires its circuitry, and alters its future behavior accordingly. When a human avoids a pit they fell into yesterday, it’s not because of some ghostly “will”—it’s because their neurons stored information that led to new output. We can call that a “choice,” sure, but it’s just an effect with a knowable, traceable cause.

To know is to guide your future choices, Mickey.
This is impossible if choices are illusions, boy.
Choices are actual, not magical illusions, some magician cast upon us all.
Choices matter.

You're demanding that I call it a free choice—as if calling a spade a scepter changes what it is. But your definition of “free” is so rubbery you could slap it on anything from a chess move to a coin flip and call it agency.

A qualifiers, mickey, can be "slapped onto" any concept.
Strong, willed...strong physique. Strong mind....strong constitution....yes manchild.
Free choice, free lunch, free spirit, free entry, free will, yes manchid...none of these are illusions. None of these re magical.
All qualifiers can be "slapped onto" any cocnept.

Like the number one...one moron, one imbecile, one retard, one piece of shit, one genius, one horse, one unicorn....

And let’s be real: Your obsession with trying to corner me on race reveals more about your agenda than mine. I said determinism applies across the board. Evolution doesn’t care about your politics—it’s a process, not a pamphlet. You want to argue about racial traits? Fine. But drop the games. Acknowledge the cause-and-effect basis that you yourself appeal to, then stop pretending you’re the only one allowed to use it.

The masks are on your face, Mickey.

You refuse to define the term 'free' or 'will', and declare that free-will is not absolutely so...
But it doesn't have to be absolutely so, to be real, Mickey....

And yes, nature is brutal, indifferent, unfair. That’s why your cartoon version of my worldview—where I supposedly want to hug the wolves and make the deer into social workers—isn’t just dishonest, it’s lazy. I want to reduce unnecessary suffering—not deny that nature is cruel.

All declarations, manchild.
You use terms to pretend you are profound when all you are doing is avoiding the term "choice.'

I'm not the one claiming choice is an illusion, Mickey...you are.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
I see chocie in action. I urge others to se for themselves....to look into their past and se when they experienced making a choice.
It need not be free form causality, form need, from motive, from desire....that's your definition Mickey.
A supernatural acquirement.

Choice is pat of causality. It is intentional causality, manchild, as opposed to unintentional, will-less.....

You keep building these clumsy caricatures of my views because it’s easier than dealing with what I actually say. I don’t need utopias. I don’t believe in “happily ever after.” I believe in systems that respond to data, that reduce harm without the fiction of blame, and that evolve intelligently. You want to sneer at that? Fine. But at least argue with what’s really there.

"Respond to data" the way YOU want them to....the way YOU will them....they way you prefer....
Your choice on how you define 'free- is not scientific, Mickey....I start with the empirical, the act, the behavior...you start with a conventional definition you found in a book and realized how useful it was to bring about your Utopia.

I smell blood, Mickey...and like all hunters, I pursue the smell...
It's coming from your uterus...are you menstruating or has someone ripped you a new one?

Mickey...at this point your disagreement is over semantics....not the act itself.
Not the act of choosing and willing.
You just do not like the term 'free' and 'choice.'

Would you not use a similar method if you wanted to nullify power, Mickey?
Would you not adopt a definition that would make it impossible for any mortal to attain, so that you can then declare all men to be equally impotent?
Mickey...the magic trick is linguistic. like all spells.
Verbal.
Abracadabra, hocus pocus, let will be unfree by redefining 'free'...poof.
The myriads of mediocrity cheer.
Sleight of tongue.

Have you not made a choice in your life Mickey?
Was it an illusion? Could you not have chosen the other option?
Was not your choice part of what determined your future options?
If yes...then you are free.
That's all freedom means, manchild....to have more than one option.