How AI, Robotics, and Clean Energy Will End Labor and Money – A Future Where Everything Is Free

[Atla]

Atla, repeating “under determinism” like a broken record doesn’t make your position coherent.

You still haven’t answered the core question:
What does “blame” add that causal responsibility and corrective response don’t?

Because if your definition of “blame” is just: “We hold people responsible for their actions because those actions caused harm,” then congratulations — you’ve just described causal accountability, not traditional blame. You’re not using the word “blame” to mean anything different — just louder, and with more emotional baggage.

But if you do mean something more — if you think “blame” should carry guilt, condemnation, or retributive punishment — then you’ve slipped back into metaphysical nonsense, because now you’re treating people as if they could have chosen otherwise, when you know under determinism, they couldn’t.

So either:

- You’re just using the word “blame” redundantly and misleadingly,
or
- You’re contradicting determinism by pretending moral guilt still makes sense.

Which is it? And if it’s the first, then what, exactly, are you defending so vehemently?

One of the issues is this. Let me ask you, if Joe does the "right" thing, for example Joe helps someone out, or Joe saves a life, or Joe popularizes a deterministic philosophy so that humanity will have a better future, or whatever, do you think that Joe should be respected/praised/adored/rewarded/etc. for that?

Because if blaming someone is metaphysical nonsense, then respecting/praising/adoring someone for doing the "right" thing is also metaphysical nonsense. Joe couldn't have done otherwise.

Exactly — and thank you for bringing that up, because this is where most people trip over the symmetry.

You're right: under determinism, praise and blame both need rethinking.

If Joe does something admirable, he deserves recognition — not because he freely chose to do it from some metaphysical perch, but because reinforcing that behavior encourages similar outcomes in others. It’s functional, not metaphysical. Same goes for blame: not because someone “deserves it” in some cosmic sense, but because acknowledging and addressing harmful actions prevents recurrence and protects others.

So yes — Joe couldn’t have done otherwise.
And neither could the person who thanks him.
Or the society that rewards him.

That’s the point.

Praise and blame, in a deterministic view, are tools — not verdicts about moral worth. They help shape the future, not rewrite the past. If you're using praise to model good behavior, it makes sense. If you're using blame just to indulge outrage, it's empty theater.

Now, are you willing to apply that same consistency to both ends of the spectrum? Or does your definition of “blame” only make sense when it’s about satisfying some retributive itch?

You still haven't addressed what I'm saying. Between the cosmic-magical free will stuff and the entirely artificial, technical "recognition" of an emotionless android, there are the everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences of blame and praise. Do you not know them?

[BigMike]

One of the issues is this. Let me ask you, if Joe does the "right" thing, for example Joe helps someone out, or Joe saves a life, or Joe popularizes a deterministic philosophy so that humanity will have a better future, or whatever, do you think that Joe should be respected/praised/adored/rewarded/etc. for that?

Because if blaming someone is metaphysical nonsense, then respecting/praising/adoring someone for doing the "right" thing is also metaphysical nonsense. Joe couldn't have done otherwise.

Exactly — and thank you for bringing that up, because this is where most people trip over the symmetry.

You're right: under determinism, praise and blame both need rethinking.

If Joe does something admirable, he deserves recognition — not because he freely chose to do it from some metaphysical perch, but because reinforcing that behavior encourages similar outcomes in others. It’s functional, not metaphysical. Same goes for blame: not because someone “deserves it” in some cosmic sense, but because acknowledging and addressing harmful actions prevents recurrence and protects others.

So yes — Joe couldn’t have done otherwise.
And neither could the person who thanks him.
Or the society that rewards him.

That’s the point.

Praise and blame, in a deterministic view, are tools — not verdicts about moral worth. They help shape the future, not rewrite the past. If you're using praise to model good behavior, it makes sense. If you're using blame just to indulge outrage, it's empty theater.

Now, are you willing to apply that same consistency to both ends of the spectrum? Or does your definition of “blame” only make sense when it’s about satisfying some retributive itch?

You still haven't addressed what I'm saying. Between the cosmic-magical free will stuff and the entirely artificial, technical "recognition" of an emotionless android, there are the everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences of blame and praise. Do you not know them?

Yes, I know them — we all do. Blame and praise, as you’re describing them now, are evolved emotional responses. They’re not illusions; they’re real psychological phenomena. But the fact that they’re real experiences doesn’t make them epistemically valid foundations for morality or justice.

We also evolved disgust, fear of snakes, tribal hostility, and a love of sugar — but we don’t treat those as unassailable truths or unquestionable guides for building a fair society. We analyze them. We refine them. We evolve past them when they stop serving us.

So when you appeal to “everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences,” you're basically saying: “But this is what we feel.” And yes — determinism doesn’t deny feelings. It explains them. It just doesn't let feelings drive policy without scrutiny.

So here's the question back to you:

Are you defending the usefulness of those emotions as tools to shape behavior (like I am)?
Or are you insisting that our feelings of blame and praise should be accepted as moral truths in themselves?

Because if it’s the latter, then you're substituting evolutionary impulse for ethical reasoning — and you might want to ask how often that has worked out well.

[Atla]

Exactly — and thank you for bringing that up, because this is where most people trip over the symmetry.

You're right: under determinism, praise and blame both need rethinking.

If Joe does something admirable, he deserves recognition — not because he freely chose to do it from some metaphysical perch, but because reinforcing that behavior encourages similar outcomes in others. It’s functional, not metaphysical. Same goes for blame: not because someone “deserves it” in some cosmic sense, but because acknowledging and addressing harmful actions prevents recurrence and protects others.

So yes — Joe couldn’t have done otherwise.
And neither could the person who thanks him.
Or the society that rewards him.

That’s the point.

Praise and blame, in a deterministic view, are tools — not verdicts about moral worth. They help shape the future, not rewrite the past. If you're using praise to model good behavior, it makes sense. If you're using blame just to indulge outrage, it's empty theater.

Now, are you willing to apply that same consistency to both ends of the spectrum? Or does your definition of “blame” only make sense when it’s about satisfying some retributive itch?

You still haven't addressed what I'm saying. Between the cosmic-magical free will stuff and the entirely artificial, technical "recognition" of an emotionless android, there are the everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences of blame and praise. Do you not know them?

Yes, I know them — we all do. Blame and praise, as you’re describing them now, are evolved emotional responses. They’re not illusions; they’re real psychological phenomena. But the fact that they’re real experiences doesn’t make them epistemically valid foundations for morality or justice.

We also evolved disgust, fear of snakes, tribal hostility, and a love of sugar — but we don’t treat those as unassailable truths or unquestionable guides for building a fair society. We analyze them. We refine them. We evolve past them when they stop serving us.

So when you appeal to “everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences,” you're basically saying: “But this is what we feel.” And yes — determinism doesn’t deny feelings. It explains them. It just doesn't let feelings drive policy without scrutiny.

So here's the question back to you:

Are you defending the usefulness of those emotions as tools to shape behavior (like I am)?
Or are you insisting that our feelings of blame and praise should be accepted as moral truths in themselves?

Because if it’s the latter, then you're substituting evolutionary impulse for ethical reasoning — and you might want to ask how often that has worked out well.

Of course I'm defending their usefulness. They are important parts of everyday human life, we probably couldn't function without them as social beings. But they aren't unquestionable foundations for moral truth.

[BigMike]

You still haven't addressed what I'm saying. Between the cosmic-magical free will stuff and the entirely artificial, technical "recognition" of an emotionless android, there are the everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences of blame and praise. Do you not know them?

Yes, I know them — we all do. Blame and praise, as you’re describing them now, are evolved emotional responses. They’re not illusions; they’re real psychological phenomena. But the fact that they’re real experiences doesn’t make them epistemically valid foundations for morality or justice.

We also evolved disgust, fear of snakes, tribal hostility, and a love of sugar — but we don’t treat those as unassailable truths or unquestionable guides for building a fair society. We analyze them. We refine them. We evolve past them when they stop serving us.

So when you appeal to “everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences,” you're basically saying: “But this is what we feel.” And yes — determinism doesn’t deny feelings. It explains them. It just doesn't let feelings drive policy without scrutiny.

So here's the question back to you:

Are you defending the usefulness of those emotions as tools to shape behavior (like I am)?
Or are you insisting that our feelings of blame and praise should be accepted as moral truths in themselves?

Because if it’s the latter, then you're substituting evolutionary impulse for ethical reasoning — and you might want to ask how often that has worked out well.

Of course I'm defending their usefulness. They are important parts of everyday human life, we probably couldn't function without them as social beings. But they aren't unquestionable foundations for moral truth.

Great — then we agree on something meaningful:
Blame and praise are tools, not truths.

They’re evolved social mechanisms that help shape behavior in groups — and like any tool, they can be used wisely or recklessly. The danger comes when people confuse the emotional satisfaction of blame with moral justification, or when they elevate those feelings to untouchable absolutes.

You’re right — we probably couldn’t function without them in some form. But the challenge now is learning how to steer them in a deterministic world.
That means:

- Praising actions to model what helps others, not to canonize heroes.
- Holding people causally responsible for harm, not to exact retribution, but to protect and improve.
- Using emotion as a signal, not as a substitute for reasoned judgment.

This is how we stay human and rational.
So if we both agree the old moral theater needs updating — but not erasing our emotional range — then maybe we’re not so far apart.

[Belinda]

Again: I said under determinism. Why can't you simply process that? Blame/morality/guilt are very real psychological/social/evolved phenomena.

Yes, they are evolved phenomena. But we can do better than what has evolved so far. You don't need any magic to do so, you simply need to learn from experience.

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

You nor anyone else can explain how blaming criminals prevents recidivism, or how blaming is any use in diplomatic transactions between nations. Modern social life is not like that.

Where vendetta is the only mode of social control ( as between Montagues and Capulets, or among pre-Islamic Arabian tribes), then blaming is essential .

[Atla]

Yes, they are evolved phenomena. But we can do better than what has evolved so far. You don't need any magic to do so, you simply need to learn from experience.

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

You nor anyone else can explain how blaming criminals prevents recidivism, or how blaming is any use in diplomatic transactions between nations. Modern social life is not like that.

Where vendetta is the only mode of social control ( as between Montagues and Capulets, or among pre-Islamic Arabian tribes), then blaming is essential .

No one said anything about vendetta being the only mode of social control. But you can take the side of the offenders too much, as is your custom. Too much of that is abetting.

[seeds]

If Mike won't hold the raper responsible (cuz rocks gotta roll), he certainly won't hold the dad responsible when he puts one in the raper's chest and another in his head.

Right?

Right.

However, to stay within the bounds of BigMike's decree which requires there to be a "yesterday" in the equation, the dad will have to make sure not to get caught or turn himself in the same day he deals with his daughter's killer.

I mean, how else are we supposed to interpret this...

"...You don't blame a person today for what they could not have done differently yesterday..."

...?

Nevertheless, it goes without saying that BigMike will find some clever way around the dilemma by perhaps showing us the difference between "blaming" the murderer for the horrible deed and that of holding the murderer "responsible" for it.
_______

Alright, let’s do this clearly, sharply, and without sugarcoating it — since you’re so eager to drag determinism into a discussion on the future of society, we’ll deal with it right here, point by point:

It's not that I am eager to drag determinism into a discussion on the future of society,...

...no, it's just that I'm not going to let you get away with the fact that in one thread you spent months beating us over the head with your insistence that the philosophy of "Determinism" suggests that a human is nothing more than a...

"...deterministic machine operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill..."

...while in this new thread you are insisting that the future AI and robots are different from humans because, as you yourself said earlier...

"...Machines aren't people..."

Can you not see the problem wherein one breath you insist that humans (people) are...

"...machines..."

...while in the very next breath you insist that...

"...Machines aren't people..."

...?

You then followed that up with...

Robots aren't moral agents.
They don't feel. They don't suffer.
They don't have rights.
They’re tools, like shovels and steam engines—only vastly more powerful.

To which I responded with...

"...taking into account all of your innumerable prior posts that have promoted Determinism and how humans are nothing more than material "brains and bodies" that are proceeding along some sort of "cause and effect" trajectory,...

...then where, exactly, is a moral "agent" located in the makeup of a human?

And instead of answering that precise question regarding the location of a moral "agent" within the makeup of a human "machine," you wandered off into the weeds, talking about moral "agency."

So, again, I ask you, if you are going to differentiate us "meat machines" from future "synthetic machines" based on the premise that the synthetic machines are, as you said,...

"...not moral agents..."

...then where, exactly, is the moral "agent"...

(that's "agent," not "agency")

...located within the makeup of a human of which you yourself insist is nothing more than a (soulless/agentless) "machine"?
_______

[BigMike]

Right.

However, to stay within the bounds of BigMike's decree which requires there to be a "yesterday" in the equation, the dad will have to make sure not to get caught or turn himself in the same day he deals with his daughter's killer.

I mean, how else are we supposed to interpret this...

...?

Nevertheless, it goes without saying that BigMike will find some clever way around the dilemma by perhaps showing us the difference between "blaming" the murderer for the horrible deed and that of holding the murderer "responsible" for it.
_______

Alright, let’s do this clearly, sharply, and without sugarcoating it — since you’re so eager to drag determinism into a discussion on the future of society, we’ll deal with it right here, point by point:

It's not that I am eager to drag determinism into a discussion on the future of society,...

...no, it's just that I'm not going to let you get away with the fact that in one thread you spent months beating us over the head with your insistence that the philosophy of "Determinism" suggests that a human is nothing more than a...

"...deterministic machine operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill..."

...while in this new thread you are insisting that the future AI and robots are different from humans because, as you yourself said earlier...

"...Machines aren't people..."

Can you not see the problem wherein one breath you insist that humans (people) are...

"...machines..."

...while in the very next breath you insist that...

"...Machines aren't people..."

...?

You then followed that up with...

Robots aren't moral agents.
They don't feel. They don't suffer.
They don't have rights.
They’re tools, like shovels and steam engines—only vastly more powerful.

To which I responded with...

"...taking into account all of your innumerable prior posts that have promoted Determinism and how humans are nothing more than material "brains and bodies" that are proceeding along some sort of "cause and effect" trajectory,...

...then where, exactly, is a moral "agent" located in the makeup of a human?

And instead of answering that precise question regarding the location of a moral "agent" within the makeup of a human "machine," you wandered off into the weeds, talking about moral "agency."

So, again, I ask you, if you are going to differentiate us "meat machines" from future "synthetic machines" based on the premise that the synthetic machines are, as you said,...

"...not moral agents..."

...then where, exactly, is the moral "agent"...

(that's "agent," not "agency")

...located within the makeup of a human of which you yourself insist is nothing more than a (soulless/agentless) "machine"?
_______

Alright, let’s make this unambiguous — and please, this time try to follow carefully.

You keep harping on this “gotcha” as if you’ve uncovered some deep contradiction, when really you’re just conflating two entirely different uses of the word “machine.”

When I say humans are deterministic machines, I mean we are biological systems — physical entities governed by cause and effect, just like all other matter in the universe. That doesn’t mean we’re mechanically identical to robots or toasters. It means that our actions — our thoughts, our feelings, our moral impulses — all emerge from complex causal processes rooted in physical substrates like the brain.

When I say robots aren’t people, I mean they lack the properties that give rise to experience — namely, subjective consciousness, the capacity to feel, to suffer, to reflect, to care. That’s not hand-waving. That’s the very thing that grounds our moral relevance.

So no, there's no contradiction. You’re misapplying philosophical terms because you’re obsessed with the word agent while refusing to deal with the actual framework.

Let’s break it down:

Humans
- Are deterministic systems, yes.
- But they feel, suffer, reason, and learn from experience.
- That’s what makes them morally relevant.
- When we talk about moral agency, we’re not saying there’s a ghost inside. We’re saying that the structure of the human brain supports complex behavioral modeling, social cognition, and norm-tracking — all of which evolve from causal, physical processes.
- The “moral agent” is not a soul. It’s the function of the system itself.

AI and Robots
- May simulate behavior, but have no evidence of inner experience.
- No feeling = no suffering = no grounds for moral consideration.
- You can turn them off like a lightbulb without any moral weight.

So when I say robots aren't moral agents, I'm not contradicting determinism. I'm identifying the absence of moral salience — the thing that matters ethically. A pile of circuits running algorithms isn't the same as a human being with a nervous system, trauma, memory, and the ability to reflect on consequences. Even if both are deterministic, one matters morally; the other doesn’t.

Now — stop twisting simple, consistent points into imaginary paradoxes.
If you're still confused, I suggest reading more and reacting less.

[Belinda]

Yes, and another determinist can say that completely throwing out blame is more abetting to crime than a good idea. You two shouldn't speak for all determinists.

You nor anyone else can explain how blaming criminals prevents recidivism, or how blaming is any use in diplomatic transactions between nations. Modern social life is not like that.

Where vendetta is the only mode of social control ( as between Montagues and Capulets, or among pre-Islamic Arabian tribes), then blaming is essential .

No one said anything about vendetta being the only mode of social control. But you can take the side of the offenders too much, as is your custom. Too much of that is abetting.

True, the criminal always should be informed that society disapproves of their crime.

[seeds]

Alright, let’s make this unambiguous — and please, this time try to follow carefully.

You keep harping on this “gotcha” as if you’ve uncovered some deep contradiction, when really you’re just conflating two entirely different uses of the word “machine.”

When I say humans are deterministic machines, I mean we are biological systems — physical entities governed by cause and effect, just like all other matter in the universe. That doesn’t mean we’re mechanically identical to robots or toasters. It means that our actions — our thoughts, our feelings, our moral impulses — all emerge from complex causal processes rooted in physical substrates like the brain.

When I say robots aren’t people, I mean they lack the properties that give rise to experience — namely, subjective consciousness, the capacity to feel, to suffer, to reflect, to care. That’s not hand-waving. That’s the very thing that grounds our moral relevance.

So no, there's no contradiction. You’re misapplying philosophical terms because you’re obsessed with the word agent while refusing to deal with the actual framework.

It's amazing how oblivious you are of how often you inadvertently highlight and acknowledge the existence of the proverbial "ghost" in the machine of which you so vehemently deny exists.

In a post that you ignored in an alternate thread, I addressed something similar to what you stated above. Here's what you said, along with my (ignored) response back to you...

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..

Yet you keep implying that there is.

You may have already realized this yourself, but I suggest that the scientific model of reality that best fits your deterministic philosophy is the "Block Universe" model.

And just for funzies, I ran that past ChatGPT (emphasis mine)...

Me:
If someone is a proponent of hardcore determinism, so much so that they deny the existence of free will, then wouldn't the idea of a "block universe" be a perfect explanation for the type of determinism they are promoting?

ChatGPT:
Yes, the block universe concept is a very fitting metaphysical model for a hardcore determinist, especially one who denies free will. Let’s unpack why that is.

1. What is the Block Universe?

The block universe is a model of reality derived from the theory of relativity, particularly Einstein's spacetime framework. It suggests that past, present, and future all exist equally — that is, time is not "flowing," but is instead another dimension like space. All events are laid out in a four-dimensional spacetime "block." There’s no objective "now"; every point in time exists just as surely as every point in space.

2. Why Hardcore Determinists Might Prefer It

A hardcore determinist holds that:

• Every event is necessitated by preceding causes and the laws of nature.
  
  Free will is an illusion — we don't truly "choose" anything; we only follow the path determined by prior events.

The block universe supports this by:

• Eliminating temporal becoming — there's no real openness or possibility; everything is fixed.
  
  Implying ontological determinism — all events (past, present, future) are equally real and unchangeable.

In other words, not only is the future causally determined, it's also already there, just like a mountain is already there whether we’ve climbed to the peak or not.

Bottom line: Yes, the block universe is an excellent metaphysical picture for a hardcore determinist. It gives a robust framework for the denial of free will by portraying time as static and all events as eternally fixed.

Whaddaya think?

(Btw, just for the record, I place the "Block Universe" model right up there with the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," of which I personally believe is one of the most ridiculous theories ever conceived.)
_______

[BigMike]

Alright, let’s make this unambiguous — and please, this time try to follow carefully.

You keep harping on this “gotcha” as if you’ve uncovered some deep contradiction, when really you’re just conflating two entirely different uses of the word “machine.”

When I say humans are deterministic machines, I mean we are biological systems — physical entities governed by cause and effect, just like all other matter in the universe. That doesn’t mean we’re mechanically identical to robots or toasters. It means that our actions — our thoughts, our feelings, our moral impulses — all emerge from complex causal processes rooted in physical substrates like the brain.

When I say robots aren’t people, I mean they lack the properties that give rise to experience — namely, subjective consciousness, the capacity to feel, to suffer, to reflect, to care. That’s not hand-waving. That’s the very thing that grounds our moral relevance.

So no, there's no contradiction. You’re misapplying philosophical terms because you’re obsessed with the word agent while refusing to deal with the actual framework.

It's amazing how oblivious you are of how often you inadvertently highlight and acknowledge the existence of the proverbial "ghost" in the machine of which you so vehemently deny exists.

In a post that you ignored in an alternate thread, I addressed something similar to what you stated above. Here's what you said, along with my (ignored) response back to you...

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..

Yet you keep implying that there is.

You may have already realized this yourself, but I suggest that the scientific model of reality that best fits your deterministic philosophy is the "Block Universe" model.

And just for funzies, I ran that past ChatGPT (emphasis mine)...

Me:
If someone is a proponent of hardcore determinism, so much so that they deny the existence of free will, then wouldn't the idea of a "block universe" be a perfect explanation for the type of determinism they are promoting?

ChatGPT:
Yes, the block universe concept is a very fitting metaphysical model for a hardcore determinist, especially one who denies free will. Let’s unpack why that is.

1. What is the Block Universe?

The block universe is a model of reality derived from the theory of relativity, particularly Einstein's spacetime framework. It suggests that past, present, and future all exist equally — that is, time is not "flowing," but is instead another dimension like space. All events are laid out in a four-dimensional spacetime "block." There’s no objective "now"; every point in time exists just as surely as every point in space.

2. Why Hardcore Determinists Might Prefer It

A hardcore determinist holds that:

• Every event is necessitated by preceding causes and the laws of nature.
  
  Free will is an illusion — we don't truly "choose" anything; we only follow the path determined by prior events.

The block universe supports this by:

• Eliminating temporal becoming — there's no real openness or possibility; everything is fixed.
  
  Implying ontological determinism — all events (past, present, future) are equally real and unchangeable.

In other words, not only is the future causally determined, it's also already there, just like a mountain is already there whether we’ve climbed to the peak or not.

Bottom line: Yes, the block universe is an excellent metaphysical picture for a hardcore determinist. It gives a robust framework for the denial of free will by portraying time as static and all events as eternally fixed.

Whaddaya think?

(Btw, just for the record, I place the "Block Universe" model right up there with the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," of which I personally believe is one of the most ridiculous theories ever conceived.)
_______

Alright, let’s do this — one more time — without theatrical fog machines or quotes from yourself pretending they’re refutations.

You keep trying to smuggle in a "ghost in the machine" by misreading what determinism allows, then acting shocked when I use terms like “feelings,” “suffering,” or “consciousness.” Let me clarify it yet again:

1. Consciousness exists.
Not as a soul, not as a floating ghost, but as an emergent property of a highly complex, causally-structured biological system. That system — the human brain — is built by evolution, shaped by experience, and operates within the laws of physics. There’s no contradiction in saying deterministic systems can have consciousness. That’s literally what neuroscience is mapping out every day.

2. Subjective experience doesn’t violate determinism.
Your repeated confusion — or misrepresentation — hinges on thinking that if we can feel things, we must somehow be floating above causality. No. We feel things because we’re deterministic. Our brains are wired to produce qualia in response to internal and external stimuli. That doesn't imply magic. That implies complexity.

3. There’s no “inadvertent” admission of a ghost.
You quote me as saying humans are machines with feelings. That’s not a Freudian slip. That’s the whole point. That’s what makes humans morally relevant in a deterministic universe — not that we’re exceptions to physical law, but that we’re complex enough within it to generate sentience.

Now, as for the block universe stuff:

Yes, the block universe model — where all points in spacetime are equally “real” — is compatible with hard determinism. So what? It doesn’t change anything I’ve said. Causality still explains what happens within that spacetime block. The future doesn’t cause the past. The arrow of time, thermodynamics, and human experience all still unfold locally. If anything, the block universe is just a philosophical zoom-out. It doesn’t give you a free will coupon.

So no — you’re not catching me in contradictions. You’re just recycling a misunderstanding, over and over, because you're unwilling to accept that complexity doesn’t imply metaphysics.

If you want to keep playing semantic hide-and-seek with the word “agent,” fine. But don’t pretend you’re doing philosophy. You’re doing rhetorical cosplay — and the costume’s wearing thin.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote;

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 there are nerve endings that receive impressions, sometimes from organs of special sense and sometimes more scattered throughout the organism such as sense of balance. There is an endocrine system and brain chemicals that affect mood.

We can't feel perceptions or mood of what another person feels, from the inside so to speak or as we say "subjectively,"



The action of a brain is called a mind. Minds are private. We can't feel each other's pain or mood like we can view each others' nervous systems .

This is because brains can feel locations of pain from other parts of the body but have no mechanism for feeling pain themselves ; brains don't feel pain Brains feel all sorts of sensations localised elsewhere than in brain itself, but have no feedback mechanism to some hypothetical other part of the brain which is popularly called the ghost in the machine.

If ,for instance , you and I were same nervous system we would share the same qualia, all other systems being normal. I understand there is a species of tree where what appear to be individuals share the same 'brain' so that they actually do feel each others' minds , experience the same 'qualia'. If you and I shared the same brain we would experience the same lavender.

Seeds wrote about the Block Universe.

In other words, not only is the future causally determined, it's also already there, just like a mountain is already there whether we’ve climbed to the peak or not.

True ,but the Block Universe does not apply to us, as we are creatures of time not eternity .

As creatures of time we are poised on foremost tip of the forward deck of the Titanic like her in the film. Scary.

[commonsense]

You nor anyone else can explain how blaming criminals prevents recidivism, or how blaming is any use in diplomatic transactions between nations. Modern social life is not like that.

Where vendetta is the only mode of social control ( as between Montagues and Capulets, or among pre-Islamic Arabian tribes), then blaming is essential .

No one said anything about vendetta being the only mode of social control. But you can take the side of the offenders too much, as is your custom. Too much of that is abetting.

True, the criminal always should be informed that society disapproves of their crime.

Even a sociopath knows what society’s norms are for right and wrong.

[Belinda]

No one said anything about vendetta being the only mode of social control. But you can take the side of the offenders too much, as is your custom. Too much of that is abetting.

True, the criminal always should be informed that society disapproves of their crime.

Even a sociopath knows what society’s norms are for right and wrong.

By "society" I meant the establishment. Operating alongside the establishment are alternative societies Crimes are crimes as defined by the established society.

Right and wrong sometimes are not reflected in the established social order, as most here agree about Nazi Germany , Stalinist Russia, and Taliban Afghanistan.

[Belinda]

Exactly — and thank you for bringing that up, because this is where most people trip over the symmetry.

You're right: under determinism, praise and blame both need rethinking.

If Joe does something admirable, he deserves recognition — not because he freely chose to do it from some metaphysical perch, but because reinforcing that behavior encourages similar outcomes in others. It’s functional, not metaphysical. Same goes for blame: not because someone “deserves it” in some cosmic sense, but because acknowledging and addressing harmful actions prevents recurrence and protects others.

So yes — Joe couldn’t have done otherwise.
And neither could the person who thanks him.
Or the society that rewards him.

That’s the point.

Praise and blame, in a deterministic view, are tools — not verdicts about moral worth. They help shape the future, not rewrite the past. If you're using praise to model good behavior, it makes sense. If you're using blame just to indulge outrage, it's empty theater.

Now, are you willing to apply that same consistency to both ends of the spectrum? Or does your definition of “blame” only make sense when it’s about satisfying some retributive itch?

You still haven't addressed what I'm saying. Between the cosmic-magical free will stuff and the entirely artificial, technical "recognition" of an emotionless android, there are the everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences of blame and praise. Do you not know them?

Yes, I know them — we all do. Blame and praise, as you’re describing them now, are evolved emotional responses. They’re not illusions; they’re real psychological phenomena. But the fact that they’re real experiences doesn’t make them epistemically valid foundations for morality or justice.

We also evolved disgust, fear of snakes, tribal hostility, and a love of sugar — but we don’t treat those as unassailable truths or unquestionable guides for building a fair society. We analyze them. We refine them. We evolve past them when they stop serving us.

So when you appeal to “everyday human social/psychological/evolved experiences,” you're basically saying: “But this is what we feel.” And yes — determinism doesn’t deny feelings. It explains them. It just doesn't let feelings drive policy without scrutiny.

So here's the question back to you:

Are you defending the usefulness of those emotions as tools to shape behavior (like I am)?
Or are you insisting that our feelings of blame and praise should be accepted as moral truths in themselves?

Because if it’s the latter, then you're substituting evolutionary impulse for ethical reasoning — and you might want to ask how often that has worked out well.

To be sure praise and blame are tools not references to Cosmic values, although many praise and blame as if by reference to Cosmic values.

Evolutionary impulse presumably worked out well enough for some long ago humanoids. An evolutionary leap for a subsection of humanoids was when our ancestors codified laws. Laws are founded on reason not passions.

Praise is never irrational where praise is due. The irrationality of blaming the criminal is pushed aside and free will is implied because that particular definition of human nature saves time and expense in the practical admin of justice.