The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

An odd denial since I didn't say you were.



Yes, you did. You existed before your exposure to parents, brothers, chums, teachers, the Church of Scotland, novels, film, plays, and poems. You aren't the product of those: you're the apprehender of them. Determinism, as so neatly summed up by my good friend, Mike......sez otherwise.



No, meat machines can't do that. You do. You're not a meat machine: you're a person, a free will.

Question, B: why is it important to you that determinism be real?

I was never separate from others. As a newborn I felt part of my mother. When I was about two or three years old I felt separate from my mother . Thereafter I was subjected to more and more influences from the prevailing culture. I will probably be able to change my mind until I die.
The apprehender of influences is something caused within a huge system of events that is sometimes thought of as God. At no time is the apprehender of influences uncaused either by nature or by God---take your pick.

I certainly do control my thoughts, desires , and decisions because I was taught to do so as a growing child! I can at this moment choose to think about something other than this conversation. This because brainmind has been trained so that I may have that freedom to choose. Children who have never been taught how to focus their thoughts, desires, and decisions are less free than I.

You may take issue with this by the fact that 'brain washing' or indoctrination is also brainmind control, and so it is. I was more fortunate in being given a liberal education. And at this juncture I answer your question "why is is important to me that determinism be real".

Because the alternative is superstitious clutter. My life to date has been determined by circumstances some of which I take responsibility for. i am sufficiently aware of these circumstances for me to be able either to change them or choose to accept them . The "I" who chooses is not a wee man sitting somewhere in my brainmind , but is my memory of what was me yesterday plus my hope for the future.

Belinda, this is just beautifully reasoned. And it opens a door I think a lot of people are hesitant to even peek through, let alone walk through—which is this: if you are aware of the forces that shaped you, if you're conscious of those influences, does that suddenly make you free from them? Or are you just... participating in a more self-aware corner of a determined system?

You say, "I certainly do control my thoughts, desires, and decisions because I was taught to do so as a growing child." Right—taught. By others. Through conditions you didn't choose. Which means even that self-control you feel isn't spontaneous or uncaused—it was programmed in, lovingly and perhaps wisely, but still programmed.

The distinction you make between indoctrination and liberal education is important—but from a deterministic standpoint, both are just different inputs into the same system. Whether a child is trained by authoritarian rules or by open-ended Socratic dialogue, the end result is still a brain conditioned by experience, not a soul stepping outside cause and effect.

And I really appreciate where you land—saying you take responsibility, not because you transcended the causes, but because awareness of them allows you to respond more wisely. That’s not free will in the supernatural sense, but it’s a kind of dignity within determinism. And that’s the sweet spot, isn’t it?

So here’s the follow-up: Do you think acknowledging determinism strengthens our sense of responsibility—or weakens it?

Unfortunately psychoanalysis is very expensive. The best alternative to universal psychoanalysis is to catch the growing child early enough to give him a post enlightenment education.

For the endorsement of this theory , look at those people who actively curtail or make illegal all enlightenment for the masses: Trump and Co . Taliban. Hitler and Co: Make My Country Great Again of each and every nationality and religion.

[BigMike]

… awareness of them allows you to respond more wisely.

In what sense can your actions be said to be determined if your awareness allows you to respond? I suggest “in no sense” is the only coherent answer.

I accept that you are determined not to accept that.

Mick, I see what you're doing there, and it's clever—but it rests on a misunderstanding of what "awareness" is in a deterministic framework.

When I say awareness allows you to respond more wisely, I don’t mean it introduces some spooky, uncaused capacity to override the chain of events. I mean that awareness itself is part of the causal chain. It's not outside the system; it is the system, just functioning at a higher level of complexity.

Think of it like a thermostat. A basic one just flips on or off based on temperature. A smart thermostat learns your habits, factors in humidity, maybe even checks the weather report online. It's still fully determined by inputs—it’s just got more of them, and it integrates them more efficiently.

Human awareness is that smarter thermostat. It doesn't escape causality; it embodies it more richly. So when I say awareness “allows” a wiser response, I’m describing how deterministic processes—with more information, more feedback loops, and a richer internal model—can produce more adaptive outcomes. Not freer ones. Just better-informed ones.

So no, awareness doesn’t make you less determined. It just makes the determination more refined. That’s the sense you’re missing.

Would you say that undermines the determinist position—or actually strengthens it?

[BigMike]

I was never separate from others. As a newborn I felt part of my mother. When I was about two or three years old I felt separate from my mother . Thereafter I was subjected to more and more influences from the prevailing culture. I will probably be able to change my mind until I die.
The apprehender of influences is something caused within a huge system of events that is sometimes thought of as God. At no time is the apprehender of influences uncaused either by nature or by God---take your pick.

I certainly do control my thoughts, desires , and decisions because I was taught to do so as a growing child! I can at this moment choose to think about something other than this conversation. This because brainmind has been trained so that I may have that freedom to choose. Children who have never been taught how to focus their thoughts, desires, and decisions are less free than I.

You may take issue with this by the fact that 'brain washing' or indoctrination is also brainmind control, and so it is. I was more fortunate in being given a liberal education. And at this juncture I answer your question "why is is important to me that determinism be real".

Because the alternative is superstitious clutter. My life to date has been determined by circumstances some of which I take responsibility for. i am sufficiently aware of these circumstances for me to be able either to change them or choose to accept them . The "I" who chooses is not a wee man sitting somewhere in my brainmind , but is my memory of what was me yesterday plus my hope for the future.

Belinda, this is just beautifully reasoned. And it opens a door I think a lot of people are hesitant to even peek through, let alone walk through—which is this: if you are aware of the forces that shaped you, if you're conscious of those influences, does that suddenly make you free from them? Or are you just... participating in a more self-aware corner of a determined system?

You say, "I certainly do control my thoughts, desires, and decisions because I was taught to do so as a growing child." Right—taught. By others. Through conditions you didn't choose. Which means even that self-control you feel isn't spontaneous or uncaused—it was programmed in, lovingly and perhaps wisely, but still programmed.

The distinction you make between indoctrination and liberal education is important—but from a deterministic standpoint, both are just different inputs into the same system. Whether a child is trained by authoritarian rules or by open-ended Socratic dialogue, the end result is still a brain conditioned by experience, not a soul stepping outside cause and effect.

And I really appreciate where you land—saying you take responsibility, not because you transcended the causes, but because awareness of them allows you to respond more wisely. That’s not free will in the supernatural sense, but it’s a kind of dignity within determinism. And that’s the sweet spot, isn’t it?

So here’s the follow-up: Do you think acknowledging determinism strengthens our sense of responsibility—or weakens it?

Unfortunately psychoanalysis is very expensive. The best alternative to universal psychoanalysis is to catch the growing child early enough to give him a post enlightenment education.

For the endorsement of this theory , look at those people who actively curtail or make illegal all enlightenment for the masses: Trump and Co . Taliban. Hitler and Co: Make My Country Great Again of each and every nationality and religion.

Yes—and that’s exactly the point. Those who fear the masses becoming self-aware of their conditioning are the ones most invested in maintaining illusion—of free will, of chosen belief, of national or moral superiority. Enlightenment education doesn’t break the chain of causation; it changes its trajectory.

[mickthinks]

When I say awareness allows you to respond more wisely, … I mean that awareness itself is part of the causal chain. It's not outside the system; it is the system, just functioning at a higher level of complexity.

I realise that your choice of the word “awareness” is intended to describe something within the system you insist must be determined. It is your choice of the word “allows” that cannot be fitted within that system.

Think of it like a thermostat. A basic one just flips on or off based on temperature. A smart thermostat learns your habits, factors in humidity, maybe even checks the weather report online.

Well … the familar basic thermostat is so simple that its lack of awareness is obvious. But so too is the more complex one you describe.

Can you conceive of a thermostat which is sufficiently complex that we would have to consider it to possess conscious awareness? Maybe you can, but I suggest that that thermostat would then no longer be an example of an entity obviously lacking free will.

[Belinda]

When I say awareness allows you to respond more wisely, … I mean that awareness itself is part of the causal chain. It's not outside the system; it is the system, just functioning at a higher level of complexity.

I realise that your choice of the word “awareness” is intended to describe something within the system you insist must be determined. It is your choice of the word “allows” that cannot be fitted within that system.

Think of it like a thermostat. A basic one just flips on or off based on temperature. A smart thermostat learns your habits, factors in humidity, maybe even checks the weather report online.

Well … the familar basic thermostat is so simple that its lack of awareness is obvious. But so too is the more complex one you describe.

Can you conceive of a thermostat which is sufficiently complex that we would have to consider it to possess conscious awareness? Maybe you can, but I suggest that that thermostat would then no longer be an example of an entity obviously lacking free will.

Machines can't ever tell lies to itself. Ergo a machine cannot ever hope.Or fall in love.

[BigMike]

When I say awareness allows you to respond more wisely, … I mean that awareness itself is part of the causal chain. It's not outside the system; it is the system, just functioning at a higher level of complexity.

I realise that your choice of the word “awareness” is intended to describe something within the system you insist must be determined. It is your choice of the word “allows” that cannot be fitted within that system.

Think of it like a thermostat. A basic one just flips on or off based on temperature. A smart thermostat learns your habits, factors in humidity, maybe even checks the weather report online.

Well … the familar basic thermostat is so simple that its lack of awareness is obvious. But so too is the more complex one you describe.

Can you conceive of a thermostat which is sufficiently complex that we would have to consider it to possess conscious awareness? Maybe you can, but I suggest that that thermostat would then no longer be an example of an entity obviously lacking free will.

Mick, the word “allows” here simply means enables within a chain of causes—not that it initiates action without being caused itself. That would be magical thinking, and I don’t traffic in that.

A complex thermostat doesn’t become free just because it integrates more data; it remains deterministic, just more responsive. Same with awareness: it’s not an escape hatch from causality—it’s a higher-order function within it. Complexity doesn’t grant freedom—it refines constraint.

[mickthinks]

A complex thermostat doesn’t become free just because it integrates more data; …

I agree and would merely point out that I have never suggested otherwise. I am simply pointing out that by choosing thermostats as an analogy you are, I think, smuggling your conclusion into your argument as part of the premises. Why else would you have ducked the issue of a thermostat with real conscious awareness?

[BigMike]

A complex thermostat doesn’t become free just because it integrates more data; …

I agree and would merely point out that I have never suggested otherwise. I am simply pointing out that by choosing thermostats as an analogy you are, I think, smuggling your conclusion into your argument as part of the premises. Why else would you have ducked the issue of a thermostat with real conscious awareness?

Fair point, Mick—and I appreciate the respectful tone you're bringing.

Here’s where I’d like to gently clarify: consciousness, in this framework, is epiphenomenal. It’s real in the sense that we experience it—but it has no physical properties. It has no mass, no charge, no measurable force. Which means it can’t do anything to the physical world. Not to a neuron, not to a muscle, not to a finger on a trigger.

The twitch that pulls the trigger and the awareness of pulling the trigger are both downstream effects of the same underlying causes—electrochemical activity in the brain governed by physical laws. The awareness doesn’t cause the action; it's more like a parallel readout. A witness, not a driver.

So even if you could design a thermostat with conscious awareness—and I think that’s still more of a philosophical than practical possibility—it wouldn’t make that thermostat free. It would still be reacting, still caused. Just with the added feature of noticing it.

Do you think it's possible to hold on to the reality of experience without attributing causal power to it?

[henry quirk]

B, there's nuthin' in this...

I was never separate from others. As a newborn I felt part of my mother. When I was about two or three years old I felt separate from my mother . Thereafter I was subjected to more and more influences from the prevailing culture. I will probably be able to change my mind until I die.

The apprehender of influences is something caused within a huge system of events that is sometimes thought of as God. At no time is the apprehender of influences uncaused either by nature or by God---take your pick.

I certainly do control my thoughts, desires , and decisions because I was taught to do so as a growing child! I can at this moment choose to think about something other than this conversation. This because brainmind has been trained so that I may have that freedom to choose. Children who have never been taught how to focus their thoughts, desires, and decisions are less free than I.

You may take issue with this by the fact that 'brain washing' or indoctrination is also brainmind control, and so it is. I was more fortunate in being given a liberal education. And at this juncture I answer your question "why is is important to me that determinism be real".

Because the alternative is superstitious clutter. My life to date has been determined by circumstances some of which I take responsibility for. i am sufficiently aware of these circumstances for me to be able either to change them or choose to accept them . The "I" who chooses is not a wee man sitting somewhere in my brainmind , but is my memory of what was me yesterday plus my hope for the future.

...fundamentally contrary to libertarian free will/agent causation/metaphysical freedom.

But, fundamentally, everything in this...

I was never separate from others. As a newborn I felt part of my mother. When I was about two or three years old I felt separate from my mother . Thereafter I was subjected to more and more influences from the prevailing culture. I will probably be able to change my mind until I die.

The apprehender of influences is something caused within a huge system of events that is sometimes thought of as God. At no time is the apprehender of influences uncaused either by nature or by God---take your pick.

I certainly do control my thoughts, desires , and decisions because I was taught to do so as a growing child! I can at this moment choose to think about something other than this conversation. This because brainmind has been trained so that I may have that freedom to choose. Children who have never been taught how to focus their thoughts, desires, and decisions are less free than I.

You may take issue with this by the fact that 'brain washing' or indoctrination is also brainmind control, and so it is. I was more fortunate in being given a liberal education. And at this juncture I answer your question "why is is important to me that determinism be real".

Because the alternative is superstitious clutter. My life to date has been determined by circumstances some of which I take responsibility for. i am sufficiently aware of these circumstances for me to be able either to change them or choose to accept them . The "I" who chooses is not a wee man sitting somewhere in my brainmind , but is my memory of what was me yesterday plus my hope for the future.

...is at odds with this...

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

You're not a determinist.

[henry quirk]

Machines can't ever tell lies to itself. Ergo a machine cannot ever hope.Or fall in love.

And if this...

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

...is true: neither can we.

You are not a determinist.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, that’s a bit of an overstatement. Unrecognizable patterns are more in line with confused or uncertain.

Yes, that works better.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Quoting BM:

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

That is determinism.

I must admit that coming across this tune I have been thinking a lot about rolling rocks …

I dunno. Maybe there is at least a little something there (?)

[BigMike]

If this...

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

...is true: you are nada.

Oh Henry, there it is again—your favorite quote from me. I’m flattered, really. You’ve repeated it so many times across so many threads, I’m starting to think you might want it printed on a T-shirt. Or maybe a pillow. You know, something cozy to scream into at night.

But here’s what puzzles me: What exactly is it that upsets you so deeply about it? Let’s walk through it together, sentence by sentence, since you keep circling back to it like it’s haunted you since the day you read it.

"Your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill."
Now Henry, is it this part? Is it the comparison to a rock? Too earthy? Too honest? Do you believe your brain is exempt from the laws of physics? That your neurons operate by some fifth force not yet discovered by science—perhaps willium majesticum? I hate to break it to you, but it’s gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. That’s it. Those are the only forces at play. Your thoughts don't levitate above them by sheer force of personality.

"You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions."
Oof—maybe this is the kicker. Does it bruise the ego a little too much? The idea that your sense of authorship is just the latest illusion in the long parade of human self-flattery? Don't shoot the messenger, Henry—I didn’t invent cause and effect. I just acknowledge it.

"You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed."
Now this is just basic neuroscience and physics. Honestly, it's a miracle it sounds so poetic given how straightforward the science is. Are you arguing that you did initiate your genome, your upbringing, your cultural surroundings, and every photon that ever struck your retina?

So help me out, Henry. Which sentence makes you declare “you are nada” like you’re in a spaghetti western having an existential crisis? Because from where I’m sitting, all I did was lay out the physical facts. You’re the one having the philosophical meltdown over it.

[Immanuel Can]

Abrego Garcia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-se29BwMZfE
Here's the guy you've been defending, covering himself with glory.

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly is it that upsets you so deeply about it?

Nobody's upset about Determinism, Mike. It's not true, so there's nothing to get upset about. It's just an errant theory that some people hold.

Here's the crux of the matter. It's not cause-effect: everybody agrees that cause-effect is real. It's not neuroscience or physics. Everybody agrees they have their places and valuable things to tell us about phenomena like rocks falling and synapses firing.

But here's the question you're always begging: what's your evidence that physics, or cause-effect, or neurons firing are ALL that's going on? If you think physics "causes" things (it can't: it can only describe, actually), what causes physics? Physics is a mind activity: if you reduce it to certain physics-neurons firing, then you've vacated it of any informative value. There's no longer any minds or persons for it to "inform." If physics is a "discipline," what is it disciplining? It's not disciplining cause and effect. It's not disciplining neuroscience. It's disciplining the minds of people who are interested in physics and neuroscience.

So the question becomes very simple: are minds a cause, or just an effect? Now, you say you don't believe in minds -- just synapses firing, right? But then, you come here to argue. And argument assumes the existence of two minds: one to mount a thing called an "argument," which is a cognitive, not physical entity, and a second, to receive the argument and be changed by cognitive shift.

If you really believed Determinism, you could not argue: all the brain-states of those involved -- both your listeners and yours -- would not be oriented to any truth, but rather only to cause-effect. And the cause of your own belief in Determinism would not be its truth-value, or reason, or logic, or that you had thought it out, but rather that prior forces predetermined that your brain would end up in a belief-state at this particular moment; and if that belief state should suddenly shift, it would not be as a result of you reasoning, or of you learning something, but merely (again) that the prior chemical causes predetermined you would shift to a different brain-configuration at that precise moment, unrelated to the truth or falsehood of any argument on any side.

This is why Henry is not perturbed. Basically, all you're doing, in terms of your own argument, is lobotomizing yourself -- reducing your own argument to a mere collocation of chemicals produced by prior chemicals and physics, and unrelated entirely to truth and reason. And if that's all your "argument" really is, just a byproduct of Deterministic forces, its existence can be no more concerning than the disposition of one pebble to another.

I'm not insulting you here. I'm spelling out the logic of your own position -- if you actually did believe exactly what you say you believe.