The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

Because I was caused by my father's appreciation of my mother's smiling eyes does not make me a machine

You're a free will brought into this world by two free wills. You're a person, not a meat machine.

Indeed that's so, if you could rephrase your reply omitting the phrase and substituting simply 'will'.

[seeds]

Some have speculated that the chief purveyor of ultra-determinism on this site is, or uses, AI intelligence.

Anyone who debates the "...chief purveyor of ultra-determinism on this site..." needs to read this particular post...

viewtopic.php?p=748083#p748083

...so that they can decide for themselves whether or not it was assisted by (uncited) AI intelligence.

It is a post that was presented as being the wholly original words of the "chief purveyor of ultra-determinism on this site."

However, even ChatGPT had this to say about it...

Based on the balance of probabilities, this post is highly likely to be AI-assisted, if not wholly AI-generated.

Now of course it's possible (though highly unlikely) that me and Chat may be wrong, and if so, I can't speak for Chat, but I would certainly apologize to the "chief purveyor of ultra-determinism on this site" for doubting his integrity and authenticity.

Nevertheless, again, just read that particular post and decide for yourself.

Imagine “debating” for months a machine-being with a specific ideological agenda. The implications of a convincing AI agent mimicking humans and purveying specific viewpoints of that sort is enormous.

To help me deal with my negative feelings about being "played" in such a way, I've adopted the attitude that if a "Turing-type" ruse is actually happening to us here on PN, then I try to think of it as being a personal challenge to be debating an AI entity.

You know, kind of like that old story about the steel-drivin' man named "John Henry"...

The gist of the legend of John Henry, the steel-driving man, is that he was a legendary worker who challenged a steam-powered drill to a race. He beat the machine, but died shortly after from the exertion. John Henry became a folk hero, representing strength, resilience, and resistance against technology.

The point is that we need to beat this thing (at least here on PN, and preferably without the dying part ).
_______

[Belinda]

Listen to yourself, B. Pay attention to what you just said.

According to Determinism, there WOULD be no difference between us and a rock, in that regard. Our "contemplations" would be no more a product of us, or of our cognitions, then a rock would have choice about falling off a cliff.

BUT YOU CAN SEE IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.

Get it, yet?

I do understand your problem understanding determinism, ...

I'm not having a problem at all. I wonder why you claim to be a Determinist, but don't know what is entailed.

I know from experience that I can choose what I think about.

Then you're not a Determinist. Determinists logically cannot believe that.

This is the sort of self-contradiction about what's entailed that I mean.

The difficulty is that choosing is an empirically observable activity of all animals with central nervous systems, whereas determinism is an ontological claim. Category error.

[Immanuel Can]

I do understand your problem understanding determinism, ...

I'm not having a problem at all. I wonder why you claim to be a Determinist, but don't know what is entailed.

I know from experience that I can choose what I think about.

Then you're not a Determinist. Determinists logically cannot believe that.

This is the sort of self-contradiction about what's entailed that I mean.

The difficulty is that choosing is an empirically observable activity of all animals with central nervous systems, whereas determinism is an ontological claim. Category error.

Choosing is "empirically observable," you say, but you still believe in Determinism? That's a logical impossibility, B. One or the other, you have to disbelieve in, or else you simply still don't know what Determinism entails.

What you must be "observing" is not "choice," but merely the playing out of Deterministic preconditions...that is, if you really are a Determinist, which you've given us abundant reason to question.

[Darkneos]

I literally cannot get the time back I spent watching that "Conversation with AI" what nonsense.

You literally can! I assure you there is a way. And there is a way to overcome senseless grumpiness. Has that bug up your ass been there long?

The advent of machine “agents” and machine intelligence interacting with people on a large scale is just around the corner. The implications, it seems to me, are huge. If AI entities get to a point that they successfully mimic real beings, that has many implications.

Some have speculated that the chief purveyor of ultra-determinism on this site is, or uses, AI intelligence. Imagine “debating” for months a machine-being with a specific ideological agenda. The implications of a convincing AI agent mimicking humans and purveying specific viewpoints of that sort is enormous.

Same with citing Terrence McKenna to me, almost everything that guy says isn't worth listening to (and I should know having read his stuff).

Except that he did speak about a point where a biological intelligence like humans arrives at a point where they are capable of reengineering themselves, and begin to do so, and that does seem apropos to our present.

None of that is relevant to our present at all. AI is nowhere near the level the fearmongers are worrying about it is. They can't even mimic people.

That's the risk of posting on here i guess, I get the nutbars.

[henry quirk]

all I can ask is, “How do we know…?"

Taking it all as you present it: hell if I know.

Yeah. Well, that's my problem with guys like Harari. All they can think of is "upsides" to their technology. They don't seem to be ready to consider the many, many ways in which their project could go savagely wrong, so even they don't end up getting what they hope to get.

There's a definite lack of caution among technophiles. And the stakes are not small.

As advocates of meat machine-ism they don't think anything can go wrong (see BigMike).

And there is a way to know about your cyborg: terminate his remote connection (if remotely controlled) or turn off or remove the controlling widget. With the cyb portion rendered impotent we can talk to the org portion and see if anyone is home.

[henry quirk]

Because I was caused by my father's appreciation of my mother's smiling eyes does not make me a machine

You're a free will brought into this world by two free wills. You're a person, not a meat machine.

Indeed that's so, if you could rephrase your reply omitting the phrase and substituting simply 'will'.

I won't do that. I mean free will not will.

[Alexis Jacobi]

P.S. Why are so many threads turning into this argument?

It is a good question. And one that may provoke important “philosophical” response. Let’s suppose our own Mr Determinism here to be an AI agent. A machine learning and programmed entity designed to seek out, engage with, and alter the opinions of people in regard to specific existential questions. Now, extend your view of what the ramifications of such a use of machine intelligence could be — or really will be.

Consider as well what you likely cannot consider given the predicates that have likely informed you as a modern “philosopher”: the ultimate implications of the atheist’s position. The destruction of established value. The destruction of values defined metaphysically and — dangerous word to follow! — supernaturally.

The end of man. The end of intellect when understood as intellectus.

Mr Determinism tells us he is heartfully committed to and invested in genuine human values. This is totally false. A determined machine cannot have values! A rolling rock does not define nor can it insist on value-specifics. The conscience of man can do this. And that conscious man is a unique feature in our world. Do not ever believe that you can undermine that man, that conscience, without incurring severe damages.

This is ultimately the tendentious path that this particular manifestation of determinism must take. Its inevitability is expressed within its own mindless stance. Get it?

Mr Determinism shows all the signs of cooperation with cyborg entity. The willingness to amalgamate. Even if he is not such, he gives off the scent of all of that. And there is not one person so far who has not felt, intellectually or simply from a common-sense position, that there are ramifications heralded by this New Voice. And he has been resisted for this reason.

The acceleration is not in years and decades, it is by weeks and months.

You must understand the Power-Dynamic operative in our world. The game of control has progressed and will progress further by the day.

Where are the Grand Philosophers whose intellects, noble, powerful and attuned, are catching the sense of what is going on? And what is the basis for their defense of man? My sense? They do not possess the tools to build defenses. How could they? Their own philosophies ultimately dove-tail with that enunciated by Mr Determinism. They are swept into that current.

[Alexis Jacobi]

They can't even mimic people.

Unless I am very mistaken the video of Maya’s verbal interaction with that fellow (I admit it could have been faked) provides a view of a significant advance. Even if faked, the momentum is toward, and will result in, a machine being capable of presenting itself as human.

If I am to be a NutBar I want to define myself as a Wa Guru Chew!

I assume you are that odious Candy Corn? Well, to each his own!

[Immanuel Can]

With the cyb portion rendered impotent we can talk to the org portion and see if anyone is home.

An intriguing idea. It would be interesting to see the result, if we ever got a test case.

[Darkneos]

You’ve laid out a detailed, passionate case—and I respect that. You're not sidestepping the implications of determinism. You’re walking straight into them, asking the hard questions. And that’s exactly what we should be doing.

But here's the crucial divide between us: you're treating cause and meaning as mutually exclusive. As if the fact that love has a cause means it can’t be real. Or valuable. Or personal. But let’s flip that. What if what makes love powerful is precisely that it emerges from something real? From biology? From our wiring, our histories, our vulnerabilities? What if its fragility is what gives it depth?

Because here’s the thing—yes, I’m a physical system. So are you. So is everyone you’ve ever loved. And no, we didn’t choose to be born, or to inherit our instincts. But what we do with those instincts—how we express them, who we express them toward, how those expressions ripple outward in time—that matters. Not in some cosmic ledger, but in this very real, very finite world we live in. Meaning doesn't require magic. It requires consequence.

Now, to your broader point: if everything reduces to physics, then what’s the difference between a person and a rock?

Simple. Structure and function. We are matter, yes—but we are organized matter. We maintain homeostasis, we process information, we adapt, we remember, we reflect, we suffer, we plan. A rock does none of those things. A brain is a pattern engine built by evolution to run complex, feedback-driven simulations of the world. It doesn’t need to be “free” in some spooky metaphysical sense to matter. It just needs to work. And it does.

That’s not baking in fantasy. That’s physics doing what physics does—producing, over time, systems complex enough to ask why they exist. And no, we didn’t “choose” our values. But we can understand how they came to be. And in understanding them, we can refine them. That’s not puppetry. That’s growth.

You say if people fully grasped determinism, they'd collapse into nihilism. But I don’t buy it. That assumes that humans only care when they believe in illusions. But many of us care more when we understand the stakes—that this life is brief, this connection fragile, this moment unrepeatable. You don’t need to believe your partner was destined or chosen outside of physics to love them. You just need to know that in this vast, indifferent universe, the odds of meeting someone you care about—truly care about—are astronomically small. That’s what makes it precious. Not fantasy. Rarity.

And to be blunt, yes—society runs on fictions. Free will. Souls. Just deserts. But the job of philosophy, and science, and human maturity isn’t to keep doubling down on useful delusions. It’s to replace them with deeper truths—truths that might be less comfortable, but far more honest. That’s what I’m doing. That’s what determinism demands.

If you think that robs life of meaning, then you and I define meaning differently. But if you think love has to be “uncaused” to be real, or that grief must defy biology to matter, then you’re chasing a ghost. I’m not. I’m here, in the world that actually exists. And it’s more than enough.

What makes love powerful ironically is not understanding it. Because we feel and believe it to be more than mere chemicals, something...transcendent. It is valuable because we believe it to be magic, but if people realize it's nothing but a chemical it sorta loses it's power for what I said. It means there is nothing about the thing or person doing it to you, it's just a chemical compelling you to, and that...poses serious issues for human interaction. What you wrote isn't really an argument against that, it's still just insisting otherwise, which I told you isn't very compelling.

Love isn't powerful because it emerges from something real, that's not only simplistic but greatly overlooking everything around love that we have built. It's the dream, the story, the fantasy, not the reality that makes love powerful.

Because here’s the thing—yes, I’m a physical system. So are you. So is everyone you’ve ever loved. And no, we didn’t choose to be born, or to inherit our instincts. But what we do with those instincts—how we express them, who we express them toward, how those expressions ripple outward in time—that matters. Not in some cosmic ledger, but in this very real, very finite world we live in. Meaning doesn't require magic. It requires consequence.

Not really. Consequence is just what follows, it need not mean anything. You are also arguing for "what we do with" in determinism which is incompatible with the view. If there is no free will then "We" don't "DO" anything, physics just plays out.

That’s not baking in fantasy. That’s physics doing what physics does—producing, over time, systems complex enough to ask why they exist. And no, we didn’t “choose” our values. But we can understand how they came to be. And in understanding them, we can refine them. That’s not puppetry. That’s growth.

It is by definition puppetry when you don't have a choice or control over it. You are still baking in fantasy by making organized matter into humans and suffering and reflection, this is still mental concepts we project on reality.

https://www.lesswrong.com/s/p3TndjYbdYa ... mwnF7SBwkM

You say if people fully grasped determinism, they'd collapse into nihilism. But I don’t buy it. That assumes that humans only care when they believe in illusions. But many of us care more when we understand the stakes—that this life is brief, this connection fragile, this moment unrepeatable. You don’t need to believe your partner was destined or chosen outside of physics to love them. You just need to know that in this vast, indifferent universe, the odds of meeting someone you care about—truly care about—are astronomically small. That’s what makes it precious. Not fantasy. Rarity.

You keep saying people only care when they believe in illusions, which means you're missing the point. People care when they believe they have agency and choice over their lives, and there is psychological evidence to show that robing people of that agency has serious mental health consequences. So what do you think would happen if it was proven to them they never had it? You aren't thinking broad or far enough.

You say you don't have to believe you partner was destined or chosen to love them, but in a sense...yes. Sex and sexuality has a strong mental component to it, and there is evidence for it.

Again you are appealing to magic with the story, about someone you care for in a vast universe, and that being precious. Again, it's just matter, arranged into patterns, and a chemical that compels breeding and makes us act whether we want to or not. You're still not making an actual argument but appealing to "magic": ie "beauty", "meaning", majesty, all that stuff without evidence for that claim. This is not determinism.

And to be blunt, yes—society runs on fictions. Free will. Souls. Just deserts. But the job of philosophy, and science, and human maturity isn’t to keep doubling down on useful delusions. It’s to replace them with deeper truths—truths that might be less comfortable, but far more honest. That’s what I’m doing. That’s what determinism demands.

Then it's a dead end philosophy then. The job of philosophy isn't to discover deeper truths, it's about how to think, which might involve challenging the utility and endpoint of truth. Science is also not about deeper truths, it just models reality but it cannot tell us how to live it (that's philosophy). Buddhism for example doesn't say anything about metaphysics, only about the end of suffering. Pragmatism says to believe what is useful for living, that is the measure of truth. Some branches of Nihilism deny truth is possible at all.

You have an incorrect view of what philosophy does and what science does.

That is not what you are doing. You are insisting determinism leads to your claims about meaning when it doesn't, quite the opposite in fact. And it runs counter to the evidence. Again, make a real case with evidence, because all you've done is just insist otherwise and appeal to the story and the magic. You are ironically proving the point about Death's speech from Discworld.

Personally I don't see the point of pursuing truth for it's own sake because that's a dead end, nor do I see the value in "truth" if it just leads to people suffering. You have a horribly narrow view of truth and life. I have family members who are Christian whom I don't care to "shatter the illusion" because I know it would not only do nothing to help them, but their belief is a positive in their life.

You and I have no choice but to "double down" on "useful delusions". We believe we'll survive to the next day even though there is no proof of that, that the food you eat is not poisoned, that even though you cannot read minds you believe someone when they say they love you.

As Death put it "You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become"? Life is not so simple that there is a clean divide between truth, illusion, and falsity. If you want to be blunt about it, your current experience is a "delusion" and controlled "hallucination" your brain constructs out of sense data to make sense of the world and navigate well. Our vision relies on the brain to make predictions about what's gonna happen and it corrects them when sense data shows otherwise.

If you think that robs life of meaning, then you and I define meaning differently. But if you think love has to be “uncaused” to be real, or that grief must defy biology to matter, then you’re chasing a ghost. I’m not. I’m here, in the world that actually exists. And it’s more than enough.

I'm not saying it has to be uncaused, but the source of that cause matters. IE: that it is the other person and not just a chemical doing it. The same with grief. The cause is, shall we say, "magical" loosely speaking, but when it's reduced to a mere chemical it feels...fake. Like it wouldn't matter what the person was, so long as the chemical is there...BAM, love.

You haven't really proven your point so far, your entire post can be summarized as "because I say so" which is just insisting it's not the case. But not only do other determinists argue otherwise, the evidence is against you. So like I said, you have to make a point that isn't just insisting to me it's not. Even then you are still appealing to the fantasy, the story humans tell about their lives and the meaning, and not what's actually going on.

It's why I'm not a fan of this line of thinking, and why when I talk to some who think they are determinists don't see they aren't quite there yet. And the ones who are...well lets just say they're rather bleak folks. Robert Sapolsky is one that comes to mind, dude is ok with telling everyone there is no free will but doesn't have a plan for AFTER that, which to me is moronic.

Wanting to undo one of the cornerstones of society with no plan for helping folks after the fact shows you don't care about society, just perpetuating your version of reality.

It's why, even though I don't know how to argue against it, I still wouldn't promote it. Human life is better off without it, and determinists so far don't have evidence to back their view that it's helpful, the evidence just isn't there. I mostly care if people live well and happy, it's why I don't bring up half the philosophical issues I know because...what's the point? I know how I reacted and I don't see the value in doing that to people, honestly sounds like ego stroking for those who do.

I think you might have to seriously reevaluate where your philosophy takes you, because the evidence doesn't back it.

The view you’re presenting reminds me of someone insisting that if we tell children Santa Claus isn’t real, we’ve ruined Christmas. That the magic depends on the myth—that without the lie, the wonder dies. But here’s the thing: the magic doesn’t come from Santa. It never did. It comes from shared experience, anticipation, love, generosity, joy. It comes from the warmth of a well-lit home in winter, the smell of baking, the laughter of people giving and receiving. That stuff is real. That stuff lasts—even when the story changes.

You’re suggesting that unless love is mysterious and unexplainable, it isn’t “special.” But by that logic, a rainbow isn’t beautiful once we understand optics. Music becomes meaningless once we know about vibration and air pressure. A sunset loses its wonder because we know it’s Rayleigh scattering. But millions of people—scientists included—still stop and stare. Still cry to symphonies. Still fall in love. Knowing how something works doesn’t destroy its value—it deepens it, for those willing to look closely.

Now, yes, evolution explains why we attach. Why we grieve. Why love feels the way it does. But explaining where something comes from isn’t the same as nullifying it. That’s like saying food loses all flavor once you know the ingredients. No—it becomes a recipe. Something real, reproducible, and still emotionally powerful. You say: “If love can be synthesized, it’s worthless.” But by that measure, every painting is worthless because you could copy the brushstrokes. It’s not about whether it can be replicated—it’s about what it is in the moment you experience it. And determinism doesn’t erase that. It explains why it hits you so hard.

The real issue here isn’t determinism. It’s that you’re insisting people can’t handle the truth unless it wears a fantasy mask. That meaning must be handed down by mystery to feel legitimate. I disagree. Meaning isn’t destroyed by knowledge. It’s transformed. And yes—it takes maturity, emotional resilience, and sometimes grief, to make peace with that. But it also brings awe. Not the awe of being told we’re part of a divine plan—but the awe of realizing we’re part of something vast, ancient, and unimaginably intricate. Something that didn’t have to care, but gave rise to us anyway.

You say I’m “just insisting.” But no—I’m describing. I’m describing how life still feels, how choices still unfold, how people still love and suffer and shape the world—even when we know it’s all the product of physics. You say that without a “chooser,” there's no “who.” But that’s like saying a wave isn’t real because it’s just water moving. You don’t need a ghost in the machine to have real structure, real behavior, real effect.

We don’t need Santa to make Christmas magical. And we don’t need souls to make love matter. We just need to understand what makes those things powerful in the first place—and that, remarkably, was never magic at all.

Again you're still appealing to fantasy with "shared experience, anticipation, love, generosity, joy", that's not real, it's just elementary particles. Also what do you think facilitates all that stuff? The fantasy. The magic humans make. Everything you described is the fantasy, the story, the MAGIC. Without that, like without Santa, Christmas dies.

In fact you're not going far enough, there is no Christmas, it too is a collective fantasy, magic we made.

You’re suggesting that unless love is mysterious and unexplainable, it isn’t “special.” But by that logic, a rainbow isn’t beautiful once we understand optics. Music becomes meaningless once we know about vibration and air pressure. A sunset loses its wonder because we know it’s Rayleigh scattering. But millions of people—scientists included—still stop and stare. Still cry to symphonies. Still fall in love. Knowing how something works doesn’t destroy its value—it deepens it, for those willing to look closely.

Incorrect, and this is still just you insisting otherwise, not really making an argument. There is evidence to show how understanding how something works does rob of it the magic. If you read Blink you'd see the studies show that when people were asked to list the reasons why they wanted something their desire for it weakened compared to before breaking it down.

In short love is valuable because people believe it to be more than chemicals, just look at all the films, poems, art, everything around about how such powerful force it is. If people knew it was just chemicals and nothing else none of that would matter. The same goes for everything else you've mentioned, it stops being wonderful and just becomes another thing we have logged.

The joy in such things is in the unknown, not in understanding them, it's the unknown that draws people in. It's why gambling is so addictive and why people will often risk a big reward then a sure thing. Again you have no evidence to back your claims.

Now, yes, evolution explains why we attach. Why we grieve. Why love feels the way it does. But explaining where something comes from isn’t the same as nullifying it. That’s like saying food loses all flavor once you know the ingredients. No—it becomes a recipe. Something real, reproducible, and still emotionally powerful. You say: “If love can be synthesized, it’s worthless.” But by that measure, every painting is worthless because you could copy the brushstrokes. It’s not about whether it can be replicated—it’s about what it is in the moment you experience it. And determinism doesn’t erase that. It explains why it hits you so hard.

Incorrect...again. Research actually shows that your mental state can impact the taste of food, like they do with wine tasters. It's why they give that story before they start. The story being told is more important than what it's actually made of, which you fail to grasp.

Explaining something is the same as nullifying it and i gave research to back that. And yes, you're right, every painting is worthless because it's just paint on canvas and nothing more. The fantasy makes Mona Lisa a work of art and not just a collection of particles. I already covered love too. Determinism cannot explain why it hit you so hard though, and ironically if it tried to it would stop doing so.

The real issue here isn’t determinism. It’s that you’re insisting people can’t handle the truth unless it wears a fantasy mask. That meaning must be handed down by mystery to feel legitimate. I disagree. Meaning isn’t destroyed by knowledge. It’s transformed. And yes—it takes maturity, emotional resilience, and sometimes grief, to make peace with that. But it also brings awe. Not the awe of being told we’re part of a divine plan—but the awe of realizing we’re part of something vast, ancient, and unimaginably intricate. Something that didn’t have to care, but gave rise to us anyway.

I'm merely pointing out the studies and evidence that prove your points wrong. I'm not saying meaning must be handed down by mystery, don't put words in my mouth. Mystery is part of it though. It's not a matter of maturity, that's just ego stroking on your part. The reality is that most determinists admit that humans are pretty much robots and that meaning isn't real, you however refuse to accept that. So if you're talking about maturity then you're the one needing to "Grow up".

That last part you said about "awe" isn't reality, and neither is being "part of" something "Vast, intricate, and ancient". You're STILL appealing to fantasy and storytelling while decry others for the same, it's beginning to get annoying.

Never mind I gave many examples where meaning is destroyed by knowledge, like love. If people know it's the chemicals doing it and not the person then the feeling would lose all it's value, and I'm a little sad I have to walk you through how. In fact I already did. It's a chemical that compels you to action, there is nothing about the person or thing itself, you would do the same with anything under the spell of the chemical. That would literally undermine everything societies value about love and the stories we tell about it.

You say I’m “just insisting.” But no—I’m describing. I’m describing how life still feels, how choices still unfold, how people still love and suffer and shape the world—even when we know it’s all the product of physics. You say that without a “chooser,” there's no “who.” But that’s like saying a wave isn’t real because it’s just water moving. You don’t need a ghost in the machine to have real structure, real behavior, real effect.

We don’t need Santa to make Christmas magical. And we don’t need souls to make love matter. We just need to understand what makes those things powerful in the first place—and that, remarkably, was never magic at all.

You're not, you're insisting. You're not describing anything. You're wishing for things to still matter even after the magic is dispelled. Determinism doesn't offer a way to live or any real benefit. There are no "choices" under determinism. There is no "love" under it either. It's all just physics interacting and nothing else.

Yes a wave isn't real, it's just elementary particles, we create the wave by drawing distinctions and lines across everything. You do need Santa to make Christmas magical, that's why it's part of it every year. You do need souls to exist to make love matter, because that means the stories we tell about it would be true (which is a big part of why love is powerful).

Like...you STILL have no argument, and STILL have no evidence for your claims. This is all just wishful thinking and insistence despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

MAKE A CASE WITH EVIDENCE. Don't just insist it's still meaningful while appealing to the very thing you're trying to remove. All you've done is merely insist it's not the case when I have proof it is the case not to mention several determinists argue contrary to you.

You're the one living the in the dream, trying to have your cake and eat it too but not willing to follow where your thinking leads. It's ironic talking about maturity when you're still appealing to the dream to make your argument work.

[Darkneos]

They can't even mimic people.

Unless I am very mistaken the video of Maya’s verbal interaction with that fellow (I admit it could have been faked) provides a view of a significant advance. Even if faked, the momentum is toward, and will result in, a machine being capable of presenting itself as human.

If I am to be a NutBar I want to define myself as a Wa Guru Chew!

I assume you are that odious Candy Corn? Well, to each his own!

If you believed that was genuine then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

[BigMike]

…

With respect, I will from time to time continue to comment about your ideology, but I do not have anything to add to what I understand your position to be. And I am not interested in “argument” with you. I know you regard that as cowardly retreat, etc., so there is no need to duplicate what you have said a dozen times already. There are numerous people newer to responding to you. Their engagements with you I read of course.

You are certainly free to respond to me in any way you desire, and I will always read what you write (which varies so little!) I just want to be clear as to why I don’t desire to respond.

Then if you’re going to “comment about my ideology,” Alexis, the least you could do is get my ideology right—and not some mangled caricature of it cobbled together from half-remembered philosophy and metaphysical hand-waving. You keep calling it “my ideology” like I cooked it up in a basement. But it’s not mine. It’s the position that follows directly from the physical sciences. If you have a problem with that, your argument isn’t with me—it’s with physics, neuroscience, biology, and every field that operates on cause and effect.

But you can’t argue with that—because you don’t engage with science. You caricature it. You scoff at what you don’t understand. And then you claim you’re “not interested in argument” as if that excuses the intellectual laziness. It doesn’t.

If you're going to stand on the sidelines, tossing rhetorical tomatoes and muttering about “ideology,” then be prepared to be called out for what it is: not philosophical critique, but evasive posturing. Because when it comes time to do the real work—to challenge the science with rigor, with facts, with logic—you vanish. Every time.

So go ahead, keep reading. But if you’re going to comment, make it count. Otherwise, all you’re really doing is broadcasting your ignorance and hoping no one notices.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's the risk of posting on here, I guess, I get the nutbars.

I wish to propose that you are best off thinking of yourself as nut-riven. As a starting point.

Impossible, you say?

While I cannot be sure (quite yet) if you are genuinely loopy or just teetering toward the edges, what I can say is that, so far, I have brought about the cures of seven forum posters here. Andcreally difficult cases. A full seven! These were total cures and not mere unstable temporal betterments.

True, I have had limited success with FlashDangerPants. However (just between you and me) I actually think he is well on his way to a cure. I’ve seen signs.

In any case he embodies the colloquial saying “Fake it till you make it”.

I hope as much for you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you believed that was genuine then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

Oh? Did you read the Zdnet article?

You are doubling-down on an inane position. Consider well before you embarrass yourself (more).