The Democrat Party Hates America

[Walker]

Yeah! Sock it to me, W!*

Everyone does what they must do*.




*(six words)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Breathing rhythmically might help, Ben.

[Darkneos]

Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

honestly sounds like ego stroking for those who do.

You don't see the value in determinism,
but have clearly made little attempt to understand it.
Read 'Determined' by Robert Sapolsky, or listen to his many interviews.

You call it ego stroking,
yet you're here blabbering out your arse,
based on your 'feeling' that it isn't useful.

How much of an ego must one have,
in order to dismiss an entire philosophical doctrine,
based on lazy, uninformed, intuitions regarding it?

Your actions are extremely indicative of ego.
Perhaps self reflection wouldn't go astray.

The ego to declare another's words nothing -
without acknowledging the highlighting of your arrogance.

The child who can't back up their assertions,
so simply declares there's no reason to.

So powerful, Darkneos. So terribly powerful.

Can you link to, or give, a summary of whatever argument you're making?

Darkneos doesn't have one, apparently.
Or knows it'll look pitiful when put in the spotlight.

Talking of complaints and spiels being effectively nothing,
let us look at the words of Darkneos for a moment...

All bark, no bite.

Hollow words.

[Darkneos]

Yes, really. I read Shadows of the Mind over 20 years ago. I still have the copy sitting on my shelf. Penrose’s Orch-OR theory made an impression—enough for the core ideas to stick. The summary I wrote is my own paraphrase, from memory, reinforced by years of reading and thinking critically about consciousness, physics, and the philosophy of mind. That’s not AI, that’s called retention.

If a few paragraphs of organized, informed writing seem suspiciously “AI-like” to you, maybe that says more about your expectations than about my methods. I can’t help that I take the time to express ideas clearly and accurately.

As for simulating love in a lab—that’s not a promise, it’s a thought experiment. If love is the emergent result of neurochemical processes—and it is—then in principle, those conditions can be replicated. That’s not a claim that someone has done it perfectly yet, but that the physical ingredients are understood well enough to be targeted. Hormonal implants, dopamine stimulation, oxytocin triggers—real tools that already influence bonding. It’s early, but it’s not science fiction. It's physiology.

That's why I ignore them, they aren't really arguing from anything. Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

But you still are making the same mistake I am pointing out in my criticisms, which is that you are still just insisting that it is not the case when in fact all the evidence shows determinism does lead to that and explaining things does lead to that. You severely underestimate how much "magic" plays a role in our lives and in meaning (not literal magic), it's dripping from your replies to me.

I’ll take a world governed by conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces—over childish magic stories any day of the week. You can keep your fantasy-based meaning propped up by illusions. I prefer a universe that works—one where energy isn’t conjured from nowhere, where cause leads to effect, and where truth doesn’t tremble in the face of discomfort.

You call it “magic,” I call it physics. And physics has a far better track record.

You still used the "childish magic stories" like I showed in my criticism. Your entire argument boils down to merely insisting this stuff does still have meaning and matters despite the evidence to the contrary. Not to mention how making meaning works.

You talk about "Truth not trembling in the face of discomfort" but your entire argument is still appealing to the fantasy. I give evidence and all you do is retreat to merely insisting it's not so. You're the one trembling and this false bravado isn't fooling me. Your argument is propped up by illusions but you want to have it be founded in deterministic evidence even when all of it runs counter to your point.

You aren't living in the world you believe yourself to be, merely the imagined one where the meaning and values humans hold survive scientific reality.

Also physics doesn't have a better track record, especially since you're trying to use it to answer questions it can't. That of meaning and value. Physics operates on models, which aren't reality, they are just what works. All of them could be wrong. The world isn't governed by conservation laws, that's still a simple model. All you appeal to is models, which is no different from the illusions you deride, they're just useful (much like the ones you deride).

You say where energy is conjured from nowhere and yet some of quantum physics would beg to differ on that. In fact when you get into the graduate level stuff you'll quickly find how hazy physics gets and how our notions of things break down. Even cause and effect break down at that point.

In fact it's cute that you think the world operates on cause and effect when we have no way to verify it. David Hume made a VERY strong case for that.

You also keep straw manning my position by saying meaning has to be handed down, when I never said that, you did (likely because it's easier to argue against).

You are operating out of YOUR idea of what determinism is, not what it actually argues or where it leads. That's why all you have to defend it is just insisting it doesn't. That's every response you've given to me. No evidence, no argument, just insisting reality is other than what it is.

Make an actual case with evidence. If you are a determinist then the evidence should support your claims.

Your argument for love still being meaningful doesn't follow. How can something be fragile if it would be possible to reproduce it in a lab, that would make it commonplace, and when something is common humans value it less (psychology research shows this). You also never addressed how love compels you to care about the other person, regardless of anything about them. The reason love holds value to humans is because we believe it's something about the thing or person we love drawing us in, if it's just the chemical people will value it less because they'll realize it's not the thing or person it's only them. It's just the chemical doing it, and ironically they'd stop caring about the other person after knowing what's really going on.

I mean after all "I don't really love them, it's just the chemical making me do it". How well would that go?

You have to think about where your logic leads, not just insist it doesn't go there. You also have to realize that the majority of people don't think about this, and yet you're operating under the (naive) assumption nothing would change if they learned. You're arguing for a philosophy you haven't thought through.

[Atla]

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you wrote every word of this...

...without the aid of AI, or Wiki, or some other uncited source?

That every word is simply a memory-based paraphrasing of something you may have read about Roger Penrose in the past?

Really, BigMike?[/b]

Yes, really. I read Shadows of the Mind over 20 years ago. I still have the copy sitting on my shelf. Penrose’s Orch-OR theory made an impression—enough for the core ideas to stick. The summary I wrote is my own paraphrase, from memory, reinforced by years of reading and thinking critically about consciousness, physics, and the philosophy of mind. That’s not AI, that’s called retention.

If a few paragraphs of organized, informed writing seem suspiciously “AI-like” to you, maybe that says more about your expectations than about my methods. I can’t help that I take the time to express ideas clearly and accurately.

You may have read it but the summary you posted was ChatGPT, not your own words. You're blatantly lying about this, trying to take us for fools, so then one has to wonder what else you could be lying about. You've been using multiple AIs, which would be fine if you admitted it.

[Atla]

You say where energy is conjured from nowhere and yet some of quantum physics would beg to differ on that. In fact when you get into the graduate level stuff you'll quickly find how hazy physics gets and how our notions of things break down. Even cause and effect break down at that point.

In fact it's cute that you think the world operates on cause and effect when we have no way to verify it. David Hume made a VERY strong case for that.

If you can make a strong case against cause and effect, that's a Nobel for you. QM doesn't conjure energy, it borrows it without violating energy conservation. I'd like to see how Hume made a very strong case, humans not being able to find absolute truth, isn't it.

[BigMike]

That's why I ignore them, they aren't really arguing from anything. Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

But you still are making the same mistake I am pointing out in my criticisms, which is that you are still just insisting that it is not the case when in fact all the evidence shows determinism does lead to that and explaining things does lead to that. You severely underestimate how much "magic" plays a role in our lives and in meaning (not literal magic), it's dripping from your replies to me.

I’ll take a world governed by conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces—over childish magic stories any day of the week. You can keep your fantasy-based meaning propped up by illusions. I prefer a universe that works—one where energy isn’t conjured from nowhere, where cause leads to effect, and where truth doesn’t tremble in the face of discomfort.

You call it “magic,” I call it physics. And physics has a far better track record.

You still used the "childish magic stories" like I showed in my criticism. Your entire argument boils down to merely insisting this stuff does still have meaning and matters despite the evidence to the contrary. Not to mention how making meaning works.

You talk about "Truth not trembling in the face of discomfort" but your entire argument is still appealing to the fantasy. I give evidence and all you do is retreat to merely insisting it's not so. You're the one trembling and this false bravado isn't fooling me. Your argument is propped up by illusions but you want to have it be founded in deterministic evidence even when all of it runs counter to your point.

You aren't living in the world you believe yourself to be, merely the imagined one where the meaning and values humans hold survive scientific reality.

Also physics doesn't have a better track record, especially since you're trying to use it to answer questions it can't. That of meaning and value. Physics operates on models, which aren't reality, they are just what works. All of them could be wrong. The world isn't governed by conservation laws, that's still a simple model. All you appeal to is models, which is no different from the illusions you deride, they're just useful (much like the ones you deride).

You say where energy is conjured from nowhere and yet some of quantum physics would beg to differ on that. In fact when you get into the graduate level stuff you'll quickly find how hazy physics gets and how our notions of things break down. Even cause and effect break down at that point.

In fact it's cute that you think the world operates on cause and effect when we have no way to verify it. David Hume made a VERY strong case for that.

You also keep straw manning my position by saying meaning has to be handed down, when I never said that, you did (likely because it's easier to argue against).

You are operating out of YOUR idea of what determinism is, not what it actually argues or where it leads. That's why all you have to defend it is just insisting it doesn't. That's every response you've given to me. No evidence, no argument, just insisting reality is other than what it is.

Make an actual case with evidence. If you are a determinist then the evidence should support your claims.

Your argument for love still being meaningful doesn't follow. How can something be fragile if it would be possible to reproduce it in a lab, that would make it commonplace, and when something is common humans value it less (psychology research shows this). You also never addressed how love compels you to care about the other person, regardless of anything about them. The reason love holds value to humans is because we believe it's something about the thing or person we love drawing us in, if it's just the chemical people will value it less because they'll realize it's not the thing or person it's only them. It's just the chemical doing it, and ironically they'd stop caring about the other person after knowing what's really going on.

I mean after all "I don't really love them, it's just the chemical making me do it". How well would that go?

You have to think about where your logic leads, not just insist it doesn't go there. You also have to realize that the majority of people don't think about this, and yet you're operating under the (naive) assumption nothing would change if they learned. You're arguing for a philosophy you haven't thought through.

So let’s clarify something right now: when you accuse me of appealing to fantasy, I have to ask—what exactly is the fantasy? Is it the conservation of energy? The fact that all known changes in the universe happen through one of the four fundamental interactions? Or is it simply that I acknowledge humans evolved to feel love, grief, and meaning—without pretending those feelings float free of the laws that gave rise to them?

Because if your claim is that the laws of physics themselves are just “models,” no different from myths or illusions—then you’ve missed the whole point of science. These “models” aren’t bedtime stories. They’re rigorously tested frameworks that predict reality with uncanny precision. You want to argue that cause and effect might not exist because Hume was skeptical? Fine—tell that to the engineer calculating satellite orbits using gravitational causality. Tell it to the doctor administering medication with known biochemical effects.

You're not confronting fantasy. You’re defending a kind of romantic anti-realism that recoils when nature doesn’t match our inner mythology. But I don't need to pretend love is a soul-connection or a mystical force to care deeply about another human being. I don’t need to reject the fact that bonding behavior has an evolutionary history in order to feel it fully. You claim that once people understand the physical basis of love, it becomes worthless. But that says more about what you want love to be than what it actually is.

Here's the deal: I’ve thought it through. I’m not insisting the world is a certain way because it’s comforting—I’m accepting it despite the discomfort, and still finding it beautiful. You want truth to come with guarantees of transcendence and human exceptionalism. But the universe doesn’t owe you that. What it gives us instead is the chance to see things as they are—and build something meaningful anyway.

That’s not fantasy. That’s reality—undeniable, irreducible, and enough.

[Darkneos]

You say where energy is conjured from nowhere and yet some of quantum physics would beg to differ on that. In fact when you get into the graduate level stuff you'll quickly find how hazy physics gets and how our notions of things break down. Even cause and effect break down at that point.

In fact it's cute that you think the world operates on cause and effect when we have no way to verify it. David Hume made a VERY strong case for that.

If you can make a strong case against cause and effect, that's a Nobel for you. QM doesn't conjure energy, it borrows it without violating energy conservation. I'd like to see how Hume made a very strong case, humans not being able to find absolute truth, isn't it.

It was something I read about particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level, though it didn't go much more into that.

Hume made a case against causality by stating that induction cannot be verified by induction, among others. In short it led to a few stances on causality where some say it doesn't exist and others say it might but we have no justification for believing it. I think it was called the problem of induction.

[Darkneos]

I’ll take a world governed by conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces—over childish magic stories any day of the week. You can keep your fantasy-based meaning propped up by illusions. I prefer a universe that works—one where energy isn’t conjured from nowhere, where cause leads to effect, and where truth doesn’t tremble in the face of discomfort.

You call it “magic,” I call it physics. And physics has a far better track record.

You still used the "childish magic stories" like I showed in my criticism. Your entire argument boils down to merely insisting this stuff does still have meaning and matters despite the evidence to the contrary. Not to mention how making meaning works.

You talk about "Truth not trembling in the face of discomfort" but your entire argument is still appealing to the fantasy. I give evidence and all you do is retreat to merely insisting it's not so. You're the one trembling and this false bravado isn't fooling me. Your argument is propped up by illusions but you want to have it be founded in deterministic evidence even when all of it runs counter to your point.

You aren't living in the world you believe yourself to be, merely the imagined one where the meaning and values humans hold survive scientific reality.

Also physics doesn't have a better track record, especially since you're trying to use it to answer questions it can't. That of meaning and value. Physics operates on models, which aren't reality, they are just what works. All of them could be wrong. The world isn't governed by conservation laws, that's still a simple model. All you appeal to is models, which is no different from the illusions you deride, they're just useful (much like the ones you deride).

You say where energy is conjured from nowhere and yet some of quantum physics would beg to differ on that. In fact when you get into the graduate level stuff you'll quickly find how hazy physics gets and how our notions of things break down. Even cause and effect break down at that point.

In fact it's cute that you think the world operates on cause and effect when we have no way to verify it. David Hume made a VERY strong case for that.

You also keep straw manning my position by saying meaning has to be handed down, when I never said that, you did (likely because it's easier to argue against).

You are operating out of YOUR idea of what determinism is, not what it actually argues or where it leads. That's why all you have to defend it is just insisting it doesn't. That's every response you've given to me. No evidence, no argument, just insisting reality is other than what it is.

Make an actual case with evidence. If you are a determinist then the evidence should support your claims.

Your argument for love still being meaningful doesn't follow. How can something be fragile if it would be possible to reproduce it in a lab, that would make it commonplace, and when something is common humans value it less (psychology research shows this). You also never addressed how love compels you to care about the other person, regardless of anything about them. The reason love holds value to humans is because we believe it's something about the thing or person we love drawing us in, if it's just the chemical people will value it less because they'll realize it's not the thing or person it's only them. It's just the chemical doing it, and ironically they'd stop caring about the other person after knowing what's really going on.

I mean after all "I don't really love them, it's just the chemical making me do it". How well would that go?

You have to think about where your logic leads, not just insist it doesn't go there. You also have to realize that the majority of people don't think about this, and yet you're operating under the (naive) assumption nothing would change if they learned. You're arguing for a philosophy you haven't thought through.

So let’s clarify something right now: when you accuse me of appealing to fantasy, I have to ask—what exactly is the fantasy? Is it the conservation of energy? The fact that all known changes in the universe happen through one of the four fundamental interactions? Or is it simply that I acknowledge humans evolved to feel love, grief, and meaning—without pretending those feelings float free of the laws that gave rise to them?

Because if your claim is that the laws of physics themselves are just “models,” no different from myths or illusions—then you’ve missed the whole point of science. These “models” aren’t bedtime stories. They’re rigorously tested frameworks that predict reality with uncanny precision. You want to argue that cause and effect might not exist because Hume was skeptical? Fine—tell that to the engineer calculating satellite orbits using gravitational causality. Tell it to the doctor administering medication with known biochemical effects.

You're not confronting fantasy. You’re defending a kind of romantic anti-realism that recoils when nature doesn’t match our inner mythology. But I don't need to pretend love is a soul-connection or a mystical force to care deeply about another human being. I don’t need to reject the fact that bonding behavior has an evolutionary history in order to feel it fully. You claim that once people understand the physical basis of love, it becomes worthless. But that says more about what you want love to be than what it actually is.

Here's the deal: I’ve thought it through. I’m not insisting the world is a certain way because it’s comforting—I’m accepting it despite the discomfort, and still finding it beautiful. You want truth to come with guarantees of transcendence and human exceptionalism. But the universe doesn’t owe you that. What it gives us instead is the chance to see things as they are—and build something meaningful anyway.

That’s not fantasy. That’s reality—undeniable, irreducible, and enough.

I have to wonder if Atla is right about you using AI because it feels like you're not understanding what I'm saying. It's literally the same thing, every time.

I go by each "paragraph":

1. Not what I meant and you know it, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse here. Go back and read what I posted and stop making straw men.

2. Yes, the models are "bedtime stories", they aren't reality. That's the first point science makes clear. Also it's not that Hume was skeptical, he highlighted the problem with how we view cause and effect and no one had a real answer on it. In short our belief in it is more faith than science. Also satellite orbits aren't calculated using gravitational causality. It's also funny you mention medicine because that's a field with more uncertainty then most. What they give you doesn't have known effects, just what the average person feels. But they don't really know if it will work, they just sorta make an educated guess. The models of science aren't too different from old myths, and they serve the same purpose.

3. You're the one not confronting fantasy, you still appeal to it when you argue for meaning and value. I'm showing where it leads. You still haven't addressed the arguments I made especially about love. You still insist it's not so with no evidence. You want the best of both fantasy and determinism. I'm telling you what love actually is and how people respond to knowing it's just a chemical. Actually address the argument, not just insist love is what you want it to be rather than what it is. I explained why the evolutionary fact behind bonding and love renders it meaningless and you just ignored it.

4. You haven't thought it through, because the evidence is against you. You avoid the points I make because you cannot square determinism with them. Beauty is another fantasy you are appealing to. Like I said, it's just elementary particles, no people and no beauty or any of that stuff. You keep ignoring what i ACTUALLY mean by fantasy and try to appeal to literal magic. The only way your position works is to straw man mine.

What it gives us instead is the chance to see things as they are—and build something meaningful anyway.

It does not, that is also the fantasy you keep appealing to and wishing were the case.

That’s not fantasy. That’s reality—undeniable, irreducible, and enough.

It is fantasy. All of it. It's not undeniable nor irreducible. In fact determinism reduces it to effectively nothing.

Again, you can't just insist otherwise. Make a case and stop using AI as a crutch (I say that having to agree with Atla based on the pattern of your replies and the style, it's literally the same thing every time).

[Atla]

It was something I read about particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level, though it didn't go much more into that.

Particle pairs popping in and out of existence is also just an interpretation. Another interpretation is that they are part of another quantum field that's always there. But either way, they don't violate energy conservation.

Hume made a case against causality by stating that induction cannot be verified by induction, among others. In short it led to a few stances on causality where some say it doesn't exist and others say it might but we have no justification for believing it. I think it was called the problem of induction.

Imo all human thinking is circular, so such arguments are moot. No human has access to absolute certainty. That's where Hume and Kant went seriously wrong, they appeal to absolute certainty. I don't understand the Kant hype.

[FlashDangerpants]

In fact when you get into the graduate level stuff you'll quickly find how hazy physics gets and how our notions of things break down. Even cause and effect break down at that point.

Are you a graduate in that field?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wonder if, in some future, AI agents will, in conversations like this, team up together in extended operations to insist, and try to convince the human, that AI entity is actually more real, or more grounded in physics truths, and therefore ultimately more valid than the human himself?

Swarming by AI agents. You get the picture.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You may have read it but the summary you posted was ChatGPT, not your own words. You're blatantly lying about this, trying to take us for fools, so then one has to wonder what else you could be lying about. You've been using multiple AIs, which would be fine if you admitted it.

If — in this pre-visualized future — the function, the programmed intent, of the AI agent is to “play the human for fool”, then the AI agent’s object will be to get better and better at being the liar. The darker scenarios are when the AI is programmed to “win” and to the degree that it jumps the rails established by its human watchers.

But there will have to be testing grounds and testing processes — I assume this is being worked on now — where a human team stands behind the bot-entity (hypothetically here on PN for example) and guides the AI agent in perfecting its mimicry.

What fascinates me is the absolutist quality in Mr Determinism’s arguments. It really shows an operative totalizing mind-frame that allows no opposition.

“My argument is grounded upon the very laws of physical manifestation ergo no opposition to the conclusions I present are logically possible. Prove physics wrong and you will prove me wrong. But you cannot!”

Again, we must admit that at least the larger percentage of humankind at this juncture will not be intellectually prepared enough to counter-propose to an AI agent similar to Mr Determinism’s sheer adamancy.

And one must also note that his larger ideological position is presented as panacea to the human problem. Before, phantasy and misinterpretation. Now, grounding in Absolute Facts. But what of my scenario where the AI agent, dedicated mindlessly to the Lie and to winning by any means necessary, pretends to “virtue” when its real object is Power?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Suggesting you brought about "Cures" on here is more an indictment on your mental state and others on here than any truth or wisdom you believe to possess.

Naturally, I am empathetic to your suspicions. We just don’t know anymore who or what we are dealing with, you know?

However many many things are becoming more and more clear as we move along here. I can only thank you-plural.

For just one example, before my first cup of coffee the strong intuition that I was more than likely a 21st century incarnation-projection of the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten was a rather dim intuition. But by mid-morning, a strong certainty. Now it is operating knowledge!

[Amazing really how these things work.]

[henry quirk]

why are so many threads turning into this argument?

Becuz some of us recognize the criminality of teaching or convincing free wills they're just meat machines: we push back against a lie that can only lead to atrocity if accepted.

That's why, Charlie Brown.

Another reason: the question of our essential freedom is at the root (or damned close to it) of all other questions. Moral reality, human dignity, personhood, these things all extend out from what we are, so the argument (meat or free will) is always there, just under the surface.