The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

You all think that if free will is an illusion then the world would be different to the way it is, or in Mike's case, should be different.

I think free will is a possibility in the sense that we should aspire to it. I cannot assert that man has it, in fact it is pretty clear that many operates in a sleep-walking condition. But some definitely do, and these men I elevate to positions of authority.

In my case, the importance of these conversations is in what realizations are produced in me, and how these realizations affect my own 'stance' in the world.

If the doctrine that free will is an illusion becomes predominant -- mandated as it were -- now there a whole other series of problems (consequences) arises.

A man who can claim in a real sense genuine moral decisiveness is a man with real power to move things in this world.

I resist Mr Determinism's doctrines and ideology and for various reasons (sound) reasons make efforts to oppose, in myself, such a false-belief.

[Atla]

Challenge to free-willers:

1. Using your free will, increase your general IQ by 50 points and your stock-market-prediction-IQ by 100 points.
2. Predict the stock market, get rich.

Now you are smart AND rich. (Wonder why free-willers don't do this?)

[BigMike]

You...think...if free will is an illusion then the world would be different to the way it is

I never posted such a thing. My two nits -- I picked them over and over -- are these:

1-All of Mike's fine notions about justice, morality, social reform, education, compassion, meaning, value, what's good, what's evil, etc. aren't worth crap 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.

2-If free wills are taught they are meat machines, atrocity will ensure.

As for free will as an illusion: it might well be (I've said so before). If so, I'll continue to go where the blind, amoral, deterministic forces direct. In context: I'll continue to blindly, amorally, advocate for man as a libertarian free will, self-directing, -reliant, and -responsible. And I'll continue to advocate for the Creator, the first free will. I mean, if I'm a meat machine, then that's kind of meat machine I am, right?

Henry,

I hear your two “nits,” but let’s be clear: neither of them lands the blow you think they do.

First, you say my views on justice, morality, reform, compassion, and so on “aren’t worth crap” if determinism is true. That’s your assumption—not a conclusion. You're working from an outdated framework that says: if we’re not magical soul-pilots with libertarian free will, then we can’t be moral beings, we can’t care, we can’t create value. But that’s a failure of imagination, not a failure of determinism.

You don’t need uncaused agency to be decent. You don’t need metaphysical independence to want a better world. You just need causes that lead to compassion, education that leads to growth, systems that reduce suffering. If you reject all of that just because we’re not “uncaused choosers,” that says more about your attachment to an illusion than it does about the reality I’m describing.

Second, you say that if people are taught they’re meat machines, “atrocity will ensure.” That’s a fear—not a fact. It’s the Santa Claus defense: “If people stop believing in the story, they’ll misbehave.” But the truth doesn’t become less true because it’s uncomfortable. And if people only behave morally because they think they’re free agents under divine surveillance, then maybe it’s that worldview—not determinism—that was always fragile and dangerous.

Here’s what you’re missing: understanding that we’re shaped by causes doesn’t diminish responsibility—it redefines it. In a deterministic world, justice isn’t about blame, it’s about causality and consequence. It’s about fixing the machine, not damning it. And if you still want to advocate for liberty, autonomy, and compassion? Great. Let’s just base those values on what people are, not what we wish they were.

You say you’ll keep advocating for a “Creator” and free will because that’s the kind of meat machine you are. Fine. But don’t confuse that with an argument. That’s not reason—it’s inertia. You’re doing it because it’s what you’ve always done. And if determinism is true, that tracks.

But don’t pretend your emotional discomfort is a refutation. It’s just the noise your mind makes when a cherished myth gets threatened by reality.

[promethean75]

I bet you Henry's lunch money that you can't find me one psychopath serial killin mass murdering car stealin war startin drug abusing wife beating determinist (save maybe Althusser). Every one of those sonsabitches believed they had freewill.

[BigMike]

I bet you Henry's lunch money that you can't find me one psychopath serial killin mass murdering car stealin war startin drug abusing wife beating determinist (save maybe Althusser). Every one of those sonsabitches believed they had freewill.

That’s exactly it.

The atrocities of history weren’t committed by people saying “I had no choice, the laws of physics made me do it.” They were committed by people who believed they were righteous, justified, and free—free to dominate, to punish, to hurt, to “choose” their path without consequence to cause or conditioning. Every tyrant, every abuser, every zealot marched forward with the conviction that they were acting from personal agency and moral clarity.

The idea of free will has done far more to excuse cruelty than determinism ever has.

Determinists don’t beat their wives and say, “It was my choice.” They look for what caused the harm—so it doesn’t happen again. They don't build prisons on punishment, they build systems that prevent cycles of violence. Determinism isn’t moral relativism—it’s moral engineering. You fix what’s broken. You don’t moralize it into oblivion.

So yeah, keep your lunch money. But Henry might want to save his for bail—because it’s always the “free” men who do the damage.

[henry quirk]

free-willers don't do this?

Cuz that ain't how libertarian free will/agent causation works.

[Atla]

free-willers don't do this?

Cuz that ain't how libertarian free will/agent causation works.

Right, not only can't you freely change things outside your mind, you can't freely change things inside your mind either. Whatever free will is, it doesn't seem very potent.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, you keep describing this debate like it’s a harmless parlor game

I can debate whether I mean harmless or meaningless, but certainly it doesn't change anything at all either way. You are wildly over-interpretting the matter. That's fine, you do you, but taking the entire debate so seriously that you would imagine it can reshape society or civilisation is just delusional grandiosity.

[FlashDangerpants]

You all think that if free will is an illusion then the world would be different to the way it is, or in Mike's case, should be different.

I think free will is a possibility in the sense that we should aspire to it. I cannot assert that man has it, in fact it is pretty clear that many operates in a sleep-walking condition. But some definitely do, and these men I elevate to positions of authority.

Uhm, ok, I guess you drank the Nietzsche Kool-Aid. Whatever, you are in the position of asserting that persons with this mystical free-will-to-power are important persons, so you remain in the camp that says free will is an important difference-maker I guess? It's hardly surprising that you found a way to be weird about it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wait, is there a Nietzschean kool-aid?!?

Whatever, you are in the position of asserting that persons with this mystical free-will-to-power are important persons, so you remain in the camp that says free will is an important difference-maker I guess?

Not quite. But not too far off.

If free-will is real, then if a man can have it, that man is indeed in a unique position vis-à-vis “the multitudes”.

However, real free expression, and real freedom, are in my view bound-up tightly with metaphysical principles. And obviously I am concerned with supernatural entity: that which initiated existence. So there are imperatives that I recognize.

What I try to develop obviously is reactive to the ideology and dogma enunciated by Mr Determinism. And I attach there *red flags* which point to the ascent of a New Anthropology I do find concerning, indeed alarming.

It stands to reason that if you changed your dietary uptake, the quality of your outgassing would change in quality. Kinda cause-and-effect, no? Food for thought …

[Darkneos]

Well again, you should know by now that I am acutely aware that, with two exceptions, all propositions are theory laden. I am not a determinist. Unlike you, I understand that determinism accounts for the phenomena just as well as free will, and that my preference for free will is a choice. Or maybe just my nature.

The position you have could be seen as putting the entire conversation on the shelf since, as you say, it cannot actually be settled. In a sense then the “war of opinions” that goes on with such furor is less a war on the basis of tangible facts, so called, but rather on tendencies of personality.

However, Mr Determinism does propose a remodel of the education system to accommodate his settled theory — no longer theory but political and social doctrine. Though you may sit on the proverbial fence, one cannot but note this militant aspect of the ideological stance. All sorts of ramifications and consequences lurk there, many quite monstrous.

Also, it might be a claim worthy of further thought: free-will, if indeed it exhibits the quality of “choice in the matter” cannot be compared with “no choice in the matter” (Mr Determinism’s hard determinism stance).

The evidence of free decision is in the witnessed outcomes. To deny these (it seems to me) one resorts to elaborated sophistries and linguistically constructed defenses (tightly bound up, one might say, with those subjective personality traits always so predominant in all PN participants).

Odd it seems to me that your argument is not an argument, but simply a statement of preference. I think I understand what you are saying though. Or perhaps why you say it.

Have you ever thought much on what what the actual ramifications would/will be if the militant ideology of a Mr Determinism were to gain substantial purchase? It does not seem to me that you have.

The people who misunderstand the debate about free will are the ones who think that it has some important outcome. You, IC, Henry, that Darkneos guy, and above all BigMike all don't get it. You all think that if free will is an illusion then the world would be different to the way it is, or in Mike's case, should be different.

Willy B laid it out for IC in that passage you quoted, and you don't seem to have understood him either. When he tells you that " determinism accounts for the phenomena just as well as free will" he means it. It's moot as a question that needs to be answered, and it's equally moot as a question that can really be answered, because properly understood, determinism is just an alternative way of describing the world exactly as it is, not some other world.

Elsewhere in the free will debate, FJ is having a similar problem trying to explain to Darkneos what the limits of physicalist reductions and its implications are, which falls under the same category of conversation and largely it is the same set of people who can't grasp the lack of importance there either. Again, all data about the real world are accounted for equally either way and that limits the importance of the matter.

I mention that second thing partly to see if I can have fun at Mannie's expense. I am fairly sure he is going to tell Willy that he doesn't know what he's talking about because materialism entails determinism on the basis that all matter behaves entirely probabilistically and thus the reduction of the person to atoms and quarks or whatnot must eliminate all articles of folk psychology including choice. Basically there is a core of the bad argument about free will that is shared by Mike, Mannie and the Darkneos guy even if they aren't on the same side of the debate. Technically they share it with Peter Strawson, or perhaps even indirectly inherit it from him, so I should probably give them a break, but I am not a nice man, so I shan't.

Willy B is more into philosophy of science than I am, and so he presents this free will thing above as a case of underdetermination which is a concept he has been heroically attempting to teach to mister Can for a long time. In his accounting there, it is simply the case that the available evidence for determinism and that for free will are basically the same, there is no evidence available in the world that would help you choose between them because both explain the world as it is. Not being a philosopher of science (and really having very little skill in that area), I tend to describe it as either a full on pseudo-problem - or just a a nothing burger if I am dialling it down.

I gave up trying to reason with BigMike because they had no ACTUAL arguments for the evidence I gave and just kept insisting things wouldn't change if determinism would spread despite evidence to the contrary. They also kept trying to appeal to "magic" and never provided any substaintial defense.

But you're the one who misunderstands free will, and even if it might be an illusion it is a vital one to believe in because it's how society is structured and shaped not to mention all our culture and value depends on it. To say nothing would change is...well just stupid (and I listed a study that showed it would negatively impact people).

Elsewhere in the free will debate, FJ is having a similar problem trying to explain to Darkneos what the limits of physicalist reductions and its implications are, which falls under the same category of conversation and largely it is the same set of people who can't grasp the lack of importance there either. Again, all data about the real world are accounted for equally either way and that limits the importance of the matter.

No where did they do that. And no all data about the "real world" isn't accounted for equally, as I already explained. Never mind the flaw of not being able to prove causation (which Hume highlighted).

I mention that second thing partly to see if I can have fun at Mannie's expense. I am fairly sure he is going to tell Willy that he doesn't know what he's talking about because materialism entails determinism on the basis that all matter behaves entirely probabilistically and thus the reduction of the person to atoms and quarks or whatnot must eliminate all articles of folk psychology including choice. Basically there is a core of the bad argument about free will that is shared by Mike, Mannie and the Darkneos guy even if they aren't on the same side of the debate. Technically they share it with Peter Strawson, or perhaps even indirectly inherit it from him, so I should probably give them a break, but I am not a nice man, so I shan't.

That's not bad argument, that's literally a hole determinists don't know how to plug. Like I mentioned with Sapolsky not really having any idea how to structure society and human life in absence of the belief in it. I saw that interview and it was embarassing.

And it is true, under materialism you would eliminate all aspects of "folk psychology", that's the nature conclusion. It sounds like you want to avoid where your logic leads.

Underdetermination has no role in the conversation, and they're wrong that the evidence for both is basically the same.

It sounds like you don't really understand the problem to really talk about it.

[BigMike]

Flash, you keep describing this debate like it’s a harmless parlor game

I can debate whether I mean harmless or meaningless, but certainly it doesn't change anything at all either way. You are wildly over-interpretting the matter. That's fine, you do you, but taking the entire debate so seriously that you would imagine it can reshape society or civilisation is just delusional grandiosity.

What you’re calling “delusional grandiosity,” I’d call an awareness of consequences.

Because yes—ideas shape societies. Not in the abstract, not metaphorically, but concretely. Every justice system, educational framework, moral code, and economic structure is built atop some foundational view of human nature. What kind of creature do we think a person is? That question has always mattered. And it still does.

If you assume people have libertarian free will—that they chose their actions independently of cause—you justify retribution. Punishment becomes moral. Inequality becomes earned. Compassion becomes optional. But if you understand that every action is the output of a deterministic chain—biology, environment, trauma, conditioning—you shift to accountability without blame. You rehabilitate instead of punish. You engineer prevention instead of exacting vengeance. That’s not a parlor game. That’s policy.

You say nothing changes depending on how we frame this? I think history begs to differ. And so does every courtroom, every classroom, every parent, every war, every mercy shown—or withheld.

So no, this isn’t just a debate. It’s a decision point. Between a society that moralizes pain and one that seeks to understand it. Between myth and mechanism. Between punishment and progress.

You can call it delusional if you want. But the alternative is indifference masquerading as detachment. And that’s not neutral. That’s a choice.

[Darkneos]

I bet you Henry's lunch money that you can't find me one psychopath serial killin mass murdering car stealin war startin drug abusing wife beating determinist (save maybe Althusser). Every one of those sonsabitches believed they had freewill.

That’s exactly it.

The atrocities of history weren’t committed by people saying “I had no choice, the laws of physics made me do it.” They were committed by people who believed they were righteous, justified, and free—free to dominate, to punish, to hurt, to “choose” their path without consequence to cause or conditioning. Every tyrant, every abuser, every zealot marched forward with the conviction that they were acting from personal agency and moral clarity.

The idea of free will has done far more to excuse cruelty than determinism ever has.

Determinists don’t beat their wives and say, “It was my choice.” They look for what caused the harm—so it doesn’t happen again. They don't build prisons on punishment, they build systems that prevent cycles of violence. Determinism isn’t moral relativism—it’s moral engineering. You fix what’s broken. You don’t moralize it into oblivion.

So yeah, keep your lunch money. But Henry might want to save his for bail—because it’s always the “free” men who do the damage.

Yet when people are trying to be excused for the wrong that they do they appeal to not having a choice in the matter. We as a society tend to show leniency when people aren't in control of their actions (to a point).

Every tyrant and Zealot, etc did that because they believed in free will sure. But the reverse is also true, every saint, savior, freedom righter, civil rights activist believed in the freedom awarded to all humans and it motivated them to do better.

If anything the idea of free will has done far more to empower people than harm them (and yes there is evidence to support that claim).

Whereas determinism has been appealed to in order to excuse bad behavior. Just look at the response to "Me Too" movement and men going on about how women dress and how it makes them do the things they do. Or how many parents beat their kids and follow it with "Look what you made me do", same with their wives. They don't "look for what caused the harm" so it doesn't happen it again, they excuse the wrong they do.

Determinism is literally moralizing it into oblivion because if people have no choice or control over their actions then you can't really have any system of morality because the "can't" do otherwise. Morality is based on what we "ought" do better and you can't have that under determinism.

Again, you really don't know your philosophy well enough. The evidence is clear that belief in free will is beneficial for humans and society.

[Darkneos]

Challenge to free-willers:

1. Using your free will, increase your general IQ by 50 points and your stock-market-prediction-IQ by 100 points.
2. Predict the stock market, get rich.

Now you are smart AND rich. (Wonder why free-willers don't do this?)

Strawman.

[Darkneos]

Flash, you keep describing this debate like it’s a harmless parlor game

I can debate whether I mean harmless or meaningless, but certainly it doesn't change anything at all either way. You are wildly over-interpretting the matter. That's fine, you do you, but taking the entire debate so seriously that you would imagine it can reshape society or civilisation is just delusional grandiosity.

What you’re calling “delusional grandiosity,” I’d call an awareness of consequences.

Because yes—ideas shape societies. Not in the abstract, not metaphorically, but concretely. Every justice system, educational framework, moral code, and economic structure is built atop some foundational view of human nature. What kind of creature do we think a person is? That question has always mattered. And it still does.

If you assume people have libertarian free will—that they chose their actions independently of cause—you justify retribution. Punishment becomes moral. Inequality becomes earned. Compassion becomes optional. But if you understand that every action is the output of a deterministic chain—biology, environment, trauma, conditioning—you shift to accountability without blame. You rehabilitate instead of punish. You engineer prevention instead of exacting vengeance. That’s not a parlor game. That’s policy.

You say nothing changes depending on how we frame this? I think history begs to differ. And so does every courtroom, every classroom, every parent, every war, every mercy shown—or withheld.

So no, this isn’t just a debate. It’s a decision point. Between a society that moralizes pain and one that seeks to understand it. Between myth and mechanism. Between punishment and progress.

You can call it delusional if you want. But the alternative is indifference masquerading as detachment. And that’s not neutral. That’s a choice.

History literally shows determinism is a bad way to run society. The concept of "Destiny" has been used to do great harm.