The Democrat Party Hates America

[Darkneos]

Progress didn’t happen because people believed in free will. It happened because people observed injustice, felt empathy, learned from past failure, and organized in response to structural causes. All deterministically. Free will was just the story they used to make sense of it. But stories aren’t engines. They’re labels on the fuel tank.

I'd also want to add to BigMike that this is a story too. You are literally proving the clip from Discworld right. Injustice, empathy, past failure, that's all a story we tell. The story is the engine, that's what it means to be a social animal.

If it were just the label on the fuel tank then narratives and stories wouldn't have the power they do over people would they? That's also determinism (when you're a social animal). Like belief in free will, you wildly underestimate the impact of storytelling, you've been doing it this whole time without seeing it.

I think you just don't understand determinism.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

Sorry, I missed that one!

I definitely saw you describe pretty well what one of the big issues with Mike's argument is the other day but I can't remember how you put it. So here's my version: BigMike is trying have his cake and eat it too. If free will is an illusion, the end result is exactly the same as if it is not an illusion, your lived experience would be exactly the same either way, and because of this, there is no a posteriori method of finding out which is the case. Mike wants it to be that way, but he also wants it to be important and meaningful, which is an impossible ask.

Mikes neediness in all his threads is also ever-present. He ruined his AI = the end of money thread by trying to make the issue as urgent as possible so he could have impact today. The seeds of ruin of his determinism thread was also his need to have important ideas that have impact right now - this idea that we can fix what ails our society by embracing determinism belongs in the realm of murder cult recruitment not philosophy.

His mistake there opens him up to counters that were his position more sanely tempered he would get out of easily. Because of the a posteriori problem mentioned above, he is using a priori assumptions to extrapolate from what we know of the way matter behaves mechanically to apply that level by level all the way up to persons, and then societies, and then worlds and then universes. I stopped taking him seriously the first time he fooled himself he was doing that without axioms, which was page 1 of his first thread.

Anyway, because he fucks himself over so badly by trying so hard to be more important than he is, BM opens himself up to all sorts of counters. Included in that is that he really never provides any details, these big blue sky thinkers who can see the one simple thing that will fix all the problems of the world never have much of an eye for detail (remember that mad man Vitruvian who promised to fix global warming as long as we diverted 10% of global GDP to him for a scheme to drill sideways through volcanoes? He had no design and no idea how to make his thing work at all, Mike is much like Vitruvian).

Mike's argument moves by a series not so much of logical inferences (and certainly not a set of scientific observations) but by a stumbling shambles of "trust me bro" leaps of faith. His reasoning follows absurd line such as: if we start teaching children that they are all little biological engines running on tracks, obviously they will then decide to stop using notions of blame and that make society kinder somehow... and then he throws the phrase "evidence based" around and hopes everyone has lost their sense of smell. But this nonsense stinks like Donny Trump in a hot court room.

So yeah, against what he writes, it's perfectly good to counter that his untested theory about teaching everyone to believe they have no free will and then tell them how to feel about that and how to respond doesn't sound like a great idea. And there's no way to call it a scientific conclusion because there is no way on Earth any ethics committee would permit the sort of experiment that would demonstrate it, so you certainly can and should counter that he is writing a recipe for atrocity.

The reason you can hit him with so many easy counter arguments is that he is just not as competent as he thinks he is in these matters, and his excessive enthusiasm appears to have overcome any instincts he might have for moderation.

[Darkneos]

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?

Sorry, I missed that one!

I definitely saw you describe pretty well what one of the big issues with Mike's argument is the other day but I can't remember how you put it. So here's my version: BigMike is trying have his cake and eat it too. If free will is an illusion, the end result is exactly the same as if it is not an illusion, your lived experience would be exactly the same either way, and because of this, there is no a posteriori method of finding out which is the case. Mike wants it to be that way, but he also wants it to be important and meaningful, which is an impossible ask.

Mikes neediness in all his threads is also ever-present. He ruined his AI = the end of money thread by trying to make the issue as urgent as possible so he could have impact today. The seeds of ruin of his determinism thread was also his need to have important ideas that have impact right now - this idea that we can fix what ails our society by embracing determinism belongs in the realm of murder cult recruitment not philosophy.

I think the bit with free will is that we have evidence for the negative impact taking someone's agency away does to them. I mean you just have to point to extreme examples of slavery to show that to be true, but there's countless more. The point is that free will, even if an illusion, is still a useful one to have. There is also mixed evidence on whether we have it or not. What we do have though is a picture of what the impact would be like if you took it away (belief or otherwise).

Unless you have a plan for how to implement a no-free-will society then you've got nothing but wishful thinking.

Maybe there is a way to have meaning and importance under determinism but BM's not the one to argue for it. So far no other determinist I've seen has really been able to square that one. Some like to liken your life to a movie or a storybook that is unfolding, and while that sounds nice it screams more of fatalism to me, because you can't change any of it.

It's a question determinists have to answer to be taken seriously. IT's also why science can't answer questions of philosophy.

[henry quirk]

But, honestly, all I was really lookin' for was a tiny, isty-bitsy, apology for sayin'...

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

...cuz I didn't.

[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?)

Strawman.

How so? Also, if you have free will, you can just freely will to worry less.

[Atla]

Oh, bein' able to choose and not be a slave to blind, amoral, deterministic forces seems pretty potent to me. Bein' responsible for my choices, that too seems potent. What's impotent is bein' meat that only does what blind, amoral, deterministic forces drive it to. Of course, it's just meat, so who gives a flip. But what if we are, each of us, libertarian free wills: what then? What happens if you teach a world of free wills that they're meat machines?

We've always been meat machines that made choices, developed morality and responsibility. (Most of us, that is.) These just aren't free, they are part of the world. You could of course disprove me by raising your IQ by 50 points by willing it.

[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.

How so? Also, if you have free will, you can just freely will to worry less.

Some are able to.

Oh, bein' able to choose and not be a slave to blind, amoral, deterministic forces seems pretty potent to me. Bein' responsible for my choices, that too seems potent. What's impotent is bein' meat that only does what blind, amoral, deterministic forces drive it to. Of course, it's just meat, so who gives a flip. But what if we are, each of us, libertarian free wills: what then? What happens if you teach a world of free wills that they're meat machines?

We've always been meat machines that made choices, developed morality and responsibility. (Most of us, that is.) These just aren't free, they are part of the world. You could of course disprove me by raising your IQ by 50 points by willing it.

Machines don't make choices.

[BigMike]

Destiny is determinism.

Determinism also means it's all decided and nothing matters. The point is you have no control, that includes whether you care about the outcome.



You do shrug at suffering, because you have no control. That's not precision either, again what you are advocating is rooted in the belief in free will. Most of our actions are.

It does indict determinism, the point being that folks have to accept it because they can't do otherwise. Belief in free will motivates people to change, determinism does not. You CANNOT be accountable under determinism, you can under free will because you made a choice. Honestly...you have to know that much.



It did. People who believed it was gods will, that some people are beyond help. You're kidding yourself if you think it's the sober alternative. That's also not how progress happens, progress happened because people have believed in free will. If they didn't they never would have.

You're thinking is...still...too narrow and you advocate for a determinism that doesn't exist.

You're confusing concepts again, Darkneos—and it's not a small mistake.

Determinism is a scientific framework. It describes how events follow from prior causes according to the laws of nature. No mysticism, no divine plan, no teleology. Just physics, chemistry, biology, psychology—each layer unfolding from the one beneath it. It’s not destiny. Destiny presupposes intention, purpose, a cosmic goal. Determinism doesn’t. It’s not about where you’ll end up. It’s about why things happen.

You keep saying, “Under determinism, nothing matters.” But that’s projection, not logic. Saying “nothing matters” assumes that mattering requires magic. It doesn’t. If I care whether a child suffers, and I know I can causally intervene to reduce that suffering, then that matters—even if my concern, my capacity, and my action are all caused. Caring doesn’t need to be metaphysical. It needs to be effective.

And no, you don’t need libertarian free will for accountability. You just need a model where actions have effects and people are shaped by experience. That’s what restorative justice is built on. That’s what trauma-informed education does. That’s what successful drug rehabilitation programs rely on. Not free will—feedback loops. That’s responsibility as responsiveness, not retribution.

You also say, “Belief in free will motivates people to change.” Sure. Sometimes. So did belief in divine right, or nationalism, or racial superiority. Motivation is morally neutral. The question isn’t “Does it motivate?” The question is “Does it motivate toward truth and compassion, or toward delusion and harm?” Free will is just as often a weapon as a balm. Determinism, when understood properly, doesn’t drain action—it informs it.

Progress didn’t happen because people believed in free will. It happened because people observed injustice, felt empathy, learned from past failure, and organized in response to structural causes. All deterministically. Free will was just the story they used to make sense of it. But stories aren’t engines. They’re labels on the fuel tank.

And if you're going to say determinism “doesn’t exist,” then take it up with physics. The conservation laws. The four fundamental interactions. The whole causal architecture of the universe. That’s determinism—not a philosophy you dislike, but the reality you're already living in.

So, no—I don’t accept your definition. And I won’t let you turn scientific causality into a cartoon villain because you find it emotionally inconvenient. Grow with the truth, or keep clinging to your fantasy of control. But don’t pretend the facts are on your side. They're not.

Determinism isn't a scientific framework, it's a metaphysical view.

I also already explained how things are meaningless under determinism, you have to do better than just insist they aren't. Give evidence. Stop strawmanning with "magic".

You do need free will for accountability, that's the only way the idea works. Under determinism accountability is incoherent.

The question isn't "does it motivate toward truth, compassion" or any of that stuff, the question simply is "does it motivate" and it does. You are appealing to consequences of that motivation (which is a logical error).

Progress happened because of the default belief in free will, that we have power to make things other than they simply are. Every social justice movement is built on that principle, refusal to accept the state of things. Heck most of their literature is dripping with the idea.

Again you're arguing for a determinism that doesn't exist and you have no evidence that removing the belief in free will does any good. For someone who believes in scientific causation you have ZERO evidence for your claims.

But even under determinism it would still be better to keep the belief in free will even if it might be an illusion because it has the effect of positive change for humanity (and there is data on that one).

Sorry dude, the facts ARE on my side, not yours. You have no studies, no data, to prove that getting rid of the belief in free will is better than leaving it, and I have plenty. You also have no plan on how to make it work other than insisting it will.

Again, narrow thinking. You have to do better than mere insistence, but I realize you have no data or research to support that so it's all you got.

Progress didn’t happen because people believed in free will. It happened because people observed injustice, felt empathy, learned from past failure, and organized in response to structural causes. All deterministically. Free will was just the story they used to make sense of it. But stories aren’t engines. They’re labels on the fuel tank.

This has been proven false. Determinism didn't do that, it was the story. The stories humans tell ARE the engines that drive us to do things, that's part of being a social animal.

You cannot be this dumb...

Let’s walk through this carefully—and with clarity, not noise.

First: you're flat-out wrong when you claim determinism isn’t a scientific framework. Determinism is not a religious belief. It’s the natural consequence of physics—of Newtonian mechanics, of field theory, of the conservation laws, of the Standard Model. And while quantum mechanics adds probabilistic elements, that’s not a ticket back to mystical freedom. Probabilistic ≠ free will. It’s still governed by laws. You can call determinism "metaphysical" if you mean it's a philosophical interpretation of scientific facts—but you cannot deny those facts unless you're ready to throw out physics entirely. And that’s not a move made in serious argument. That’s retreat.

Second: your constant refrain of "you’re just insisting" is projection. I’ve given consistent, causally coherent explanations. You, meanwhile, keep asserting—without evidence—that everything meaningful must be uncaused to matter. But causality doesn’t negate value. It explains it. You care about your family because of evolution, attachment biology, and life experience—not in spite of them. If you think caring has to come from nowhere to be “real,” then we’re not talking about philosophy. We’re talking about wishful thinking.

Third: accountability. You say determinism makes it incoherent. Really? Then explain the legal systems already evolving toward restorative and rehabilitative justice—systems that explicitly operate from a model of behavior shaped by cause, not choice. Norway. Portugal. Parts of Canada. They’re not relying on metaphysical libertarianism. They’re applying cause-and-effect frameworks to reduce recidivism, treat addiction, and actually make society safer. That’s accountability under determinism. And it works.

Fourth: motivation. You said it yourself—what matters is whether a belief “motivates.” So here’s the problem: free will doesn’t only motivate. It also justifies cruelty. It says, “He deserves this.” “She made her choice.” “Lock them up and throw away the key.” That’s not incidental. That’s structural. And yes, determinism has been tested too. Studies by Baumeister, Vohs, Schooler, and others show that people exposed to deterministic ideas often behave with more empathy when it’s framed properly. So don’t pretend there's no research. There is. And you just ignored it.

Fifth: your claim that “stories are engines” completely misunderstands causality. Stories are mechanisms—interpretations, motivators, linguistic tools. But the engine is still biology, conditioning, culture, and reinforcement. If you think Rosa Parks acted because of a fairytale and not because of decades of systemic abuse, you’re insulting her. Her action was the result of lived conditions, social awareness, and political context. Not free-floating fiction.

Finally: don’t confuse boldness for depth. Shouting “you have no evidence” after ignoring it isn’t argument—it’s denial. I’ve shown how determinism informs justice, how motivation persists without metaphysical fantasy, how compassion and accountability are enhanced by causal understanding. You haven’t rebutted that. You’ve just repeated the same assertion: that without magic, nothing matters.

But here’s the hard truth: the world doesn’t care what feels right. It runs on what works. And determinism works—because it explains. You want to believe the story is the engine? Fine. But don’t expect serious thinkers to pretend fiction drives reality. It never has. And it never will.

[BigMike]

Narrow view, as usual.

Blame, vengeance, punitive justice, moral condemnation, all that is also used to help. Society uses such things to keep people from acting out, though it's not always good. But I'd argue the upsides are better than the down, especially since the determinists I've heard don't have any plan for structuring society otherwise.

They don't misuse it, they do what it naturally does. Behavior is excused if you have no choice, it BY DEFINITION eliminates responsibility. what you're talking about doesn't work under determinism because society has no reason to punish someone who can't control themselves. That's like taking a tornado to court.

Ought does disappear under determinism because you can't do otherwise. Even this statement is nonsense:



Why? Also they have no choice so there is no point in making such a statement. They don't control their wants, or anything else so what's the point in saying that? If anything they'd have ground to ignore you because they have no choice.

You know that psychologically humans are resistant to changing their minds and determinism just makes it easier not to, because "I can't control it".



It did. It wasn't the emotions you mentioned (which by the way don't exist under determinism), it was the story. Belief in freedom and right to self determination gives people that power. The STORY IS THE ENGINE. You still don't get it. If they were determinists who didn't believe they had control over their lives it's unlikely they would have rallied to do anything.



Nope, all the research based on human wellbeing and mental health shows the exact opposite so you're in the wrong here. Humans literally feel and do better when they believe they have control over their own lives and can determine their destiny. Literally no evidence supports taking away that belief would be better.

You are arguing for a version of determinism that is NOT reality. Determinism has no real solutions, and you've proven that because you haven't given any, you just INSIST otherwise. And the argument fails like your last one when I pointed out the evidence that shows your view robs people of meaning.

I can't even call what you argue determinism, just delusion. The delusion that things would be better off despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

You're confusing emotional comfort with truth—and you're clinging to a comforting myth because the truth doesn’t stroke your ego.

Yes, belief in free will feels good. So does believing you’re the hero of your story. But that doesn’t make it true. Santa Claus makes children feel secure and joyful. That doesn’t make him real.

You say determinism “eliminates responsibility.” No—it eliminates blame, which is not the same thing. Blame is about retribution. Responsibility is about response. Determinism shifts the goal from “punishing evil” to understanding causality and preventing harm. And yes, that works. That’s why we treat mental illness and trauma-informed care as interventions, not moral failings.

You say “ought” disappears under determinism. It doesn’t. It becomes instrumental. If you want X, and Y leads to X, then you ought to do Y. That’s how science, medicine, education, and engineering work. “Ought” isn’t about divine command. It’s about cause and effect.

Now, about that “story.” You’re saying the myth of free will caused the civil rights movement. That’s absurd. It wasn’t a story that created courage. It was history. Oppression. Community. Injustice. Solidarity. All causes. All real. People didn’t act because they were “free.” They acted because something made them act. Belief in freedom was part of the causal chain, not the unmoved mover.

And your go-to argument—“the research says”—fails if you don’t cite it. I’ve read the same studies. Some suggest that a belief in agency helps motivation. Sure. But that doesn’t mean we need to lie to ourselves to function. It means we need to update our models. We can design systems that support dignity and motivation without the metaphysical baggage of free will. It’s been done. Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

You’re so committed to the myth that you can’t see how much harm it does. Every time someone says, “They chose to be poor,” or “He deserves to rot in prison,” or “She brought it on herself”—that’s your precious free will at work.

So no, I don’t accept your emotional appeal as evidence. You’re defending fantasy because reality makes you uncomfortable. But discomfort is where growth begins. And if determinism is uncomfortable, good. That means it’s touching a nerve worth examining.

You're the one clinging to fantasy here, I don't know how else to explain that what you advocate isn't determinism.

Reread everything I've written before replying because I'm tried of the repeating myself to someone who doesn't understand their own philosophy.

Now, about that “story.” You’re saying the myth of free will caused the civil rights movement. That’s absurd. It wasn’t a story that created courage. It was history. Oppression. Community. Injustice. Solidarity. All causes. All real. People didn’t act because they were “free.” They acted because something made them act. Belief in freedom was part of the causal chain, not the unmoved mover.

ALL OF THAT IS THE STORY YOU IDIOT!!! God...

Do better than mere insistence...entertaining you fantasy of what you believe determinism to be is getting old.

You’re so committed to the myth that you can’t see how much harm it does. Every time someone says, “They chose to be poor,” or “He deserves to rot in prison,” or “She brought it on herself”—that’s your precious free will at work.

It's not, and the fact you think so just shows how narrow your view is, which explains your writing.

And your go-to argument—“the research says”—fails if you don’t cite it. I’ve read the same studies. Some suggest that a belief in agency helps motivation. Sure. But that doesn’t mean we need to lie to ourselves to function. It means we need to update our models. We can design systems that support dignity and motivation without the metaphysical baggage of free will. It’s been done. Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

We lie to ourselves every day to function, that is also part of determinism. We believe we'll survive the month despite no evidence showing it, that food is safe, etc. Every day we operate on useful illusions, that's human life, an also compatible with "Determinism". We lie to ourselves every day to function, neuroscience proves that much as well. Our experience of the world is a "lie" in that our brains model reality to help us navigate it and use predictions to cover the rest.

Dignity and motivation are also part of belief in free will. When you believe you have a choice and can change it makes it likely you'll do so, studies show that. Too many choices can paralyze you but having none leads to depression.

Look at neuroscience-informed rehabilitation programs. Look at education based on executive function and developmental psychology. Look at behavior science. Those are deterministic. And they work.

Vague gesturing with no studies, you have nothing. That also doesn't address that everything in culture and society depends on belief in free will, even what we value and our entertainment. Can you imagine how different sports competitions would be under determinism? Neither team would feel like "They" won because it was due to outcomes beyond their control and not person effort or will.

There is no education based on executive function or developmental psychology. Behavior science has also largely been hit and miss with ability to predict humans. They don't work and they are far from deterministic. Same with neuroscience-informed rehab.

Again you think too small, you aren't seeing what motivates people and how society works, even you still believe in free will as well (it's the only way your philosophy works). In fact I'd argue the rest of that works because of the belief in free will. Again, you grossly underestimate how much in impacts EVERYTHING in science and society. That's why some people with actual degrees still don't have a plan for what to do to remove that belief.

Why? Because they all realize how much society depends on that belief (which still factors into determinism mind you).

You haven't read anything otherwise I wouldn't have to repeat myself each time. All I can say is that you have given this zero thought because you have no plan, no idea what it would do to society, just mere insistence it'll "work out" (which by the way is the source of many disasters).

Determinism isn't about dispelling illusions, that's the stupid view. It recognizes some illusions are beneficial and useful due to the effects they have, like free will, and that removing them would cause harm (again we have TONS of psychological data showing that loss of agency or feeling of control over ones life has negative mental health consequences and leads to suicide).

How do you think human social interactions will also go when people learn there was no choice in who was going to be with them or not? Bleak, considering how much free will (or belief in it) is factored into our interactions with people.

You also don't see how people stop existing under determinism, it's just physics playing out. There is no independently existing agent making choices or decisions, it's all elementary particles.

You severely underestimate how deep the belief of free will is tied into society and what it affects (that includes emotions).

To put it bluntly, you're just wrong on this.

Darkneos, you're grasping at straws and building scarecrows—so let's clear the field.

First, your most consistent move is to point to belief in free will as if it were evidence of its truth. It's not. It's evidence of its popularity. People used to believe disease came from evil spirits too. Popularity is not proof. “It works” is not an argument for “It’s real.” And clinging to comforting falsehoods just because they’ve shaped culture? That’s not philosophy. That’s nostalgia with blinders on.

Now, on determinism: you keep accusing me of misunderstanding it, but what you call “determinism” is a cartoon. You collapse it into fatalism—"nothing matters, nothing can change." That’s not determinism. That’s resignation. And if you can’t tell the difference, maybe that’s why this conversation is going in circles.

Here’s how reality works, like it or not:

• You didn’t choose your genetics.
• You didn’t choose your early environment.
• You didn’t choose your traumas, your language, your neurochemistry.
• Yet, through all of that, you respond. And responses can be modeled. And those models can be influenced. That’s what we call social change. That’s what we call progress.

You sneer “you have no evidence”—but you haven’t cited a single study either. You gesture to “tons of research,” yet avoid actually engaging with any of it. But I’ll give you a name: Eddy Nahmias, whose work on "bypassing" and the psychology of free will belief is more nuanced than your one-note alarmism. Or look at Robert Sapolsky—who you know, and who directly connects deterministic understanding to compassionate criminal justice reform.

You also wave away my reference to neuroscience-informed interventions, which already operate without presupposing free will. Restorative justice programs in Norway, Portugal’s drug treatment programs, trauma-responsive education—all based on behavior modification, not metaphysical autonomy. They’re real. And they work. You pretending they don’t doesn’t erase them.

As for your claim that “we lie to ourselves every day, so why not this one too?”—that’s a cynical surrender dressed up as pragmatism. Yes, we rely on mental shortcuts. But you’re advocating for propping up a central moral and metaphysical illusion with no concern for its costs: mass incarceration, punishment-over-prevention systems, systemic blame, and indifference to root causes. That’s not a small lie. That’s a wrecking ball.

Now to your most frantic refrain: “Everything is the story!” No. Stories are tools for communication. They are shaped by cause. They don’t override it. People act because they feel, and feelings come from biology, history, and conditions. The belief in freedom didn’t make people act. Their oppression did. Their cause was real. The belief was just how they interpreted it.

Lastly, this gem: “Under determinism people stop existing.” Really? You think being part of a causal universe erases identity? That’s like saying a snowflake doesn’t exist because you can trace its crystallization. People don’t disappear under determinism. The myth of the ghost in the machine does. And what’s left is something real, and fragile, and improvable.

You’re mistaking comfort for truth, drama for depth, and stories for engines. Determinism doesn’t deny meaning—it asks us to build it honestly. It’s not bleak. It’s brave.

And if all you’ve got left is insults and denial, maybe the part of you that’s afraid this might actually be true is louder than you’d like to admit.

[BigMike]

Mike, you sure do have a lotta faith in them blind, amoral, deterministic forces. Them forces are gonna jigger our particles in just the right way and we'll all get that blameless utopia we dreamed about as lil meat machines. All we gotta do is get out of the way and...er...I mean, all we gotta do is hope the forces move us out of...oh...well...I mean, all we gotta do is wait for the forces to get us to hope the forces move us out of...hmmm....ah!...I got it!...all we can do is continue to be the conduits for blind, amoral, deterministic forces and sumthin' will happen. That's probably all that can be said about your philosophy, Horatio, if it's true. If it's not, then, as I say, teaching free wills they aren't responsible for their choices, that their choices are illusory, can only lead to atrocity.

-----

There you go again: blamin' meat machines for thoughts, feelings, and actions they have no say-so over. That tyrant has no more of a choice in exterminating his people than you have in promotin' determinism. And, if you're right, given the proper application of blind, amoral, deterministic forces, you might do the same, butcherin' hundreds, thousands, millions of other meat machines.

-----

Oh, bein' able to choose and not be a slave to blind, amoral, deterministic forces seems pretty potent to me. Bein' responsible for my choices, that too seems potent. What's impotent is bein' meat that only does what blind, amoral, deterministic forces drive it to. Of course, it's just meat, so who gives a flip. But what if we are, each of us, libertarian free wills: what then? What happens if you teach a world of free wills that they're meat machines?

-----

Flash, everybody else got some kind of response. Me? Nada. Why do you hate me so, Flash?

Henry, your entire reply is an emotional caricature of a view you refuse to understand. Let me put it plainly.

You say, sarcastically, that I “have faith” in blind, amoral deterministic forces. No. I have recognition of them. I don't worship the laws of physics—I acknowledge them. There's a difference between fantasy and fidelity to reality, and what you're defending is a fantasy. A warm, familiar one. But still a fantasy.

Let’s be blunt: your libertarian free will doesn’t exist. You didn’t choose your genes. You didn’t choose your parents, your culture, your childhood, your traumas, your neurochemistry, your first language, your reward pathways, or your stress responses. But all of that shapes your choices—so where exactly is this magical, responsibility-granting, uncaused chooser hiding?

You say, “If determinism is true, then atrocity can happen.” Henry—atrocity has happened. And it’s been committed by people shouting about free will. Every tyrant who ever rose to power did so believing he was justified. He chose it, remember? He thought his enemies deserved to die. That’s what free will belief gets you: moral license for cruelty.

And then you throw this rhetorical boomerang: “If determinism is true, maybe BigMike would do the same.” That’s a laughable bluff. If someone commits atrocity under determinism, we don’t say “he chose evil,” we say “what were the causes?” And then we change them. We treat the source—not the symptom.

You keep talking about “responsibility” like it only exists in fairy tales. But real responsibility isn’t about moral fireworks or cosmic judgment. It’s about responding to reality. If someone does harm, we want to know: why? What caused it? What systems reinforced it? What trauma went unhealed? What behavior wasn’t redirected? That’s how you prevent atrocity—not by assigning blame, but by engineering better outcomes.

You ask, “What happens if you teach a world of free wills they’re meat machines?” Well, I’ll tell you what doesn’t happen: you stop imprisoning children for life. You stop shaming addicts instead of treating them. You stop punishing failure and start understanding causality. You don’t get atrocity. You get reform.

So don’t paint this as fatalism. Don’t hide behind romanticism. What I’m saying is simple: human beings are not magical agents outside of cause and effect. And once you accept that, you stop yelling about deserts and start building systems that work.

That’s not the death of morality—it’s the start of something real.

[accelafine]

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?

Sorry, I missed that one!

I definitely saw you describe pretty well what one of the big issues with Mike's argument is the other day but I can't remember how you put it. So here's my version: BigMike is trying have his cake and eat it too. If free will is an illusion, the end result is exactly the same as if it is not an illusion, your lived experience would be exactly the same either way, and because of this, there is no a posteriori method of finding out which is the case. Mike wants it to be that way, but he also wants it to be important and meaningful, which is an impossible ask.

Mikes neediness in all his threads is also ever-present. He ruined his AI = the end of money thread by trying to make the issue as urgent as possible so he could have impact today. The seeds of ruin of his determinism thread was also his need to have important ideas that have impact right now - this idea that we can fix what ails our society by embracing determinism belongs in the realm of murder cult recruitment not philosophy.

His mistake there opens him up to counters that were his position more sanely tempered he would get out of easily. Because of the a posteriori problem mentioned above, he is using a priori assumptions to extrapolate from what we know of the way matter behaves mechanically to apply that level by level all the way up to persons, and then societies, and then worlds and then universes. I stopped taking him seriously the first time he fooled himself he was doing that without axioms, which was page 1 of his first thread.

Anyway, because he fucks himself over so badly by trying so hard to be more important than he is, BM opens himself up to all sorts of counters. Included in that is that he really never provides any details, these big blue sky thinkers who can see the one simple thing that will fix all the problems of the world never have much of an eye for detail (remember that mad man Vitruvian who promised to fix global warming as long as we diverted 10% of global GDP to him for a scheme to drill sideways through volcanoes? He had no design and no idea how to make his thing work at all, Mike is much like Vitruvian).

Mike's argument moves by a series not so much of logical inferences (and certainly not a set of scientific observations) but by a stumbling shambles of "trust me bro" leaps of faith. His reasoning follows absurd line such as: if we start teaching children that they are all little biological engines running on tracks, obviously they will then decide to stop using notions of blame and that make society kinder somehow... and then he throws the phrase "evidence based" around and hopes everyone has lost their sense of smell. But this nonsense stinks like Donny Trump in a hot court room.

So yeah, against what he writes, it's perfectly good to counter that his untested theory about teaching everyone to believe they have no free will and then tell them how to feel about that and how to respond doesn't sound like a great idea. And there's no way to call it a scientific conclusion because there is no way on Earth any ethics committee would permit the sort of experiment that would demonstrate it, so you certainly can and should counter that he is writing a recipe for atrocity.

The reason you can hit him with so many easy counter arguments is that he is just not as competent as he thinks he is in these matters, and his excessive enthusiasm appears to have overcome any instincts he might have for moderation.

That's the dumbest thing that has been written in this thread.

[Atla]

Machines don't make choices.

Human biomachines do, just not libertarian free will choices. Even our cat makes choices.

[Belinda]

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?

Sorry, I missed that one!

I definitely saw you describe pretty well what one of the big issues with Mike's argument is the other day but I can't remember how you put it. So here's my version: BigMike is trying have his cake and eat it too. If free will is an illusion, the end result is exactly the same as if it is not an illusion, your lived experience would be exactly the same either way, and because of this, there is no a posteriori method of finding out which is the case. Mike wants it to be that way, but he also wants it to be important and meaningful, which is an impossible ask.

Mikes neediness in all his threads is also ever-present. He ruined his AI = the end of money thread by trying to make the issue as urgent as possible so he could have impact today. The seeds of ruin of his determinism thread was also his need to have important ideas that have impact right now - this idea that we can fix what ails our society by embracing determinism belongs in the realm of murder cult recruitment not philosophy.

His mistake there opens him up to counters that were his position more sanely tempered he would get out of easily. Because of the a posteriori problem mentioned above, he is using a priori assumptions to extrapolate from what we know of the way matter behaves mechanically to apply that level by level all the way up to persons, and then societies, and then worlds and then universes. I stopped taking him seriously the first time he fooled himself he was doing that without axioms, which was page 1 of his first thread.

Anyway, because he fucks himself over so badly by trying so hard to be more important than he is, BM opens himself up to all sorts of counters. Included in that is that he really never provides any details, these big blue sky thinkers who can see the one simple thing that will fix all the problems of the world never have much of an eye for detail (remember that mad man Vitruvian who promised to fix global warming as long as we diverted 10% of global GDP to him for a scheme to drill sideways through volcanoes? He had no design and no idea how to make his thing work at all, Mike is much like Vitruvian).

Mike's argument moves by a series not so much of logical inferences (and certainly not a set of scientific observations) but by a stumbling shambles of "trust me bro" leaps of faith. His reasoning follows absurd line such as: if we start teaching children that they are all little biological engines running on tracks, obviously they will then decide to stop using notions of blame and that make society kinder somehow... and then he throws the phrase "evidence based" around and hopes everyone has lost their sense of smell. But this nonsense stinks like Donny Trump in a hot court room.

So yeah, against what he writes, it's perfectly good to counter that his untested theory about teaching everyone to believe they have no free will and then tell them how to feel about that and how to respond doesn't sound like a great idea. And there's no way to call it a scientific conclusion because there is no way on Earth any ethics committee would permit the sort of experiment that would demonstrate it, so you certainly can and should counter that he is writing a recipe for atrocity.

The reason you can hit him with so many easy counter arguments is that he is just not as competent as he thinks he is in these matters, and his excessive enthusiasm appears to have overcome any instincts he might have for moderation.

Flash , the end results of determinism and absolutely free will would not be the same end results. If absolutely free will were the case people would not make decisions based on inductive reasoning if---then.

Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is supported not with deductive certainty, but with some degree of probability.[1] Unlike deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is certain, given the premises are correct, inductive reasoning produces conclusions that are at best probable, given the evidence provided.[2][3]

the truth value of a conditional is a function of the truth values of antecedent and consequent)

There are several sorts of determinism.Please see link below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determini ... eterminism

[henry quirk]

I learned, the hard way, that once a man has set his sight on bein' less there's not a helluva lot anyone can do to change his mind.

It makes no sense to me that you guys wanna be meat machines, but, of course, it doesn't have to make sense to me. You're both free wills. Your lives are yours to piss away on insanity if you choose.

'nuff said.

-----

For everyone else...

My good friend and fellow free will, Mike sez atrocity has happened..

He's right. Free wills can and often do choose to do wrong. Imagine how much worse it would be if Mike's global re-education program hoodwinks everyone into believin' they're meat machines only doin' what blind, amoral, deterministic forces direct them to.

[Belinda]

I learned, the hard way, that once a man has set his sight on bein' less there's not a helluva lot anyone can do to change his mind.

It makes no sense to me that you guys wanna be meat machines, but, of course, it doesn't have to make sense to me. You're both free wills. Your lives are yours to piss away on insanity if you choose.


-----

For everyone else...

My good friend and fellow free will, Mike sez atrocity has happened..

He's right. Free wills can and often do choose to do wrong. Imagine how much worse it would be if Mike's global re-education program hoodwinks everyone into believin' they're meat machines only doin' what blind, amoral, deterministic forces direct them to.

Right, Henry! How much worse that would be.Your meat machine model is at least as bad as your absolute free will model.