The Democrat Party Hates America

[henry quirk]

Yes, Henry—it absolutely matters.

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 then it absolutely does not.

[Atla]

Why the hell would I choose that?

Damn good question. Why do you, a free will, choose to see yourself as a meat machine?

Why do you, a multibillionaire, choose to see yourself as a non-multibillionaire?

[BigMike]

Yes, Henry—it absolutely matters.

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 then it absolutely does not.

Then explain it, Henry.

Explain how it doesn’t matter if your thoughts, desires, and decisions are caused—if you’re driven, not driving. Explain how accountability, morality, or meaning survive when nothing you think or choose is truly yours.

You say it “doesn’t matter”—but that’s not an argument. That’s a shrug wrapped in defiance. So walk it through. Show your work.

Because if you’re right, and it doesn’t matter, then your entire worldview is floating on a contradiction: that responsibility exists in a system where no one is responsible. That justice matters in a world where no one could have done otherwise. That people should act better when, by your own view, there is no “should” because there is no chooser.

So if you're going to dismiss determinism, don't wave it off—dissect it. Or admit what’s really going on: you don’t like the implications, so you’re pretending they don’t exist. That’s not philosophy. That’s evasion.

[henry quirk]

Explain how it doesn’t matter if your thoughts, desires, and decisions are caused—if you’re driven, not driving.

Guy, if I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions, and you don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions, then between us, how can anything matter? The very notion of sumthin' mattering is just another output neither of us control. That's the place your determinism lands us.

Explain how accountability, morality, or meaning survive when nothing you think or choose is truly yours.

Mike, they can't.

Show your work.

No, I'll show yours...

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

You want stuff your determinism can't provide.

your entire worldview is floating on a contradiction: that responsibility exists in a system where no one is responsible. That justice matters in a world where no one could have done otherwise. That people should act better when, by your own view, there is no “should” because there is no chooser.

Uh, that's your world view and your contradiction to overcome. I'm the free will, remember? I say folks are responsible, justice is real, people can choose to be and do better (and should). You're the one who sez we're just meat. And if we're just meat, then absolutely nuthin' and no one matters.

So if you're going to dismiss determinism, don't wave it off—dissect it.

No, guy. That's not what I'm doin'. I've said it over and over: my objection, my dissent, isn't about determinism. No, it's about all the wonderful things you believe determinism can source. As I say: if we're free wills, a widespread delusion that we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity (or more atrocity, if you prefer), and if we are, in fact, meat machines then we only do what *AZATHOTH bids. if AZATHOTH bids we make utopia (dystopia), we do. If AZATHOTH bids we celebrate (deride) our utopia (dystopia), we do. Even the very notion of utopia (dystopia) is only what we've been directed by AZATHOTH to embrace. More personally, you poo-poo the idea you could be tyrannical and murder populations. Why? If AZATHOTH bids you must, you will. Again: that's where your determinism lands us.

As I say: you want all the benefits that comes with being a libertarian free will without any of the liabilities and you can't have one without the other.

-----

But if you aren’t a meat machine

if you're proposing some soul-stuff, some uncaused chooser floating above biology and physics

then say so.

Let’s be honest about what you’re defending. Not agency. Not responsibility. But metaphysics.

I'm not a meat machine

Hylomorphism, actually.

I have, many times, and just did again.

It's all metaphysics, Mike, part & parcel.

You keep railing against determinism like it’s a moral failing.

Cuz it is.

powerless

If, as you say, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions then I am, by definition, powerless. That's where your determinism lands us

fantasize

In context: I don't, but if I did, you'd have to agree that's AZATHOTH makin' me fantasize, right?




*HP lovecraft's name for them blind, amoral, deterministic forces

[Darkneos]

Machines don't make choices.

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

If there is no free will then choices aren't made because they never existed to begin with.

[BigMike]

Explain how it doesn’t matter if your thoughts, desires, and decisions are caused—if you’re driven, not driving.

Guy, if I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions, and you don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions, then between us, how can anything matter? The very notion of sumthin' mattering is just another output neither of us control. That's the place your determinism lands us.

Explain how accountability, morality, or meaning survive when nothing you think or choose is truly yours.

Mike, they can't.

Show your work.

No, I'll show yours...

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

You want stuff your determinism can't provide.

your entire worldview is floating on a contradiction: that responsibility exists in a system where no one is responsible. That justice matters in a world where no one could have done otherwise. That people should act better when, by your own view, there is no “should” because there is no chooser.

Uh, that's your world view and your contradiction to overcome. I'm the free will, remember? I say folks are responsible, justice is real, people can choose to be and do better (and should). You're the one who sez we're just meat. And if we're just meat, then absolutely nuthin' and no one matters.

So if you're going to dismiss determinism, don't wave it off—dissect it.

No, guy. That's not what I'm doin'. I've said it over and over: my objection, my dissent, isn't about determinism. No, it's about all the wonderful things you believe determinism can source. As I say: if we're free wills, a widespread delusion that we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity (or more atrocity, if you prefer), and if we are, in fact, meat machines then we only do what *AZATHOTH bids. if AZATHOTH bids we make utopia (dystopia), we do. If AZATHOTH bids we celebrate (deride) our utopia (dystopia), we do. Even the very notion of utopia (dystopia) is only what we've been directed by AZATHOTH to embrace. More personally, you poo-poo the idea you could be tyrannical and murder populations. Why? If AZATHOTH bids you must, you will. Again: that's where your determinism lands us.

As I say: you want all the benefits that comes with being a libertarian free will without any of the liabilities and you can't have one without the other.

-----

But if you aren’t a meat machine

if you're proposing some soul-stuff, some uncaused chooser floating above biology and physics

then say so.

Let’s be honest about what you’re defending. Not agency. Not responsibility. But metaphysics.

I'm not a meat machine

Hylomorphism, actually.

I have, many times, and just did again.

It's all metaphysics, Mike, part & parcel.

You keep railing against determinism like it’s a moral failing.

Cuz it is.

powerless

If, as you say, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions then I am, by definition, powerless. That's where your determinism lands us

fantasize

In context: I don't, but if I did, you'd have to agree that's AZATHOTH makin' me fantasize, right?




*HP lovecraft's name for them blind, amoral, deterministic forces

Henry—

You’re making my case for me. You just don’t seem to realize it.

You say, “If I don’t control my thoughts... then nothing matters.” But that’s just a tantrum dressed up as philosophy. You're equating mattering with magic—as if unless there’s an uncaused soul floating above biology, nothing counts. Nothing moves. Nothing means.

But here’s the thing: cause doesn’t erase consequence. If I strike a match and it lights a fire, the fire isn’t meaningless because it was caused. If empathy, education, trauma, or love lead to an action that changes a life, that doesn’t stop mattering just because it followed a chain of events. That’s not emptiness—that’s how reality works.

You're saying, "If we’re just meat machines, then nothing matters." But look around: people still grieve. People still build. People still resist. If we’re meat, we’re meat that makes meaning. And that’s a hell of a lot more impressive than pretending it’s all powered by some invisible, unmeasurable “free soul” with no physical basis. The human mind—yes, machine that it is—creates meaning. It doesn’t need to borrow it from fantasy.

And now we’re at the real root: you don’t like the implications of determinism. Fine. That’s human. But disliking an implication isn’t a refutation. You don’t get to call something false because it makes you uncomfortable. That’s not reason. That’s recoil.

And let’s talk about this “AZATHOTH” metaphor. Cute. But if you're going to go full Lovecraft, at least admit this much: your argument is aesthetic, not logical. You feel repulsed by the idea that we're meat. You want there to be something more. But wanting doesn’t make it true. In fact, that’s exactly the kind of illusion determinism exposes: how often our deepest beliefs are just psychological coping mechanisms wearing philosophical clothes.

You claim I want all the benefits of free will without the liabilities? No, Henry. I want to end the delusion that people are evil because they chose evil—like it just bubbled up from a wicked soul. I want systems that treat people based on what caused their behavior so we can intervene, not moralize. That’s not utopian fantasy. That’s just a better use of cause and effect.

You say you’re not a meat machine—you say you believe in hylomorphism. Great. That’s metaphysics. You’ve left the domain of testable reality and stepped into the realm of made-up categories. You’re entitled to that, sure—but you don’t get to pretend it’s on equal footing with physics, neuroscience, and everything we actually know about how people function.

So no, Henry, you don’t scare me with your “free will or atrocity” warnings. You’re just proving the point: the belief in free will is what justifies atrocity. “He deserved it.” “She asked for it.” “They brought this on themselves.” That’s your metaphysics in action.

Determinism doesn’t absolve. It explains. And explanation, when used with compassion, is how we prevent—not punish—harm.

So yes, it matters. You matter. And so does the story we tell ourselves about how humans work. One story blames and burns. The other asks, “How do we make this better next time?” And I know which one I’m standing with.

[Atla]

Machines don't make choices.

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

If there is no free will then choices aren't made because they never existed to begin with.

Choices don't require free will.

[Darkneos]

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.

You, again, misunderstand. Belief in free will is what yields what you see around you, it makes people behave in arguably better ways. Especially when evidence shows to opposite hurts them.

If you're saying "it works" is not an argument for "it's real" then you're gonna have to throw away a HELL of a lot of stuff, including science itself.

Robert Sapolsky is a name I have already given as an example of someone who DOESN'T know how to build a society absent free will. Even in an interview he admits that all of society runs on the belief in free will and he had no plan for actually changing all of it.

I also don't know why you brought up Eddy Nahmias as his position is closer to what I am arguing than yours.

From his website:

“Why ‘Willusionism’ Leads to ‘Bad Results’,” which offers an explanation for why recent scientific claims that free will is an illusion may lead people to behave worse.

People like to pretend that without that belief in free will folks would do the same thing they always did, unaware that the belief in free will is why they do what they do and without that their motivation and drive would be very different (if it still exists).

The neuroscience interventions also operate under the assumption of free will. The assumption of it pervades our entire society and does affect the success rate of treatments.

The same goes for Portugal's Drug Use policy, it's also based on free will by offering the people who do it a choice instead of the Deterministic practices of other countries where they're treated as demons. The same for Norway.

No matter how desperate you try to assume that determinism is at play here the fact is the BELIEF in free will underpins every last one of these. If none of these people had that belief then none of these would be effective (and I'll have you reflect on why that is).

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand it's costs, if you take the belief in free will away people literally stop trying to be better, we have studies on this. When you remove agency from people eventually they just give up. YOU haven't thought any of this through. None of what you've mentioned is the bad of free will, the same would happen under determinism. Punishment would still happen because it deters bad behavior, same with blame, and mass incarceration. Determinism doesn't change any of that, but belief in free will makes folks do something about that.

And it's not mental shortcuts, don't dress it up to avoid reality. The fact is we do lie to ourselves each day, and through that lie we make it come true. Like Death mentioned in Discworld "You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become?". We don't know if we'll survive tomorrow, that's a lie we tell. But believing that makes us act in a way to help it happen. The same goes when someone says they love us, we believe it even though we can't read their minds.

Our very senses are shown to not portray reality: https://www.sciencealert.com/to-help-us ... n-the-past

And yet we trust that what we see is accurate. Honestly it's just easier to call you stupid at this point.

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.

Stories are the cause, that's what it means to be social animals. The reason we do anything is because of the story that we tell. HISTORY itself is a story. Biology as we understand it is a story we tell to make sense of things, same with history, and "conditions". You act like these things are objective hard facts we know when they aren't.

Oppression and belief in freedom made people act, without belief in freedom there is nothing motivating people to break their chains.

You don't understand cause and effect, you still have the stupid view of it, or narrow.

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.

People do disappear under determinism, I explained why, maybe try reading other determinists to see:

https://www.snsociety.org/what-am-i-doing/

What's left isn't something real, fragile, or improvable. Stop using poetry for argument, it's not working for you. If there is no will, no soul, no independent ghost in the machine, then there is no person. It's just stuff happening, no one is there. Again, you want your cake and to eat it too.

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.

No you're the one doing all that, by making determinism into what it's not. Determinism denies meaning by undermining all the usual metrics we have for it, namely agency and choice. You can't "build it honestly" because "you" have no choice, so you literally cannot. You are both appealing to determinism but acting like we have a choice. It's incoherent.

Flash was right, you have nothing substantial to offer and can't see the holes every post you make. You haven't read or studied the sources you cite nor do you see how belief in free will is imperative in them. You keep wanting determinism to be something it's not. Even under determinism it's better to leave the belief in free will than to take it, since robbing people of the belief in their agency and power is a net negative for humanity. Motivation would torpedo.

You also dismiss the power of storytelling in social animals, failing to see they are the engines behind the things that we do. We're at a point in society where we're past biology and evolutionary explanations. The cultural and social ones play a bigger role than either of those two, the fact you can't see that is naive.

Everyone here can see you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but the evidence doesn't support you.

[Darkneos]

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

If there is no free will then choices aren't made because they never existed to begin with.

Choices don't require free will.

They do, otherwise it's just physics.

[Atla]

If there is no free will then choices aren't made because they never existed to begin with.

Choices don't require free will.

They do, otherwise it's just physics.

No they don't. Physical things make choices.

[BigMike]

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.



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.



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



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.



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.

You, again, misunderstand. Belief in free will is what yields what you see around you, it makes people behave in arguably better ways. Especially when evidence shows to opposite hurts them.

If you're saying "it works" is not an argument for "it's real" then you're gonna have to throw away a HELL of a lot of stuff, including science itself.

Robert Sapolsky is a name I have already given as an example of someone who DOESN'T know how to build a society absent free will. Even in an interview he admits that all of society runs on the belief in free will and he had no plan for actually changing all of it.

I also don't know why you brought up Eddy Nahmias as his position is closer to what I am arguing than yours.

From his website:

“Why ‘Willusionism’ Leads to ‘Bad Results’,” which offers an explanation for why recent scientific claims that free will is an illusion may lead people to behave worse.

People like to pretend that without that belief in free will folks would do the same thing they always did, unaware that the belief in free will is why they do what they do and without that their motivation and drive would be very different (if it still exists).

The neuroscience interventions also operate under the assumption of free will. The assumption of it pervades our entire society and does affect the success rate of treatments.

The same goes for Portugal's Drug Use policy, it's also based on free will by offering the people who do it a choice instead of the Deterministic practices of other countries where they're treated as demons. The same for Norway.

No matter how desperate you try to assume that determinism is at play here the fact is the BELIEF in free will underpins every last one of these. If none of these people had that belief then none of these would be effective (and I'll have you reflect on why that is).

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand it's costs, if you take the belief in free will away people literally stop trying to be better, we have studies on this. When you remove agency from people eventually they just give up. YOU haven't thought any of this through. None of what you've mentioned is the bad of free will, the same would happen under determinism. Punishment would still happen because it deters bad behavior, same with blame, and mass incarceration. Determinism doesn't change any of that, but belief in free will makes folks do something about that.

And it's not mental shortcuts, don't dress it up to avoid reality. The fact is we do lie to ourselves each day, and through that lie we make it come true. Like Death mentioned in Discworld "You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become?". We don't know if we'll survive tomorrow, that's a lie we tell. But believing that makes us act in a way to help it happen. The same goes when someone says they love us, we believe it even though we can't read their minds.

Our very senses are shown to not portray reality: https://www.sciencealert.com/to-help-us ... n-the-past

And yet we trust that what we see is accurate. Honestly it's just easier to call you stupid at this point.

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.

Stories are the cause, that's what it means to be social animals. The reason we do anything is because of the story that we tell. HISTORY itself is a story. Biology as we understand it is a story we tell to make sense of things, same with history, and "conditions". You act like these things are objective hard facts we know when they aren't.

Oppression and belief in freedom made people act, without belief in freedom there is nothing motivating people to break their chains.

You don't understand cause and effect, you still have the stupid view of it, or narrow.

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.

People do disappear under determinism, I explained why, maybe try reading other determinists to see:

https://www.snsociety.org/what-am-i-doing/

What's left isn't something real, fragile, or improvable. Stop using poetry for argument, it's not working for you. If there is no will, no soul, no independent ghost in the machine, then there is no person. It's just stuff happening, no one is there. Again, you want your cake and to eat it too.

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.

No you're the one doing all that, by making determinism into what it's not. Determinism denies meaning by undermining all the usual metrics we have for it, namely agency and choice. You can't "build it honestly" because "you" have no choice, so you literally cannot. You are both appealing to determinism but acting like we have a choice. It's incoherent.

Flash was right, you have nothing substantial to offer and can't see the holes every post you make. You haven't read or studied the sources you cite nor do you see how belief in free will is imperative in them. You keep wanting determinism to be something it's not. Even under determinism it's better to leave the belief in free will than to take it, since robbing people of the belief in their agency and power is a net negative for humanity. Motivation would torpedo.

You also dismiss the power of storytelling in social animals, failing to see they are the engines behind the things that we do. We're at a point in society where we're past biology and evolutionary explanations. The cultural and social ones play a bigger role than either of those two, the fact you can't see that is naive.

Everyone here can see you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but the evidence doesn't support you.

Darkneos—

What you’ve posted is long, heated, and filled with repetition, but let's cut to the essence of what you’re saying:

• You argue that the belief in free will motivates people, even if free will isn’t real.
• You say that removing this belief would make people feel powerless and give up.
• You insist that social systems, neuroscience, policy, and even human dignity require that belief.
• You think determinism can’t “sustain” these things.
• And then—without irony—you claim that you are the one defending reality.

But let’s step back for a moment. You’re not defending truth. You’re defending utility. You’ve given up on whether free will is real, and instead staked your position on the idea that it’s a helpful lie—like Santa Claus for grownups. That’s your hill. And I need you to recognize that. You’re not arguing it exists. You’re arguing it’s useful.

And you know what? Sometimes illusions do feel useful. Placebos relieve pain. National myths hold countries together. But here’s the question you keep dodging: At what cost?

Let me walk you through it plainly:

1. Belief in free will fuels cruelty.
The idea that people “chose” their pain lets us blame the poor, shame the mentally ill, and imprison the traumatized. That’s not a bug. That’s the direct consequence of thinking everyone could have “chosen differently.”

2. Determinism doesn’t destroy accountability—it clarifies it.
When we stop asking “Who deserves blame?” and start asking “What caused this—and how can we prevent it?”, we stop moralizing and start solving. That’s not incoherent. That’s called causal responsibility—and it works. It's already at the core of trauma-informed care, public health policy, and evidence-based education.

3. You confuse metaphysical agency with practical intervention.
Saying “you have no free will” doesn’t mean “you can’t do anything.” It means your actions come from somewhere—biology, history, social structure. So if you want change, you don’t lecture people—you alter the inputs. That’s how behavior science works. That’s how parenting works. That’s how change works.

4. You call stories “engines.”
No—they’re maps. Not the territory. Stories don’t cause revolutions. Oppression does. Pain does. Need does. The stories just help people understand what they’re already feeling. You’ve mistaken the narrative for the ignition.

5. You cite Sapolsky and Nahmias out of context.
Sapolsky explicitly says free will doesn’t exist. Nahmias worries about the social consequences of believing that—but does not deny the research undermining free will. Your objection isn’t to the science—it’s to the feelings it stirs up.

6. You say, “People would give up.”
Some might. At first. That’s why we reframe. Not with lies, but with new language. Instead of “you control everything,” we say, “Your choices are shaped by your past, but your future can still change—if we change what shapes it.” That’s still cause and effect. It’s still motivational. And it’s true.

You ask why I “want to take belief in free will away.” I don’t want to take anything. I want us to grow out of it. Like we outgrew geocentrism. Or bloodletting. Or divine kings. And yes, that kind of growth is scary. But clinging to a comforting falsehood because it “keeps people in line” is not noble—it’s cowardice.

And honestly? The way you keep calling people stupid, or dishonest, or naïve—it says more about your discomfort than it does about anyone’s logic. I get it. This is existential stuff. But insulting everyone who disagrees doesn’t make your position stronger. It just exposes your fear that it might not hold.

So let me offer this instead of another volley:

If determinism is true, then people are not evil—they’re injured. They’re not broken—they’re caused. And the moment we stop pretending they “could have done otherwise,” we start building systems that don’t just punish, but actually prevent.

That’s not weakness. That’s wisdom.

And if you don’t like that idea—fine. But don’t pretend the data is on your side. And don’t confuse popularity with proof. Because truth doesn’t need applause. It just needs to be faced.

And that’s exactly what I’m doing.

[Belinda]

I never introduced any silly notions like "absolute" free will so I don't know why you are troubling me with that.

The only sort of free will or deterministic argument I could possibly waste my time on would be the ones that purport to describe how the world came to be exactly as it is with our experiences and our psychological vocabulary exactly as they are. Even discussing that is lowering myself into a silly debate. Some other crap that doesn't even purport to do what I put right there is too fucking stupid to get any of my time at all ever.

How free do you reckon you are? It must be agreed some people are more free of restrictions than others.

I am familiar with that move. So sure, I have freedoms that are not available to people with no imagination, but I lack freedoms that a billionaire with a private jet has to go to some places etc. Or if you want to go Berlin style, I have the negative freedom to leap leap tall buildings in a single bound - there is no act of man that can stop me, but I don't have the positive freedom to do so because I am no Superman.

That was fun, but it has nothing really to do with the metaphysics of free will, it's a bait and switch move.

I agree with all your examples.Simply that freedom of choice is relative to the life one leads. The life one leads is relative to other lives and to inanimate things and ideas.. Even if there were no such events as causes (or causal determinism) we pretty well know that experiences link up together and that some links are more probable than others. It's more probable that a man will feel sleepy in the morning if he is kept awake all night.
It is less probable that a man will steal if he and his dependants are not hungry.
I cannot see what actual 'work' this free will thing is logically supposed to be doing.

[Darkneos]

Choices don't require free will.

They do, otherwise it's just physics.

No they don't. Physical things make choices.

Without will there is no choice, it's simply physics playing itself out.

[Darkneos]

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.

You, again, misunderstand. Belief in free will is what yields what you see around you, it makes people behave in arguably better ways. Especially when evidence shows to opposite hurts them.

If you're saying "it works" is not an argument for "it's real" then you're gonna have to throw away a HELL of a lot of stuff, including science itself.

Robert Sapolsky is a name I have already given as an example of someone who DOESN'T know how to build a society absent free will. Even in an interview he admits that all of society runs on the belief in free will and he had no plan for actually changing all of it.

I also don't know why you brought up Eddy Nahmias as his position is closer to what I am arguing than yours.

From his website:

“Why ‘Willusionism’ Leads to ‘Bad Results’,” which offers an explanation for why recent scientific claims that free will is an illusion may lead people to behave worse.

People like to pretend that without that belief in free will folks would do the same thing they always did, unaware that the belief in free will is why they do what they do and without that their motivation and drive would be very different (if it still exists).

The neuroscience interventions also operate under the assumption of free will. The assumption of it pervades our entire society and does affect the success rate of treatments.

The same goes for Portugal's Drug Use policy, it's also based on free will by offering the people who do it a choice instead of the Deterministic practices of other countries where they're treated as demons. The same for Norway.

No matter how desperate you try to assume that determinism is at play here the fact is the BELIEF in free will underpins every last one of these. If none of these people had that belief then none of these would be effective (and I'll have you reflect on why that is).

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.

You're the one who doesn't understand it's costs, if you take the belief in free will away people literally stop trying to be better, we have studies on this. When you remove agency from people eventually they just give up. YOU haven't thought any of this through. None of what you've mentioned is the bad of free will, the same would happen under determinism. Punishment would still happen because it deters bad behavior, same with blame, and mass incarceration. Determinism doesn't change any of that, but belief in free will makes folks do something about that.

And it's not mental shortcuts, don't dress it up to avoid reality. The fact is we do lie to ourselves each day, and through that lie we make it come true. Like Death mentioned in Discworld "You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become?". We don't know if we'll survive tomorrow, that's a lie we tell. But believing that makes us act in a way to help it happen. The same goes when someone says they love us, we believe it even though we can't read their minds.

Our very senses are shown to not portray reality: https://www.sciencealert.com/to-help-us ... n-the-past

And yet we trust that what we see is accurate. Honestly it's just easier to call you stupid at this point.

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.

Stories are the cause, that's what it means to be social animals. The reason we do anything is because of the story that we tell. HISTORY itself is a story. Biology as we understand it is a story we tell to make sense of things, same with history, and "conditions". You act like these things are objective hard facts we know when they aren't.

Oppression and belief in freedom made people act, without belief in freedom there is nothing motivating people to break their chains.

You don't understand cause and effect, you still have the stupid view of it, or narrow.

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.

People do disappear under determinism, I explained why, maybe try reading other determinists to see:

https://www.snsociety.org/what-am-i-doing/

What's left isn't something real, fragile, or improvable. Stop using poetry for argument, it's not working for you. If there is no will, no soul, no independent ghost in the machine, then there is no person. It's just stuff happening, no one is there. Again, you want your cake and to eat it too.

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.

No you're the one doing all that, by making determinism into what it's not. Determinism denies meaning by undermining all the usual metrics we have for it, namely agency and choice. You can't "build it honestly" because "you" have no choice, so you literally cannot. You are both appealing to determinism but acting like we have a choice. It's incoherent.

Flash was right, you have nothing substantial to offer and can't see the holes every post you make. You haven't read or studied the sources you cite nor do you see how belief in free will is imperative in them. You keep wanting determinism to be something it's not. Even under determinism it's better to leave the belief in free will than to take it, since robbing people of the belief in their agency and power is a net negative for humanity. Motivation would torpedo.

You also dismiss the power of storytelling in social animals, failing to see they are the engines behind the things that we do. We're at a point in society where we're past biology and evolutionary explanations. The cultural and social ones play a bigger role than either of those two, the fact you can't see that is naive.

Everyone here can see you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but the evidence doesn't support you.

Darkneos—

What you’ve posted is long, heated, and filled with repetition, but let's cut to the essence of what you’re saying:

• You argue that the belief in free will motivates people, even if free will isn’t real.
• You say that removing this belief would make people feel powerless and give up.
• You insist that social systems, neuroscience, policy, and even human dignity require that belief.
• You think determinism can’t “sustain” these things.
• And then—without irony—you claim that you are the one defending reality.

But let’s step back for a moment. You’re not defending truth. You’re defending utility. You’ve given up on whether free will is real, and instead staked your position on the idea that it’s a helpful lie—like Santa Claus for grownups. That’s your hill. And I need you to recognize that. You’re not arguing it exists. You’re arguing it’s useful.

And you know what? Sometimes illusions do feel useful. Placebos relieve pain. National myths hold countries together. But here’s the question you keep dodging: At what cost?

Let me walk you through it plainly:

1. Belief in free will fuels cruelty.
The idea that people “chose” their pain lets us blame the poor, shame the mentally ill, and imprison the traumatized. That’s not a bug. That’s the direct consequence of thinking everyone could have “chosen differently.”

2. Determinism doesn’t destroy accountability—it clarifies it.
When we stop asking “Who deserves blame?” and start asking “What caused this—and how can we prevent it?”, we stop moralizing and start solving. That’s not incoherent. That’s called causal responsibility—and it works. It's already at the core of trauma-informed care, public health policy, and evidence-based education.

3. You confuse metaphysical agency with practical intervention.
Saying “you have no free will” doesn’t mean “you can’t do anything.” It means your actions come from somewhere—biology, history, social structure. So if you want change, you don’t lecture people—you alter the inputs. That’s how behavior science works. That’s how parenting works. That’s how change works.

4. You call stories “engines.”
No—they’re maps. Not the territory. Stories don’t cause revolutions. Oppression does. Pain does. Need does. The stories just help people understand what they’re already feeling. You’ve mistaken the narrative for the ignition.

5. You cite Sapolsky and Nahmias out of context.
Sapolsky explicitly says free will doesn’t exist. Nahmias worries about the social consequences of believing that—but does not deny the research undermining free will. Your objection isn’t to the science—it’s to the feelings it stirs up.

6. You say, “People would give up.”
Some might. At first. That’s why we reframe. Not with lies, but with new language. Instead of “you control everything,” we say, “Your choices are shaped by your past, but your future can still change—if we change what shapes it.” That’s still cause and effect. It’s still motivational. And it’s true.

You ask why I “want to take belief in free will away.” I don’t want to take anything. I want us to grow out of it. Like we outgrew geocentrism. Or bloodletting. Or divine kings. And yes, that kind of growth is scary. But clinging to a comforting falsehood because it “keeps people in line” is not noble—it’s cowardice.

And honestly? The way you keep calling people stupid, or dishonest, or naïve—it says more about your discomfort than it does about anyone’s logic. I get it. This is existential stuff. But insulting everyone who disagrees doesn’t make your position stronger. It just exposes your fear that it might not hold.

So let me offer this instead of another volley:

If determinism is true, then people are not evil—they’re injured. They’re not broken—they’re caused. And the moment we stop pretending they “could have done otherwise,” we start building systems that don’t just punish, but actually prevent.

That’s not weakness. That’s wisdom.

And if you don’t like that idea—fine. But don’t pretend the data is on your side. And don’t confuse popularity with proof. Because truth doesn’t need applause. It just needs to be faced.

And that’s exactly what I’m doing.

But let’s step back for a moment. You’re not defending truth. You’re defending utility. You’ve given up on whether free will is real, and instead staked your position on the idea that it’s a helpful lie—like Santa Claus for grownups. That’s your hill. And I need you to recognize that. You’re not arguing it exists. You’re arguing it’s useful.

And you know what? Sometimes illusions do feel useful. Placebos relieve pain. National myths hold countries together. But here’s the question you keep dodging: At what cost?

I mean this is a philosophy debate and you are arguing about what is better for society so in a sense you are arguing for utility. You're not arguing for truth.

1. Belief in free will does not fuel cruelty.

2. Determinism destroys accountability because by definition no one chose to do what they did so they can't be blamed for it. Again accountability is incompatible with determinism, which is a point Sapolsky makes in his work (he even uses determinism to argue for no on deserving anything, that would include effort in things like sports or art). What you've described simply isn't true.

3. History and social structure is a story, it's the world of meaning we weave and inhabit. By determinism you cannot alter inputs, that implies agency that determinism says you don't have. Something either works or doesn't. That's not how change, parenting, or behavior science works. In fact if you knew anything about behavior science you'd know the story being told is important for animals like us. But again, under determinism people have no choice, meaning such interventions likely won't work if people don't believe in agency.

4. Stories are engines and maps. You keep talking about science and physics when all of that is maps too. All we have are maps, not reality itself. Revolution, pain, need, oppression, those are all stories being told by us. Read Buddhism to see how all that is a narrative built around a self, a self that does not exist under determinism.

5. I don't cite them out of context. I know he says free will doesn't exist (though his book and work don't necessarily prove that) but he acknowledges that society runs on that belief and so do our social interactions, entertainment, everything. That's why in the interview he said he didn't know how to implement a society without that. He assumes nothing would change when it clearly would.

My objection is to the science, because there is mixed results about free will. But more than that it's the social impact that's more important and one that I'd argue is the end point of science. Science is after all a human social endeavor to understand reality and we use that to guide us and society.

6. This:

Some might. At first. That’s why we reframe. Not with lies, but with new language. Instead of “you control everything,” we say, “Your choices are shaped by your past, but your future can still change—if we change what shapes it.” That’s still cause and effect. It’s still motivational. And it’s true.

Is literally false under determinism. You are still thinking with free will with "if we change what shapes it". You are telling people they are leaves on the wind subject to forces they don't control and at the mercy of things they don't understand. It's literally the death of motivation. No one is going to get out of bed in the morning if it feels like they aren't living their lives but just going through the motions. That nothing they do is in their hands and they have no choice about anything. Everything they love is because of outside forces, nothing about them. The people they cherish didn't chose them, it was just inevitable.

Really think hard about number 6 because I feel like you don't get it. It's that naivete that just assumes it will work out when all the evidence we have shows that removing the feeling of choice or agency leads to depression and suicide.

There is no point to living life if you control none of it.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/ ... l%20health.

You ask why I “want to take belief in free will away.” I don’t want to take anything. I want us to grow out of it. Like we outgrew geocentrism. Or bloodletting. Or divine kings. And yes, that kind of growth is scary. But clinging to a comforting falsehood because it “keeps people in line” is not noble—it’s cowardice.

You have fantasies that don't match reality. Not to mention your examples aren't nearly comparable. Geocentrism was valid from the observations at the time and useful until new data up turned it, but it's not like it harmed people by doing it. Blood letting and divine kinds were also harmful. But free will, the belief in choice and agency has real consequences for peoples lives, and taking away that would ruin society (again...evidence). You aren't talking about growth, it's just ego stroking. Assuming you know best when you clearly have no idea the damage it would do or how to fix it.

It doesn't "keep people in line" it's what drives everything we do. You have no plan for it's removal, just assurances nothing would change.

If determinism is true, then people are not evil—they’re injured. They’re not broken—they’re caused. And the moment we stop pretending they “could have done otherwise,” we start building systems that don’t just punish, but actually prevent.

That's the thing, we don't. You don't get it, under determinism there is no reason for someone who doesn't give a damn to do so, because they have no choice or say in how they feel. You really don't get how pervasive the belief in choice and agency impacts human psychology and society. Under determinism there aren't people, just machines.

It's LITERALLY just physics playing out.

And if you don’t like that idea—fine. But don’t pretend the data is on your side. And don’t confuse popularity with proof. Because truth doesn’t need applause. It just needs to be faced.

And that’s exactly what I’m doing.

You're kidding yourself if you think you're talking about truth. Your thinking on this is so narrow that it's hard to argue because you can't see. The data is on my side, as we have shown when people are robbed of choice or agency they get depressed. All you have is "just so" statements not rooted in reality.

Whether you admit it or not humans run on illusions, heck our own perception of the world is not reality. We already don't live in truth. You ignored the data I gave that supported that.

You're not serious about this, that much is clear, because your whole plan is just "trust me bro" followed by mere insistences.

[Atla]

They do, otherwise it's just physics.

No they don't. Physical things make choices.

Without will there is no choice, it's simply physics playing itself out.

Will exists and is physical. These things are obvious. Even our cat has a will, it's just smaller and weaker than a human's.

Although you're right that the Mike-AI hybrid's hard determinist philosophy would obviously just drive most people suicidal and homicidal.