The Democrat Party Hates America

[henry quirk]

You're equating mattering with magic—as if unless there’s an uncaused soul floating above biology, nothing counts. Nothing moves. Nothing means.

Nice diversion. Let's try again: 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.

Instead of commenting on my magic, counter

Actually, for once, justify your position. I don't think you can. As I say: You want stuff your determinism can't provide. Meaning, mattering, is one of those things.

*

If I strike a match and it lights a fire, the fire isn’t meaningless because it was caused.

I say you're a free will, one who chooses to start a fire: so, of course it matters. Your action based on your choice matters. You're responsible.

You say you're a meat machine, directed by AZATHOTH, one that starts a fire: it matters not. You're no different than a lightning strike. You aren't responsible.

*

If empathy, education, trauma, or love...

Meaningless products of electro-chemisty.

lead to an action that changes a life...

Cause a machine to do Z instead of A.

that doesn’t stop mattering just because it followed a chain of events.

There is no mattering. Mattering belongs to persons, not lumps of matter.

That’s not emptiness—that’s how reality works.

It's utterly empty. No, that's not how human beings work. That's how lightning works, not persons.

*

people still grieve. People still build. People still resist

Becuz they're free wills.

*

you don’t like the implications of determinism.

Nice try. But if, as you say, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions, my dislike is out of my control, so: take it up with AZATHOTH. By your reckoning: I am meat. I only think and do as bidden by blind, amoral, deterministic forces.

*

You don’t get to call something false because it makes you uncomfortable.

Nice try. Again, according to you, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions so: if I am callin' determinism false just becuz it makes me uncomfortable, then take it up with AZATHOTH. By your reckoning: I am meat. I only think and do as bidden by blind, amoral, deterministic forces.

For the record: I'm callin' you out, not countering determinism. I'm callin'' you out with solid, and frankly, indisputable reason: You want stuff your determinism can't provide.. There's no discomfort on my part. There is an absolute certainty you will never bridge the gap between what determinism is and what you want determinism to be. You can't. What you want from determinism cannot be had with or thru determinism.

*

And let’s talk about this “AZATHOTH” metaphor.

Yeah, I like it. It's on the money: a great idiot god all are irrevocably enslaved to.

*

your argument is aesthetic, not logical.

You wish.

*

You feel repulsed by the idea that we're meat.

Nah, I am, in part, meat. And my meat along with my soul makes me (and I really like me). Again, though: nice try. Though, if, as a meat machine, I were repulsed, that would be at the biddiing of AZATHOTH cuz, as a meat machine, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions, right?

*

that’s exactly the kind of illusion determinism exposes

No. All determinism sez is we're meat machines doin' as we inevitably must as bidden by AZATHOTH. That's it, that's all.

*

You claim I want all the benefits of free will without the liabilities?

You do. Anyone reading any of your posts will tell you the same: you want from determinism what determinism cannot possibly give. You want the depth that comes with morally capable and responsible beings (free wills) and you want it from a scheme that has no place for responsibility and capability.

*

you don’t get to pretend it’s on equal footing with physics, neuroscience, and everything we actually know about how people function.

Metaphysics trumps physics. Neuroscience doesn't say about us what you think it does. What we know about ourselves only makes sense when we're taken as free wills. Most of the confusion about people comes directly from the misbegotten lie that we are just meat.

*

you don’t scare me

You should be scared. The thinkin' you wanna foist up on us can lead only to the worst of places.

*

You matter.

Yes, I do. So do you. Becuz we're free wills.

*

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.

No. One story recognizes us as persons, as morally responsible bengs, as free wills; the other sez we're meat on AZATHOTH's strings, and you, sir, stand on the wrong side.

[Dubious]

That the unmentioned punishment resulting from The Fall was not only death and all that, but that we are fated to have to defecate.

Worse still when constipation prevents it! How many times does god have to get even!

[BigMike]

You're equating mattering with magic—as if unless there’s an uncaused soul floating above biology, nothing counts. Nothing moves. Nothing means.

Nice diversion. Let's try again: 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.

Instead of commenting on my magic, counter

Actually, for once, justify your position. I don't think you can. As I say: You want stuff your determinism can't provide. Meaning, mattering, is one of those things.

*

If I strike a match and it lights a fire, the fire isn’t meaningless because it was caused.

I say you're a free will, one who chooses to start a fire: so, of course it matters. Your action based on your choice matters. You're responsible.

You say you're a meat machine, directed by AZATHOTH, one that starts a fire: it matters not. You're no different than a lightning strike. You aren't responsible.

*

If empathy, education, trauma, or love...

Meaningless products of electro-chemisty.

lead to an action that changes a life...

Cause a machine to do Z instead of A.

that doesn’t stop mattering just because it followed a chain of events.

There is no mattering. Mattering belongs to persons, not lumps of matter.

That’s not emptiness—that’s how reality works.

It's utterly empty. No, that's not how human beings work. That's how lightning works, not persons.

*

people still grieve. People still build. People still resist

Becuz they're free wills.

*

you don’t like the implications of determinism.

Nice try. But if, as you say, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions, my dislike is out of my control, so: take it up with AZATHOTH. By your reckoning: I am meat. I only think and do as bidden by blind, amoral, deterministic forces.

*

You don’t get to call something false because it makes you uncomfortable.

Nice try. Again, according to you, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions so: if I am callin' determinism false just becuz it makes me uncomfortable, then take it up with AZATHOTH. By your reckoning: I am meat. I only think and do as bidden by blind, amoral, deterministic forces.

For the record: I'm callin' you out, not countering determinism. I'm callin'' you out with solid, and frankly, indisputable reason: You want stuff your determinism can't provide.. There's no discomfort on my part. There is an absolute certainty you will never bridge the gap between what determinism is and what you want determinism to be. You can't. What you want from determinism cannot be had with or thru determinism.

*

And let’s talk about this “AZATHOTH” metaphor.

Yeah, I like it. It's on the money: a great idiot god all are irrevocably enslaved to.

*

your argument is aesthetic, not logical.

You wish.

*

You feel repulsed by the idea that we're meat.

Nah, I am, in part, meat. And my meat along with my soul makes me (and I really like me). Again, though: nice try. Though, if, as a meat machine, I were repulsed, that would be at the biddiing of AZATHOTH cuz, as a meat machine, I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions, right?

*

that’s exactly the kind of illusion determinism exposes

No. All determinism sez is we're meat machines doin' as we inevitably must as bidden by AZATHOTH. That's it, that's all.

*

You claim I want all the benefits of free will without the liabilities?

You do. Anyone reading any of your posts will tell you the same: you want from determinism what determinism cannot possibly give. You want the depth that comes with morally capable and responsible beings (free wills) and you want it from a scheme that has no place for responsibility and capability.

*

you don’t get to pretend it’s on equal footing with physics, neuroscience, and everything we actually know about how people function.

Metaphysics trumps physics. Neuroscience doesn't say about us what you think it does. What we know about ourselves only makes sense when we're taken as free wills. Most of the confusion about people comes directly from the misbegotten lie that we are just meat.

*

you don’t scare me

You should be scared. The thinkin' you wanna foist up on us can lead only to the worst of places.

*

You matter.

Yes, I do. So do you. Becuz we're free wills.

*

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.

No. One story recognizes us as persons, as morally responsible bengs, as free wills; the other sez we're meat on AZATHOTH's strings, and you, sir, stand on the wrong side.

Henry—

You keep repeating the same phrase like it’s the final nail in the coffin: “You want stuff your determinism can’t provide.” But here’s the twist—you’re not pointing out a gap in logic. You’re pointing out a gap between what you wish the universe felt like... and how it actually works.

Let’s get to the meat of it—no pun intended.

You say:

“If I don’t control my thoughts, my desires, or my decisions… how can anything matter?”
But you’re treating “mattering” like it’s some ghostly ingredient that only shows up when sprinkled with metaphysical pixie dust. As if causality cancels significance.

It doesn’t.

Let me ask you this, plainly:
If your daughter is in pain, and you comfort her—does that act suddenly become meaningless because the love you feel was shaped by biology, upbringing, and cause-effect neurochemistry? Of course not. It matters because you’re part of something real, connected, physical. You are a person. But you’re a person built by causes.

You’ve built this false dichotomy: either we’re magic, or we’re meaningless. Either soul, or soulless. Either choice in a vacuum, or nothing matters. But that’s not reality. That’s cartoon logic. That's theological leftovers clinging to the walls of the Enlightenment.

Now, let’s hit the AZATHOTH stuff. I get it—it’s a colorful metaphor. But you keep invoking it as if it proves your point. It doesn’t. All it proves is that you don’t like the implications of determinism. But disliking gravity won’t let you float.

You say:

“You’re no different than a lightning strike.”
You know what? In physical terms, that’s exactly right. But here’s the thing: a lightning strike can’t learn from the last storm. We can. A virus can’t weep for what it’s done. We can. We’re deterministic systems with memory, feedback, and the capacity to model future outcomes. That’s what makes us human.

Not freedom from causality—but depth within it.

You say:

“There is no mattering. Mattering belongs to persons.”

And then deny that persons can exist in a physical universe. Why? What is a person if not the sum of relationships, history, perception, and internal modeling? That’s not a reduction. That’s a recognition of how rich and intertwined we are.

Now let’s zoom in on the big one:

“You want all the depth that comes with morally responsible beings and you want it from a scheme that has no place for responsibility and capability.”

Wrong. What I want—and what I’m arguing for—is responsibility that’s grounded in \reality\. Not wishful thinking. Not some magical soul that defies measurement. If someone punches you in the face, and we ask why—what gives us a chance to prevent the next punch? Blaming his ghostly free will? Or understanding what led him to it, and changing the pattern?

You want people held accountable. So do I. But I want them held accountable in a way that works—not one that keeps repeating cycles of blame, cruelty, and revenge.

And yes, I believe you matter. I believe you’re a complex, beautiful, pattern-rich system shaped by cause and effect. That’s not an insult. That’s awe.

You don’t need to float above nature to be important. You are part of nature. You are a miracle of physics—not in spite of it.

And if AZATHOTH “bids” anything, it’s that we finally grow up and stop looking for ghosts in the machine to justify why things hurt, or why they’re unfair, or why we long for more.

We don’t need magic to matter.

We just need truth—and the courage to build meaning within it.

[Atla]

You think you can fight a war with no ammo

Fifth generation warfare, m’boy. Its quintessentially non-kinetic!

when the opponent has all the ammo in the universe.

Oh that’s nothing. I can reduce all that to a mere particle, zillions of times smaller than an atom.

Look my friend, you have the same problem as your master IC. You guys are some sort of sociopathics who can't feel shame and similar basic emotions. You sense that something is missing, so you go looking for the missing human part in the spirital realm or whatever. But the answer is right here on Earth.

[Will Bouwman]

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

What has this got to do with anything? It's not at all clear to me what you're trying to plead here.

That you don't understand physics.

Physics is the study of physical stuff.

That is either a tautology or wrong. That stuff is physical is a metaphysical claim. Idealism, for example, accounts for the phenomena equally well as materialism or dualism and in fact more parsimoniously.

It has no opinion about the existence of anything else. We know that. Where are we going? No claim of physics warrants any metaphysical claim, simply because physics doesn't deal with any of that. It doesn't even propose to.

Physicists use metaphysical conjectures all the time. As mentioned, spacetime and gravitons are examples. If you don't understand why then, despite my best efforts, you don't understand physics. You are again confusing your interpretation with truth.

That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making.

This is an expression of what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

No, that is you bearing false witness again. Were you better able to process language, you would see that I did not claim that technology will eventually resolve the issue, I just acknowledged that it might, a claim so uncontroversial that no one but an idiot would challenge it. As it happens, when I studied philosophy of mind as an undergraduate, my take was that if determinism were true then, in principle, a sufficiently powerful computer, or worse, an omniscient god, could tell me what I would do for the next 5 minutes and I would be powerless to do otherwise. While that might be the case, I still doubt it. You believe it.

If you "deny" that there's cognitive choice, then you can't be making a cognitive choice when you do it.

The words vacuous and tautology leap out.

Then think again. "Denying" is a cognitive process, not a physical one. How many ounces in a "denial"? See?

You may have heard that the brain uses about 20% of the energy we consume. You might also have heard of the equivalence of mass and energy. If you understand that, you might further realise that while "ounces" is wrong by orders of magnitude, brain processes have mass.

No physical properties, and yet its reality is undeniable, because it's the thing you're doing right now.

The only thing I am denying is that you know what you are talking about.

Just stop. Look at yourself. The empirical evidence is right in front of your eyes, or rather, in the realization of your own performance.

My performance, like yours, is the empirical evidence, it would look exactly the same in many metaphysical constructs. Again, you don't understand that and resort to totally meaningless, question begging sophistry.

If "choice" exists, the Determinism is false.

Well, as the Spartans said to Philip II, "If".

In a Deterministic world, there would be no genuine "choice" at all.

See?

What I see is you begging the question. How do you know your choices are genuine?

Again, what you are doing this very moment is all the empirical evidence you're going to need...and it's right in front of you.

The empirical evidence is exactly the same whether behaviour is chosen or determined.

[henry quirk]

I read your response several times and it's the same old, same old. There's nuthin' there that hasn't been countered. Over and over, over multiple threads, using your own words, I've shown you the gap between what determinism is and what you want from it. I've shown you that gap can't be bridged. And you don't get it, won't get it, or just can't it.

I don't know where to go in this conversation anymore. Damn straight, what we've been doin' isn't productive.

So: I'm gonna wait and read, and wait some more, and see if you bring anything new to the table...I won't hold my breath.

I wish you well, truly (cuz you've picked one helluva dead-end road to walk), and I offer one lil bit of advice: at some point, you'll have to move beyond salesmanship and actually address that gap, for yourself, if no one else. Zeal is great, but it can't last. And when zeal goes, if there's nuthin' more substantial to replace it, despair follows.

Anyway: Be seein' you...

a no-prize to the one who correctly identifies the source of the valediction (no cheatin'!)

[Immanuel Can]

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

What has this got to do with anything? It's not at all clear to me what you're trying to plead here.

That you don't understand physics.

You're going to have to try harder, if you want to prove that.

Physics is the study of physical stuff.

That is either a tautology or wrong.

Neither. It's in the name. And it can be shown: name something non-physical that you think physics deals with.

It has no opinion about the existence of anything else. We know that. Where are we going? No claim of physics warrants any metaphysical claim, simply because physics doesn't deal with any of that. It doesn't even propose to.

Physicists use metaphysical conjectures all the time.

Yes, they do: but only assumptively. They don't have the means to prove them with physics.

That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making.

This is an expression of what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

No, that is you bearing false witness again.

No, it's a truth. "Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind." (Stanford) Before you criticize, maybe you should look the term up. As you can now see, it's not an expression of knowledge, but of faith: of the belief that just because Materialism explains SOME things, we can close the book and claim it explains ALL things, including metaphysical phenomena like mind.

The words vacuous and tautology leap out.

Then think again. "Denying" is a cognitive process, not a physical one. How many ounces in a "denial"? See?

brain processes have mass.

But a "brain" is not a "denial." Denial is a metaphysical process. Think harder. And while you're doing it, think about the fact that you're thinking. It's called "metacognition."

No physical properties, and yet its reality is undeniable, because it's the thing you're doing right now.

The only thing I am denying is that you know what you are talking about.

And had you no mind, you couldn't do it.

In a Deterministic world, there would be no genuine "choice" at all. See?

What I see is you begging the question.

Think harder.

How do you know your choices are genuine?

Is your choice to ask me that genuine? Or should I dismiss it as a merely predetermined hiccup of your brain matter? If you want it take seriously, you have to recognize that the question contains a thought, and that that thought is not a merely material matter. And if you refuse to recognize it, I can't possibly owe it anything, can I? Brain hiccups do not require answers.

[FlashDangerpants]

what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

That's a very peculiar way to describe what Eliminative Materialism is.

[Immanuel Can]

what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

That's a very peculiar way to describe what Eliminative Materialism is.

It's the truth. Eliminative Materialists insist that Materialism will "eliminate" the need for all other explanations, when we have enough data come in. They admit that we don't NOW, but they prophesy that, at some remarkable day in the future, or at least in principle, (when things are "mature") we will only ever need Materialist explanations.

That's not science. That's speculation.

[Belinda]

Belinda—

That’s a fascinating angle: defining free will as the “ability to err.” But I think we need to zoom in and ask—what does it mean to err? What is an “error,” and where does it come from?

If you slip on a wet floor, that’s not free will—it’s physics. If you miscalculate a math problem, that’s not metaphysical liberty—it’s faulty perception, flawed memory, or noise in a neural signal. And if you believe something false, it’s usually because your brain, shaped by evolution, priors, and culture, used a shortcut that failed in this context. But in all these cases, the error has causes. It's not a mystery. It's just a malfunction—or a mismatch—within a causal system.

Error doesn’t require freedom in the metaphysical sense. It requires complexity. And humans are complex systems—rich enough to generate internal conflict, competing priorities, limited information processing, and emotional override. But none of that breaks causality. It’s still biology in motion.

Artificial intelligence can and does err too, by the way—not just from glitches, but from training bias, incomplete datasets, or misalignment between goals and environment. And every one of those errors is traceable. Just like with us.

Now, the idea that “humans can err more than other animals” is probably true—but that’s not evidence for free will. It’s evidence for more variables, more layers, more feedback loops. More room for contradiction. But none of that implies metaphysical exception. It implies we’re high-dimensional meat computers with a lot of moving parts—not unmoved movers with magical choice powers.

So while “error” might feel like proof of free will, it’s really just a mirror showing how tangled and fragile our machinery is.

In short: error isn’t freedom. It’s just caused unpredictability. And that still lives well inside the walls of determinism.

I did not say “humans can err more than other animals” is evidence of so -called free will , but that humans' ability to err is the same as so-called "free will".

The present problem with advanced AI is that machines can now err, and it's the type of errors they do that catch them out.

Unpredictability remains our protection against the rise and rise of AI.
There's nothing magical about unpredictability, or the stupidity of failing to wear non-slip footwear. We are all stupid to some degree, stupidity defines our human nature. Other animals are not stupid but are instinctive.

Belinda—

Thanks for clarifying. I see your point more clearly now: you're not saying error is evidence of free will, but that the capacity to err is itself what you mean by free will. That's a poetic redefinition—and I get the instinct behind it. But I’d still push back, gently, on the logic.

See, when I say the laws of physics make life predictable, I don’t mean they make it infallible. Predictable doesn't mean precise to the atom in every context. It means lawful—structured. It means every effect has a cause, even if our tools or models aren’t sensitive enough to trace the full chain. And that’s the key distinction.

Science doesn’t claim certainty. It can’t. As I’ve said here many times before, science doesn’t prove anything. It proposes models that work, until one day they don’t—and then we refine. That's what falsifiability means. It’s not a flaw of science. It’s the reason it's the most trustworthy tool we have. And the irony is, humans are falsifiable too. So is AI. So is every theory of mind, meaning, or metaphysics we build. None of us are above revision.

Now—about unpredictability. Yes, it's often the only thing that separates us from machines right now. But even that isn't metaphysical. It’s a matter of complexity. Neural networks don’t yet mirror the mess of emotions, sensory overload, trauma, history, or cultural noise that shapes our decisions. But that doesn’t make us free in the libertarian sense. It makes us chaotic in patterned ways. And that chaos is still causal. Still lawful. Just very hard to model.

So I wouldn’t equate “the ability to err” with “freedom” in any absolute sense. I’d call it what it is: a byproduct of intricate, imperfect machinery navigating a noisy world. And that machinery—ours—is running on rules, not magic.

That said, I agree with the spirit of your point: our fallibility is what makes us human. It’s where humility lives. But that doesn’t require free will. It just requires a mirror. And a little grace.

But the capability to err does not "require free will", the capability to err is intrinsic to freedom.
A mirror is a metaphor of what an AI machine is, as Chat GTP has informed me this afternoon about the nature of ChatGPT .

A mirror is a tool that means nothing until it's interpreted by the observer. As mirror ChatGPT cannot err it's only a tool. But we humans are to some degree deficient interpreters. And it's our deficiency, our ability to be stupid, that makes humans not machines.

So-called "free will " is the ability to be stupid and that is what separates us from other animals and from machines. Causal determinism is a useful working hypothesis about how biology, psychology, and physics work. (It has its problems one of which is quantum entanglement).

I do trust science because I believe scientists are in the business of discovering a whole system that already exists. Whether or not the whole system is bound together by determinism or by some other binding force is probably not knowable.

My concern with this present conversation is to point out how the lexicon of free will is unhelpful , and that AI can be used to show the difference between AI on the one hand and human fallibility. on the other.
AI does not fall into the errors of egocentricity, fear, laziness, or bias especially not confirmation bias.

[FlashDangerpants]

what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

That's a very peculiar way to describe what Eliminative Materialism is.

It's the truth. Eliminative Materialists insist that Materialism will "eliminate" the need for all other explanations, when we have enough data come in. They admit that we don't NOW, but they prophesy that, at some remarkable day in the future, or at least in principle, (when things are "mature") we will only ever need Materialist explanations.

That's not science. That's speculation.

Looks a little bit more like you made something up on the fly, and then went away and looked it up, and then you went "oh shit" and now you are doing the Immanuel Can patented walk of shamelessness.

Also... that's really not what is being eliminated.

[BigMike]

I did not say “humans can err more than other animals” is evidence of so -called free will , but that humans' ability to err is the same as so-called "free will".

The present problem with advanced AI is that machines can now err, and it's the type of errors they do that catch them out.

Unpredictability remains our protection against the rise and rise of AI.
There's nothing magical about unpredictability, or the stupidity of failing to wear non-slip footwear. We are all stupid to some degree, stupidity defines our human nature. Other animals are not stupid but are instinctive.

Belinda—

Thanks for clarifying. I see your point more clearly now: you're not saying error is evidence of free will, but that the capacity to err is itself what you mean by free will. That's a poetic redefinition—and I get the instinct behind it. But I’d still push back, gently, on the logic.

See, when I say the laws of physics make life predictable, I don’t mean they make it infallible. Predictable doesn't mean precise to the atom in every context. It means lawful—structured. It means every effect has a cause, even if our tools or models aren’t sensitive enough to trace the full chain. And that’s the key distinction.

Science doesn’t claim certainty. It can’t. As I’ve said here many times before, science doesn’t prove anything. It proposes models that work, until one day they don’t—and then we refine. That's what falsifiability means. It’s not a flaw of science. It’s the reason it's the most trustworthy tool we have. And the irony is, humans are falsifiable too. So is AI. So is every theory of mind, meaning, or metaphysics we build. None of us are above revision.

Now—about unpredictability. Yes, it's often the only thing that separates us from machines right now. But even that isn't metaphysical. It’s a matter of complexity. Neural networks don’t yet mirror the mess of emotions, sensory overload, trauma, history, or cultural noise that shapes our decisions. But that doesn’t make us free in the libertarian sense. It makes us chaotic in patterned ways. And that chaos is still causal. Still lawful. Just very hard to model.

So I wouldn’t equate “the ability to err” with “freedom” in any absolute sense. I’d call it what it is: a byproduct of intricate, imperfect machinery navigating a noisy world. And that machinery—ours—is running on rules, not magic.

That said, I agree with the spirit of your point: our fallibility is what makes us human. It’s where humility lives. But that doesn’t require free will. It just requires a mirror. And a little grace.

But the capability to err does not "require free will", the capability to err is intrinsic to freedom.
A mirror is a metaphor of what an AI machine is, as Chat GTP has informed me this afternoon about the nature of ChatGPT .

A mirror is a tool that means nothing until it's interpreted by the observer. As mirror ChatGPT cannot err it's only a tool. But we humans are to some degree deficient interpreters. And it's our deficiency, our ability to be stupid, that makes humans not machines.

Even human error still has causes. Sometimes we err simply because we’re overwhelmed—by too many inputs, too many options, too little clarity. But that’s not freedom in any metaphysical sense. That’s just a causal system pushed beyond its processing limits.

Deficiency doesn’t imply liberty. It just shows we’re complex—and imperfect. Like any system, human or machine.

[Belinda]

Belinda—

Thanks for clarifying. I see your point more clearly now: you're not saying error is evidence of free will, but that the capacity to err is itself what you mean by free will. That's a poetic redefinition—and I get the instinct behind it. But I’d still push back, gently, on the logic.

See, when I say the laws of physics make life predictable, I don’t mean they make it infallible. Predictable doesn't mean precise to the atom in every context. It means lawful—structured. It means every effect has a cause, even if our tools or models aren’t sensitive enough to trace the full chain. And that’s the key distinction.

Science doesn’t claim certainty. It can’t. As I’ve said here many times before, science doesn’t prove anything. It proposes models that work, until one day they don’t—and then we refine. That's what falsifiability means. It’s not a flaw of science. It’s the reason it's the most trustworthy tool we have. And the irony is, humans are falsifiable too. So is AI. So is every theory of mind, meaning, or metaphysics we build. None of us are above revision.

Now—about unpredictability. Yes, it's often the only thing that separates us from machines right now. But even that isn't metaphysical. It’s a matter of complexity. Neural networks don’t yet mirror the mess of emotions, sensory overload, trauma, history, or cultural noise that shapes our decisions. But that doesn’t make us free in the libertarian sense. It makes us chaotic in patterned ways. And that chaos is still causal. Still lawful. Just very hard to model.

So I wouldn’t equate “the ability to err” with “freedom” in any absolute sense. I’d call it what it is: a byproduct of intricate, imperfect machinery navigating a noisy world. And that machinery—ours—is running on rules, not magic.

That said, I agree with the spirit of your point: our fallibility is what makes us human. It’s where humility lives. But that doesn’t require free will. It just requires a mirror. And a little grace.

But the capability to err does not "require free will", the capability to err is intrinsic to freedom.
A mirror is a metaphor of what an AI machine is, as Chat GTP has informed me this afternoon about the nature of ChatGPT .

A mirror is a tool that means nothing until it's interpreted by the observer. As mirror ChatGPT informed me it cannot err it's only a tool. But we humans are to some degree deficient interpreters. And it's our deficiency, our ability to be stupid, that makes humans not machines.

Even human error still has causes. Sometimes we err simply because we’re overwhelmed—by too many inputs, too many options, too little clarity. But that’s not freedom in any metaphysical sense. That’s just a causal system pushed beyond its processing limits.

Deficiency doesn’t imply liberty. It just shows we’re complex—and imperfect. Like any system, human or machine.

Mirrors are generally pretty efficient tools these days!
Sure, human error is caused. And an AI machine can have its electrical plug removed from the wall point. We and machines do have common causes for functioning. However apart from ethical and national standards of the business model the AI machine is impartial.

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is a 1979 book by the American philosopher Richard Rorty, in which the author attempts to dissolve modern philosophical problems instead of solving them. Rorty does this by presenting them as pseudo-problems that only exist in the language-game of epistemological projects culminating in analytic philosophy. In a pragmatist gesture, Rorty suggests that philosophy must get past these pseudo-problems if it is to be productive.

[Immanuel Can]

That's a very peculiar way to describe what Eliminative Materialism is.

It's the truth. Eliminative Materialists insist that Materialism will "eliminate" the need for all other explanations, when we have enough data come in. They admit that we don't NOW, but they prophesy that, at some remarkable day in the future, or at least in principle, (when things are "mature") we will only ever need Materialist explanations.

That's not science. That's speculation.

Looks a little bit more like you made something up on the fly, and then went away and looked it up...

Sorry to disappoint you. I already knew about Eliminative Materialism.

It was you that didn't, apparently.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's the truth. Eliminative Materialists insist that Materialism will "eliminate" the need for all other explanations, when we have enough data come in. They admit that we don't NOW, but they prophesy that, at some remarkable day in the future, or at least in principle, (when things are "mature") we will only ever need Materialist explanations.

That's not science. That's speculation.

Looks a little bit more like you made something up on the fly, and then went away and looked it up...

Sorry to disappoint you. I already knew about Eliminative Materialism.

It was you that didn't, apparently.

I know perfectly well that "eliminate" the need for all other explanations does not describe what EM actually eliminates. And of course that any theory that purports to offer an exclusive explanation in any field also claims to eliminate the need for other explanations, including your own theory. Your theory isn't eliminative is it?