The Democrat Party Hates America

[Atla]

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.

Why on earth would it do that? That's as stupid as the assertion that the religious make when they say that we get our 'morals' from the bible and that those who don't get them from the bible have 'no morals' and therefore are all murderous psychopaths.

Because even the non-religious need the mindset that between the confines of determinism, in the everyday sense they have as much freedom to act as possible. We've evolved to have psychological will, we make choices psychologically. "Hard" determinism takes away this mindset, you are always the consequence of past things, with absolutely no will of your own. Once people process that their lives are fully beyond their control, they become suicidal and homicidal.

[Atla]

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.

Will does not exist under determinism and nor is is something physical. Most material/physicalists regard it as a relic of folk psychology and not something that exist.

Mike I'm starting to write of as either an idiot or just some AI user, but part of me still wants to give the benefit of the doubt. Flash had it right that his whole argument just boils down to "trust me bro" even though we've seen what happens when people feel like they have no control over their lives (I even linked data on it).

The people he cites also feel the same. Sapolsky admits our society runs on the belief in free will and he has no plan for how to make his idea work. He just assumes nothing would change, which IMO is as stupid as Mike and makes sense why he cited him.

Determinism has nothing to do with materialism. Materialism and the mind/matter split are nonsense.

[accelafine]

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.

Why on earth would it do that? That's as stupid as the assertion that the religious make when they say that we get our 'morals' from the bible and that those who don't get them from the bible have 'no morals' and therefore are all murderous psychopaths.

Because even the non-religious need the mindset that between the confines of determinism, in the everyday sense they have as much freedom to act as possible. We've evolved to have psychological will, we make choices psychologically. "Hard" determinism takes away this mindset, you are always the consequence of past things, with absolutely no will of your own. Once people process that their lives are fully beyond their control, they become suicidal and homicidal.

That's not the reason people become 'suicidal' I think it would have quite the opposite effect. There are an awful lot of people who accept determinism and aren't suicidal or homicidal, and an awful lot who don't who are.

[attofishpi]

Why on earth would it do that? That's as stupid as the assertion that the religious make when they say that we get our 'morals' from the bible and that those who don't get them from the bible have 'no morals' and therefore are all murderous psychopaths.

Because even the non-religious need the mindset that between the confines of determinism, in the everyday sense they have as much freedom to act as possible. We've evolved to have psychological will, we make choices psychologically. "Hard" determinism takes away this mindset, you are always the consequence of past things, with absolutely no will of your own. Once people process that their lives are fully beyond their control, they become suicidal and homicidal.

That's not the reason people become 'suicidal' I think it would have quite the opposite effect. There are an awful lot of people who accept determinism and aren't suicidal or homicidal, and an awful lot who don't who are.

Since the "Big Bang" you were always (no other way) going to post that.

[BigMike]

You did, along with another person.

What you're advocating isn't determinism, it's a weird hybrid where you want your cake and to eat it too. I'm telling you what it is straight up and gave examples proving it. Will does not exist under determinism, definitionally. There is no choice under determinism therefor no will. Will is part of the "folk psychology" it tries to dismiss.

Again you want your cake and to eat it too.

The thing about will is that there is no evidence that proves free will either exists or doesn't, the data is mixed. Hence why I'm largely agnostic on it, but I acknowledge the benefit belief in it has.

That is trust me bro, that's your whole argument. No good ever came from society treating it's people like machines, but again under determinism people are just physics, not people. So your counterpoint ends up proving mine.

But you are incorrect that if it exists and it causes anything that it operates under conservation laws, which we cannot know. Again you are treating models as final says when they're not. So free will can exist and it can "not" be due to physics. In fact we don't have any real data showing that so it's up in the air. Also what we can observe is not "reality" it's only what we have to our senses.

In short, too much is unknown for you to make half the claims you do.

But again, if free will doesn't exist then people and agents don't exist because then it's just physics taking it's course. I cited Susan Blackmoore (a well known psychologist in the field) to explain it.

Again you want something that is incompatible with your worldview. THAT is reality.

Darkneos—

Let’s clear a few things up quickly.

First, again, I didn’t cite Sapolsky. Gary Childress did. I responded to Gary. You keep repeating this as if it bolsters your point, but it’s just a factual error.

Second, you say I’m not advocating determinism—that I’m pushing some “weird hybrid.” No. I’m advocating exactly what determinism is: that all events, including human decisions, are the result of preceding causes. This goes back to Leucippus some 2500 years ago. I’ve said consistently that “will” exists as a shorthand for the decision-making process of a physical brain. Not some ghostly chooser. Not a metaphysical wildcard. But a caused process. Saying “that’s not real will” because it’s not magic is like saying a car’s motion isn’t “real” unless it moves itself without fuel.

Third, you keep insisting free will “might not be due to physics.” But any time something causes something else to happen—whether a thought, a muscle twitch, or a moral decision—it has to exchange energy or information. That's not just a belief. That’s a requirement of every single law of physics we use to model anything at all. And those laws? They’re all built on conservation principles. Every genuine law—aside from definitional identities like F = ma—is an expression of one or more conservation laws. If something escapes that structure, it isn’t just “unknown.” It’s inaccessible to interaction. Which means it doesn’t do anything. It might as well not exist.

Lastly, you repeat that determinism “eliminates people”—that if we’re just physics, we’re not real agents. But this is category error. It’s like saying hurricanes aren’t real because they’re just air pressure. People are what minds look like when arranged in certain ways. They’re not eliminated by being explained. They’re understood.

That’s not me having cake and eating it too. That’s you demanding the cake be made of ghosts—or else calling it fake.

Reality doesn’t owe you metaphysical comfort. It owes you structure. And structure is what we’ve got.

You did and I made a post showing that with you in it.

Will isn't shorthand for the decision making process of the brain, as it is understood it is the ability to make a choice, in this case we liken it to agency. As people commonly understand it it is a "metaphysical wildcard", or "ghostly chooser" you're changing the definition to make your argument work.

Again, stop invoking magic, no one is saying that. You keep drawing back to strawmen.

Moral decisions are based on belief, rooted in words that we assign meaning to. That's not physics. Physics only models particle interactions and forces, not social situations or moral decisions. You are making a category error here, appealing to a field of knowledge that has no bearing on the topic.

Physics is a mental construct, a model, same with cause and effect. Both are based on our limited senses and reasoning ability. It is possible for something to escape that and still have interaction with everything else, again you are appealing to perfect knowledge that does not exist. Something can "escape that structure" but still exist and impact everything else. Again, we don't have total knowledge, only models rooted in evidence from the senses. Free will might not be due to physics the same way consciousness might not be, but both still have an impact. Who knows.

Determinism eliminating people is not a category error. Our idea of people is agents with the ability to act and make their own choices and determinism takes that away. When everything done is not by you then to what degree can we say there is an agent? It's all physics, "just stuff happening". People aren't "what minds looked like arranged certain ways", that's you grasping at straws to make your case work. Under determinism "mind" is just superfluous folk psychology. You want to appeal to physics being all there is, which by extension means matter is all there is, therefor there is nothing beyond the physical. The would include mind, emotions, anything else.

People are eliminated under determinism THROUGH explanation. Your case of people being machines proves that point, and again...we have evidence for how people treat machines (again, factory farming is due to humans regarding animals like that).

It is you having your cake and eating it too, and everyone on here can see that (even the nutbars).

Reality doesn’t owe you metaphysical comfort. It owes you structure. And structure is what we’ve got.

This is also wrong. Reality owes nothing and cares for nothing, we do. We care about comfort and structure, reality does not owe you structure. Structure is what humans project on the world around them so they can navigate it, I proved that with the link about how our brains work. Heck some evolutionary biologists go so far as to argue that we see none of reality, because evolution evolved us to survive and not for truth (I don't buy that one). Thousands of philosophers came to similar conclusions as well.

Reality does not care if you believe in god or free will or anything, appealing to "it" offers nothing to you. Though it is weird you're arguing we aren't gods apart from causation and yet arguing about "you" and "reality" as if they are two distinct entities...

Again...you're just wrong.

You really know and understand nothing don't you? You think you are in reality when you're really not which is why you get AI to write your stuff or ignore all the evidence I gave proving your words wrong.

You're delusional.

Darkneos—

You seem to think humans have psychokinetic powers. That our “will” can push atoms around without obeying physics. That we can just summon changes in the world—no exchange of energy, no causal chain, just pure metaphysical muscle. Like Jedi mind tricks, but for everyday choices.

We don’t.

You say I'm redefining will—but I’m not the one trying to make it float above physics like some disembodied command center. I’m grounding it. Will, as it actually functions in real life, is not some soul-powered lever. It’s the result of neural computation: weighted inputs, memory, emotion, biology, hormones, past experience, current stimuli. You don’t like that? That’s fine. But it doesn’t make it false.

And you can keep saying "physics doesn't model moral decisions"—but that’s a category mistake on your part, not mine. Moral decisions don’t happen in the ether. They happen in brains. Brains are made of matter. Matter obeys physics. So if something in your brain causes you to act, that cause must exchange something physical—momentum, energy, neurotransmitter signals. There is no known mechanism—zero—that allows you to cause change without participating in those exchanges. That’s not ideology. That’s every confirmed interaction we’ve ever studied.

You’re right that reality owes us nothing. I never said it did. But if we want to understand it—really understand it—then we don’t get to invent escape hatches. And what you’re calling “structure is just human projection” ignores that the very laws you rely on to critique this framework—your ability to argue, to form coherent thoughts—depend on that structure holding. If cause and effect are optional, so is your next sentence.

You say people aren’t just minds arranged in certain ways. But what are they, then? Where’s the proof of this mysterious force that pulls the strings from outside time and matter? You keep pointing to what people feel, or what you hope is true—but never once do you provide the kind of traceable interaction that would show “free will” doing actual work.

And finally—if you're going to call me delusional, at least try to disprove a single claim I’ve made. Not by misquoting me, not by repeating “you want your cake,” not by calling AI my ghostwriter, but by engaging with the argument on its own terms.

Because until you do, the only delusion here is the belief that “will” is above explanation. It's not. It's in the chain like everything else.

No ghosts required.

[attofishpi]

Darkneos—

You seem to think humans have psychokinetic powers. That our “will” can push atoms around without obeying physics. That we can just summon changes in the world—no exchange of energy, no causal chain, just pure metaphysical muscle. Like Jedi mind tricks, but for everyday choices.

"psychokinetic power" - Like Jedi mind tricks..

What an absurd analogy.

If I ask you to attempt to pick a random number between 1 and 1 trillion - then whatever number you attempt at best to come up with, per our term 'random', had a cause? ..ever since the "Big Bang" - no other number would have been picked from any will of yours?

..even that had a CAUSE!

..such nonsense.

PS: Here's the number I picked : 34621361.

How did I pick that number? - what caused it

[BigMike]

Darkneos—

You seem to think humans have psychokinetic powers. That our “will” can push atoms around without obeying physics. That we can just summon changes in the world—no exchange of energy, no causal chain, just pure metaphysical muscle. Like Jedi mind tricks, but for everyday choices.

"psychokinetic power" - Like Jedi mind tricks..

What an absurd analogy.

If I ask you to attempt to pick a random number between 1 and 1 trillion - then whatever number you attempt at best to come up with, per our term 'random', had a cause? ..ever since the "Big Bang" - no other number would have been picked from any will of yours?

..even that had a CAUSE!

..such nonsense.

PS: Here's the number I picked : 34621361.

How did I pick that number? - what caused it

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

You’re just not used to watching it happen.

[attofishpi]

Darkneos—

You seem to think humans have psychokinetic powers. That our “will” can push atoms around without obeying physics. That we can just summon changes in the world—no exchange of energy, no causal chain, just pure metaphysical muscle. Like Jedi mind tricks, but for everyday choices.

"psychokinetic power" - Like Jedi mind tricks..

What an absurd analogy.

If I ask you to attempt to pick a random number between 1 and 1 trillion - then whatever number you attempt at best to come up with, per our term 'random', had a cause? ..ever since the "Big Bang" - no other number would have been picked from any will of yours?

..even that had a CAUSE!

..such nonsense.

PS: Here's the number I picked : 34621361.

How did I pick that number? - what caused it

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

You start almost every reply to anyone with what is known as a "binary switch".

..belittling the posts of others prior to a typically unreasonable attempt to back your determined unreasonable determination.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

I looked away from my keyboard and punched at the number keys blindly. A trillion numbers - figured whatever and however many times I punched the keys would be between 1 and 1 trillion.

So.

Explain what caused the first number (key press 1) , then the second number (key press 2) etc..

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

Well you see, from my POV that is nonsense. To suggest that my number picking exercise proves determinism IS nonsense.

Where did I make a choice per my fingers hitting the keys blindly?

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

Our first chat in the compatibilism thread was interesting and we both agreed to everything, including our conscious minds being of a material form - apparently that is not what theists tend to believe. Well, I am no longer theist - I have gnosis.

Thus, I find it interesting from both our POVs that you state that IF there is GOD, then determinism is FALSE. Since I know GOD exists, confirms then to me that you are wrong - however IF GOD is merely some A.I. "simulator" of reality formed deterministically through time (by us intelligent beings) - inevitably to deal with entropy then would you discount our reality as being deterministic or still, that there is no free will, thus man forming an A.I. to dish out (judgement) as to who gets further use of "life resources" in time would be pointless?

[Belinda]

"psychokinetic power" - Like Jedi mind tricks..

What an absurd analogy.

If I ask you to attempt to pick a random number between 1 and 1 trillion - then whatever number you attempt at best to come up with, per our term 'random', had a cause? ..ever since the "Big Bang" - no other number would have been picked from any will of yours?

..even that had a CAUSE!

..such nonsense.

PS: Here's the number I picked : 34621361.

How did I pick that number? - what caused it

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

You start almost every reply to anyone with what is known as a "binary switch".

..belittling the posts of others prior to a typically unreasonable attempt to back your determined unreasonable determination.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

I looked away from my keyboard and punched at the number keys blindly. A trillion numbers - figured whatever and however many times I punched the keys would be between 1 and 1 trillion.

So.

Explain what caused the first number (key press 1) , then the second number (key press 2) etc..

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

Well you see, from my POV that is nonsense. To suggest that my number picking exercise proves determinism IS nonsense.

Where did I make a choice per my fingers hitting the keys blindly?

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

Our first chat in the compatibilism thread was interesting and we both agreed to everything, including our conscious minds being of a material form - apparently that is not what theists tend to believe. Well, I am no longer theist - I have gnosis.

Thus, I find it interesting from both our POVs that you state that IF there is GOD, then determinism is FALSE. Since I know GOD exists, confirms then to me that you are wrong - however IF GOD is merely some A.I. "simulator" of reality formed deterministically through time (by us intelligent beings) - inevitably to deal with entropy then would you discount our reality as being deterministic or still, that there is no free will, thus man forming an A.I. to dish out (judgement) as to who gets further use of "life resources" in time would be pointless?

I understand that Atto claims to believe in free will. Attofishpi, is your free will always the same strength or does it fluctuate like your physical energy?
Maybe I don't believe in free will as much as I could; my free will may be even more hard -wearing than my tooth enamel, what do you think?
I do confess that my free will fluctuates with my energy level; I worry that my free will is not as strong as it should be . I bet there is a B-vitamin that is needed for free will.

Big Mike may be mistaken, and absence of free will is due to a specific vitamin deficiency.

[BigMike]

"psychokinetic power" - Like Jedi mind tricks..

What an absurd analogy.

If I ask you to attempt to pick a random number between 1 and 1 trillion - then whatever number you attempt at best to come up with, per our term 'random', had a cause? ..ever since the "Big Bang" - no other number would have been picked from any will of yours?

..even that had a CAUSE!

..such nonsense.

PS: Here's the number I picked : 34621361.

How did I pick that number? - what caused it

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

You start almost every reply to anyone with what is known as a "binary switch".

..belittling the posts of others prior to a typically unreasonable attempt to back your determined unreasonable determination.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

I looked away from my keyboard and punched at the number keys blindly. A trillion numbers - figured whatever and however many times I punched the keys would be between 1 and 1 trillion.

So.

Explain what caused the first number (key press 1) , then the second number (key press 2) etc..

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

Well you see, from my POV that is nonsense. To suggest that my number picking exercise proves determinism IS nonsense.

Where did I make a choice per my fingers hitting the keys blindly?

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

Our first chat in the compatibilism thread was interesting and we both agreed to everything, including our conscious minds being of a material form - apparently that is not what theists tend to believe. Well, I am no longer theist - I have gnosis.

Thus, I find it interesting from both our POVs that you state that IF there is GOD, then determinism is FALSE. Since I know GOD exists, confirms then to me that you are wrong - however IF GOD is merely some A.I. "simulation" of reality formed deterministically through time (by us intelligent beings) - inevitably to deal with entropy then would you discount our reality as being deterministic or still, that there is no free will, thus man forming an A.I. to dish out who gets further use of "life resources" in time would be pointless?

Atto—

You punched keys blindly. Great. That’s exactly the kind of example that helps. Because the point isn’t how deliberate your input was—it’s that even your “randomness” has physical roots. Your hand didn’t teleport. Your muscles didn’t fire without a signal. The signal didn’t spark without chemical gradients, which didn’t shift without electrical triggers, which didn’t happen without ion channels... and so on down the line. Cause. Effect. All the way.

You ask: What caused the first keypress?
It wasn’t magic. It was your motor cortex firing, based on a chain of signals from sensory input, background intent, and a lifetime of patterned behavior. Just because you weren't consciously aware of those causes doesn't mean they weren’t there. Most of what your brain does is below the radar of conscious thought. That doesn’t make it uncaused. It just means you're not driving the bus—you’re riding in it, facing backwards, explaining the scenery after you pass it.

Now, about your “GOD-as-AI” idea: if you know God exists, then congrats—that’s your worldview. But for the rest of us, knowledge requires something more than just asserting it. And determinism doesn’t depend on what feels true. It’s a description of patterns that show up consistently in nature. Patterns we can test, model, replicate. That’s the whole point of conservation laws—every law of physics that isn’t just a definition (like F = ma) is tied to some conservation symmetry. Energy. Momentum. Angular momentum. You don’t get magic willpower unless you violate those. Which no one ever has.

So back to your number: it felt like freedom. But it was still physics. That’s not demeaning. It’s just honest.

And if we someday build a system—AI, God, simulation—that governs life resource allocation, well, that would be a very deterministic God indeed. No escape from cause and effect there either. Just a new layer of it.

So no, not pointless. Just… caused. Like everything else.

[accelafine]

Because even the non-religious need the mindset that between the confines of determinism, in the everyday sense they have as much freedom to act as possible. We've evolved to have psychological will, we make choices psychologically. "Hard" determinism takes away this mindset, you are always the consequence of past things, with absolutely no will of your own. Once people process that their lives are fully beyond their control, they become suicidal and homicidal.

That's not the reason people become 'suicidal' I think it would have quite the opposite effect. There are an awful lot of people who accept determinism and aren't suicidal or homicidal, and an awful lot who don't who are.

Since the "Big Bang" you were always (no other way) going to post that.

So you are still alive then. That's acceptable.

[BigMike]

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

You start almost every reply to anyone with what is known as a "binary switch".

..belittling the posts of others prior to a typically unreasonable attempt to back your determined unreasonable determination.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

I looked away from my keyboard and punched at the number keys blindly. A trillion numbers - figured whatever and however many times I punched the keys would be between 1 and 1 trillion.

So.

Explain what caused the first number (key press 1) , then the second number (key press 2) etc..

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

Well you see, from my POV that is nonsense. To suggest that my number picking exercise proves determinism IS nonsense.

Where did I make a choice per my fingers hitting the keys blindly?

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

Our first chat in the compatibilism thread was interesting and we both agreed to everything, including our conscious minds being of a material form - apparently that is not what theists tend to believe. Well, I am no longer theist - I have gnosis.

Thus, I find it interesting from both our POVs that you state that IF there is GOD, then determinism is FALSE. Since I know GOD exists, confirms then to me that you are wrong - however IF GOD is merely some A.I. "simulator" of reality formed deterministically through time (by us intelligent beings) - inevitably to deal with entropy then would you discount our reality as being deterministic or still, that there is no free will, thus man forming an A.I. to dish out (judgement) as to who gets further use of "life resources" in time would be pointless?

I understand that Atto claims to believe in free will. Attofishpi, is your free will always the same strength or does it fluctuate like your physical energy?
Maybe I don't believe in free will as much as I could; my free will may be even more hard -wearing than my tooth enamel, what do you think?
I do confess that my free will fluctuates with my energy level; I worry that my free will is not as strong as it should be . I bet there is a B-vitamin that is needed for free will.

Big Mike may be mistaken, and absence of free will is due to a specific vitamin deficiency.

Belinda—

That’s brilliant—seriously. If free will were a vitamin, we’d all be chugging supplements labeled “NOW with 500% more agency!”

But what you’re poking at, cleverly, is exactly the problem: even our sense of will fluctuates with things like sleep, hunger, blood sugar, stress, or—yes—maybe B vitamins. And that’s the tell. If something as supposedly sacred and central as “free will” rises and falls with your mood, your biology, or how many spoons of magnesium you got today, then it’s probably not what people think it is. It’s not a metaphysical constant. It’s a state-dependent brain function.

Will, in that view, isn’t some special, unshakable power floating above our heads. It’s a process, modulated by chemistry, energy, and context. When you’re rested, you feel stronger. When you’re burned out, you say, “I just don’t have it in me.” That’s not poetic—it’s caused.

So yes, maybe what people call “free will” is just executive function on a good day.

And if that’s the case, we shouldn’t be moralizing about who has more or less of it—we should be looking at the causes behind its presence or absence. That’s not mockery. That’s compassion.

Still, if someone finds a vitamin that boosts determinism awareness? I’ll stock it next to the coffee.

[attofishpi]

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

You start almost every reply to anyone with what is known as a "binary switch".

..belittling the posts of others prior to a typically unreasonable attempt to back your determined unreasonable determination.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

I looked away from my keyboard and punched at the number keys blindly. A trillion numbers - figured whatever and however many times I punched the keys would be between 1 and 1 trillion.

So.

Explain what caused the first number (key press 1) , then the second number (key press 2) etc..

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

Well you see, from my POV that is nonsense. To suggest that my number picking exercise proves determinism IS nonsense.

Where did I make a choice per my fingers hitting the keys blindly?

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

Our first chat in the compatibilism thread was interesting and we both agreed to everything, including our conscious minds being of a material form - apparently that is not what theists tend to believe. Well, I am no longer theist - I have gnosis.

Thus, I find it interesting from both our POVs that you state that IF there is GOD, then determinism is FALSE. Since I know GOD exists, confirms then to me that you are wrong - however IF GOD is merely some A.I. "simulator" of reality formed deterministically through time (by us intelligent beings) - inevitably to deal with entropy then would you discount our reality as being deterministic or still, that there is no free will, thus man forming an A.I. to dish out (judgement) as to who gets further use of "life resources" in time would be pointless?

I understand that Atto claims to believe in free will. Attofishpi, is your free will always the same strength or does it fluctuate like your physical energy?

Of course my 'will' and choices I make are affected to a degree by physical reality including 'physical energy'.

Maybe I don't believe in free will as much as I could; my free will may be even more hard -wearing than my tooth enamel, what do you think?

Well, a long time ago did you choose to allow a dentist scrape 'plaque' from your teeth without considering the affect that might have upon the enamel? I haven't seen a dentist since 1986 (England) - my teeth are fine.

I do confess that my free will fluctuates with my energy level; I worry that my free will is not as strong as it should be . I bet there is a B-vitamin that is needed for free will.

Vitamin B for Belinda? I agree - free will is most definitely affected by physical essence of reality - otherwise we'd not be in a reality at all and no decisions can be made without existence!

Big Mike may be mistaken,

BigMike is - since GOD exists in form 1 or 2 (1 divine being, 2 AI being) ---according to him, if GOD exists determinism is incorrect.

[attofishpi]

Atto—

You’re trying to mock the analogy, but you accidentally confirmed the point.

You start almost every reply to anyone with what is known as a "binary switch".

..belittling the posts of others prior to a typically unreasonable attempt to back your determined unreasonable determination.

Yes, even when you “pick a random number,” it has a cause. Your brain doesn’t reach into the quantum void and grab a number from metaphysical nowhere. It searches memory, experiences, patterns, fragments of recent perception—maybe a number you saw earlier, maybe one you subconsciously favored. Even your emotional state, even the rhythm of typing, can nudge that number into place.

I looked away from my keyboard and punched at the number keys blindly. A trillion numbers - figured whatever and however many times I punched the keys would be between 1 and 1 trillion.

So.

Explain what caused the first number (key press 1) , then the second number (key press 2) etc..

You ask: “What caused it?”
Answer: You did—as a physical system. Your brain, with its past, context, and structure, selected that number. And unless you claim you picked it without any prior influence—literally from nowhere—it had causes.

Now, you don’t have to like that. You’re free to say “nonsense” and throw a rhetorical tantrum. But your number-picking exercise doesn’t disprove determinism. It demonstrates it. You made a choice. That choice came from somewhere. That’s exactly what determinism says.

Well you see, from my POV that is nonsense. To suggest that my number picking exercise proves determinism IS nonsense.

Where did I make a choice per my fingers hitting the keys blindly?

And that “Jedi” analogy? It holds, precisely because some folks here seem to believe their will can just act on the world without participating in energy transfers, momentum shifts, or physical constraint. But we’re not magic. We’re matter.

So no—you didn’t pull 34,621,361 out of a vacuum. You pulled it out of a brain governed by physics.

Our first chat in the compatibilism thread was interesting and we both agreed to everything, including our conscious minds being of a material form - apparently that is not what theists tend to believe. Well, I am no longer theist - I have gnosis.

Thus, I find it interesting from both our POVs that you state that IF there is GOD, then determinism is FALSE. Since I know GOD exists, confirms then to me that you are wrong - however IF GOD is merely some A.I. "simulation" of reality formed deterministically through time (by us intelligent beings) - inevitably to deal with entropy then would you discount our reality as being deterministic or still, that there is no free will, thus man forming an A.I. to dish out who gets further use of "life resources" in time would be pointless?

Atto—

You punched keys blindly. Great. That’s exactly the kind of example that helps. Because the point isn’t how deliberate your input was—it’s that even your “randomness” has physical roots. Your hand didn’t teleport. Your muscles didn’t fire without a signal. The signal didn’t spark without chemical gradients, which didn’t shift without electrical triggers, which didn’t happen without ion channels... and so on down the line. Cause. Effect. All the way.

OK. So working the causal chain back from my blind keypress of key 1 then key 2 then key 3 - -etc..what CAUSED each keypress - did my mood and/or vitamin D deficiency and/or my sprained ankle CAUSE some affect upon each keypress?

..is it all AND and not OR

Now, about your “GOD-as-AI” idea: if you know God exists, then congrats—that’s your worldview. But for the rest of us, knowledge requires something more than just asserting it. And determinism doesn’t depend on what feels true. It’s a description of patterns that show up consistently in nature. Patterns we can test, model, replicate.

"Patterns" you say. How many more patterns do you need from someone with gnosis?: www.androcies.com.

So back to your number: it felt like freedom. But it was still physics. That’s not demeaning. It’s just honest.

And if we someday build a system—AI, God, simulation—that governs life resource allocation, well, that would be a very deterministic God indeed. No escape from cause and effect there either. Just a new layer of it.

So no, not pointless. Just… caused. Like everything else.

Yet the reason we would create the A.I. simulator would be to judge who karmically would each lifetime would/should be permitted to incarnate again to make use of further resources as entropy increases - if free will exists, then it would not be pointless, if free will does not exist then such a system would be pointless and I think if we HAVE created this simulated AI GOD system, that by then (now) the creators of such a system would be aware as to whether free will exists.

[attofishpi]

That's not the reason people become 'suicidal' I think it would have quite the opposite effect. There are an awful lot of people who accept determinism and aren't suicidal or homicidal, and an awful lot who don't who are.

Since the "Big Bang" you were always (no other way) going to post that.

So you are still alive then. That's acceptable.

Since the "Big Bang" you were always (no other way) going to post that.