The Power of Art and Emotion: Should We Worry About Manipulation?

[iambiguous]

iambiguous, your response continues to circle the same evasions, relying on skepticism as though the mere presence of unknowns invalidates the vast body of known and repeatedly tested physical laws. It does not. The unknown remains unknown, but it does not dissolve the known into irrelevance. Science progresses by building on established knowledge, not by discarding it every time a new question arises.

Let's cut to the chase. It might be yours, it might be mine, it might be neither one of ours.

All I can really do here is to note once again the part regarding mere mortals in a No God world who are building on established knowledge. The part where the hard determinists are compelled to argue the building itself for all practical purposes amounts to nature just adding more dominoes to events that could never have not unfolded other than how they must. That, re the OP, any emotions we might have about things like art are prone to manipulation only in the sense that nature itself [and only nature itself] manipulates us. But then the profound mystery of what on Earth prompts nature to unfold as it does. In other words, is it possible there might be a teleological component embedded in one or another Pantheist account of the human condition?

So, how for all practical purposes is our exchange unfolding here? The part where we are all determined to post what we do here and thus you are determined to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But whatever is behind determinism as you understand it always permits you to deem your own assumptions to be the most reasonable.

Just as other "free will determinists" champion a kind of soft determinism whereby everything unfolds as it must and that just happens to result in them always being right.

[BigMike]

iambiguous, your response continues to circle the same evasions, relying on skepticism as though the mere presence of unknowns invalidates the vast body of known and repeatedly tested physical laws. It does not. The unknown remains unknown, but it does not dissolve the known into irrelevance. Science progresses by building on established knowledge, not by discarding it every time a new question arises.

Let's cut to the chase. It might be yours, it might be mine, it might be neither one of ours.

All I can really do here is to note once again the part regarding mere mortals in a No God world who are building on established knowledge. The part where the hard determinists are compelled to argue the building itself for all practical purposes amounts to nature just adding more dominoes to events that could never have not unfolded other than how they must. That, re the OP, any emotions we might have about things like art are prone to manipulation only in the sense that nature itself [and only nature itself] manipulates us. But then the profound mystery of what on Earth prompts nature to unfold as it does. In other words, is it possible there might be a teleological component embedded in one or another Pantheist account of the human condition?

So, how for all practical purposes is our exchange unfolding here? The part where we are all determined to post what we do here and thus you are determined to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But whatever is behind determinism as you understand it always permits you to deem your own assumptions to be the most reasonable.

Just as other "free will determinists" champion a kind of soft determinism whereby everything unfolds as it must and that just happens to result in them always being right.

Stick with your philosophical doubts, keep running in circles, chasing your own tail—if that’s what satisfies you. But when you get tired, when you get dizzy from the endless spin of skepticism that never lands anywhere, you know where to find solid ground. Seek knowledge, seek comfort in evidence.

Science doesn’t claim absolute truth, but it offers the most reliable framework we have—one built on rigorous testing, falsification, and predictive power. Conservation laws, causality, and determinism remain unshaken by hand-waving about mysteries, possibilities, and "what ifs." When you’re ready to step out of the fog of perpetual doubt and engage with what is known, what is testable, and what is evidenced—I’ll be right here.

[promethean75]

That's right, Biggs. You can cut it any way you want, and determinism will still be true. That's THE one thing you don't ever need to be fractured and fragmented about. You have my werd, Biggs. Werd is bond.

[iambiguous]

Stick with your philosophical doubts, keep running in circles, chasing your own tail—if that’s what satisfies you. But when you get tired, when you get dizzy from the endless spin of skepticism that never lands anywhere, you know where to find solid ground. Seek knowledge, seek comfort in evidence.

Science doesn’t claim absolute truth, but it offers the most reliable framework we have—one built on rigorous testing, falsification, and predictive power. Conservation laws, causality, and determinism remain unshaken by hand-waving about mysteries, possibilities, and "what ifs." When you’re ready to step out of the fog of perpetual doubt and engage with what is known, what is testable, and what is evidenced—I’ll be right here.

Okay, that's what you believe "here and now" "in your head". But why do you always avoid responding to this part:

So, how for all practical purposes is our exchange unfolding here? The part where we are all determined to post what we do here and thus you are determined to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But whatever is behind determinism as you understand it always permits you to deem your own assumptions to be the most reasonable.

Just as other "free will determinists" champion a kind of soft determinism whereby everything unfolds as it must and that just happens to result in them always being right.

[BigMike]

Stick with your philosophical doubts, keep running in circles, chasing your own tail—if that’s what satisfies you. But when you get tired, when you get dizzy from the endless spin of skepticism that never lands anywhere, you know where to find solid ground. Seek knowledge, seek comfort in evidence.

Science doesn’t claim absolute truth, but it offers the most reliable framework we have—one built on rigorous testing, falsification, and predictive power. Conservation laws, causality, and determinism remain unshaken by hand-waving about mysteries, possibilities, and "what ifs." When you’re ready to step out of the fog of perpetual doubt and engage with what is known, what is testable, and what is evidenced—I’ll be right here.

Okay, that's what you believe "here and now" "in your head". But why do you always avoid responding to this part:

So, how for all practical purposes is our exchange unfolding here? The part where we are all determined to post what we do here and thus you are determined to post what you do here just like all the rest of us. But whatever is behind determinism as you understand it always permits you to deem your own assumptions to be the most reasonable.

Just as other "free will determinists" champion a kind of soft determinism whereby everything unfolds as it must and that just happens to result in them always being right.

The reason I don’t respond to that circular detour is because it’s just another rhetorical smokescreen—a rewording of the same tired evasion you keep using to avoid addressing actual evidence. You’re trying to manufacture a paradox where there isn’t one.

Yes, everything unfolds as it must—including reasoning, logic, and the conclusions drawn from evidence. That doesn’t mean all conclusions are equally valid. The difference between a claim rooted in tested, falsifiable physics and a claim built on "what if" speculation is the weight of evidence supporting it. Determinism doesn’t magically make every belief equally reasonable; it means beliefs arise from cause and effect, and those that align with observable reality hold up under scrutiny—while others fall apart.

You want to suggest that my reasoning just happens to always be right? No. My reasoning is aligned with testable, repeatable, predictive scientific principles—and until you can present a single falsification of conservation laws, causality, or the physical constraints on neuronal activity, your philosophical skepticism is just a fog machine, not an argument.

[iambiguous]

The reason I don’t respond to that circular detour is because it’s just another rhetorical smokescreen—a rewording of the same tired evasion you keep using to avoid addressing actual evidence. You’re trying to manufacture a paradox where there isn’t one.

There you go again.

Well, if I do say so myself.

You were determined to post the above just as others who don't share your own set of assumptions were determined in turn to react only as they were ever able to. Only we're expected to believe that over and over and over again as our exchanges unfold here, your arguments "naturally" prevail?

Yes, everything unfolds as it must—including reasoning, logic, and the conclusions drawn from evidence. That doesn’t mean all conclusions are equally valid.

On the contrary suggest the hard determinists. If nature and the laws of matter are no less entirely behind the existence of the human brain itself, then anything the brain does it does only because it was never able not to.

Only we mere mortals in a No God world have no capacity to pin this down. Unless, perhaps, down the road, after all of us are dead and gone, this is actually accomplished such that both scientists and philosophers are able to confirm that we do possess some measure of free will.

Well, unless, of course, it turns out that this too is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible world. That is, unless it turns out that Jesus Christ or Muhammad or some other religious "prophet" does return.

That ought to shake things up, right?

You want to suggest that my reasoning just happens to always be right? No. My reasoning is aligned with testable, repeatable, predictive scientific principles—and until you can present a single falsification of conservation laws, causality, or the physical constraints on neuronal activity, your philosophical skepticism is just a fog machine, not an argument.

Click.

We clearly construe this differently. Only I'm not suggesting that "somehow" the points that I raise in our exchange are just "naturally" more reasonable than yours.

[BigMike]

The reason I don’t respond to that circular detour is because it’s just another rhetorical smokescreen—a rewording of the same tired evasion you keep using to avoid addressing actual evidence. You’re trying to manufacture a paradox where there isn’t one.

There you go again.

Well, if I do say so myself.

You were determined to post the above just as others who don't share your own set of assumptions were determined in turn to react only as they were ever able to. Only we're expected to believe that over and over and over again as our exchanges unfold here, your arguments "naturally" prevail?

Yes, everything unfolds as it must—including reasoning, logic, and the conclusions drawn from evidence. That doesn’t mean all conclusions are equally valid.

On the contrary suggest the hard determinists. If nature and the laws of matter are no less entirely behind the existence of the human brain itself, then anything the brain does it does only because it was never able not to.

Only we mere mortals in a No God world have no capacity to pin this down. Unless, perhaps, down the road, after all of us are dead and gone, this is actually accomplished such that both scientists and philosophers are able to confirm that we do possess some measure of free will.

Well, unless, of course, it turns out that this too is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible world. That is, unless it turns out that Jesus Christ or Muhammad or some other religious "prophet" does return.

That ought to shake things up, right?

You want to suggest that my reasoning just happens to always be right? No. My reasoning is aligned with testable, repeatable, predictive scientific principles—and until you can present a single falsification of conservation laws, causality, or the physical constraints on neuronal activity, your philosophical skepticism is just a fog machine, not an argument.

Click.

We clearly construe this differently. Only I'm not suggesting that "somehow" the points that I raise in our exchange are just "naturally" more reasonable than yours.

Your description of determinism is staggeringly limited, as if the entire concept can be reduced to nothing more than billiard balls colliding—an outdated, oversimplified analogy that doesn’t even begin to capture the complexity of the brain.

Yes, atoms and molecules in the brain do collide, but they do far more than just bounce off each other like dumb, inert objects on a pool table. In the highly structured, interconnected system of the brain, those collisions drive synaptic changes, plasticity, and the encoding of memory—all of which are deterministic, but vastly different from simple Newtonian mechanics. We learn. Balls don’t. We understand. Dead objects don’t.

There is no free will involved in this process—only deterministic learning, adaptation, and causally driven decision-making, much like how machine learning operates. And yet, you clearly recognize that this has profound consequences—that this difference between a human brain and a billiard ball matters. So, how do you explain it?

How do you account for the fact that understanding itself is just as much a product of deterministic processes as a neuron firing? What mechanism outside the physical laws you hand-wave away can explain it? Because if your argument is that all thought is equally valid because it’s "determined," then you just collapsed into pure relativism—an admission that you have no basis for distinguishing true from false, better from worse, science from nonsense.

So which is it? Do you accept that deterministic reasoning allows us to differentiate valid arguments from invalid ones, or do you retreat into incoherence by saying all beliefs are "equally determined" and therefore equally reasonable? Because if you go with the second, you’ve just obliterated any claim to having a meaningful position at all.

[iambiguous]

Your description of determinism is staggeringly limited, as if the entire concept can be reduced to nothing more than billiard balls colliding—an outdated, oversimplified analogy that doesn’t even begin to capture the complexity of the brain.

Click.

Yet another example of us going around and around and around in circles. I describe determinism as I do because as the hard determinists argue, I was never able to opt freely to describe it any other way. Anymore than you were ever able to react to that itself other than as your brain compels you to.

But, sure, that's no more than just another wild ass guess given The Gap and Rummy's Rule. I'd like to believe I am at least in the general vicinity of the truth -- the ontological truth? -- but, come on, who is kidding whom. How am I not but just one more infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the staggering vastness of all there is?

Just like you are. And just like all the rest of us I suspect.

And it is precisely the astounding complexity of the human brain itself that makes it all the more unlikely that any of us have come even close to encompassing it in regard to determinism. Let alone fitting it neatly into an explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Yes, atoms and molecules in the brain do collide, but they do far more than just bounce off each other like dumb, inert objects on a pool table. In the highly structured, interconnected system of the brain, those collisions drive synaptic changes, plasticity, and the encoding of memory—all of which are deterministic, but vastly different from simple Newtonian mechanics. We learn. Balls don’t. We understand. Dead objects don’t.

Right. Only here in regard to determinism as that pertains to being manipulated given our emotional reaction to art, it's got to be your own understanding of the "highly structured, interconnected system of the brain" that comes out on top.

There is no free will involved in this process—only deterministic learning, adaptation, and causally driven decision-making, much like how machine learning operates. And yet, you clearly recognize that this has profound consequences—that this difference between a human brain and a billiard ball matters. So, how do you explain it?

Come on, Mike, over and again I've explained how, even given free will as the Libertarians understand it, I am not able to explain any number of things about the human brain here.

So, I suppose you'll suggest that until science and philosophy actually do get around to resolving all of this [if that's even possible], we'll just have to accept that Nature has seen fit to fall back on you to provide us with the optimal assessment?

Click, of course.

So which is it? Do you accept that deterministic reasoning allows us to differentiate valid arguments from invalid ones...

Sigh...

I believe "here and now" that deterministic reasoning as some understand it amounts to including everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do as interchangeably valid and invalid. If nature unfolds as it does inherently and necessarily how can anything that must be be invalid?

...or do you retreat into incoherence by saying all beliefs are "equally determined" and therefore equally reasonable?[/b] Because if you go with the second, you’ve just obliterated any claim to having a meaningful position at all.

Over and again, my thinking about all of this is largely fractured and fragmented. Instead, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, I can only assume that my own conclusions "here and now" might one day be effectively challenged.

Or, more to the point, I hope that they are.

[BigMike]

Your description of determinism is staggeringly limited, as if the entire concept can be reduced to nothing more than billiard balls colliding—an outdated, oversimplified analogy that doesn’t even begin to capture the complexity of the brain.

Click.

Yet another example of us going around and around and around in circles. I describe determinism as I do because as the hard determinists argue, I was never able to opt freely to describe it any other way. Anymore than you were ever able to react to that itself other than as your brain compels you to.

But, sure, that's no more than just another wild ass guess given The Gap and Rummy's Rule. I'd like to believe I am at least in the general vicinity of the truth -- the ontological truth? -- but, come on, who is kidding whom. How am I not but just one more infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the staggering vastness of all there is?

Just like you are. And just like all the rest of us I suspect.

And it is precisely the astounding complexity of the human brain itself that makes it all the more unlikely that any of us have come even close to encompassing it in regard to determinism. Let alone fitting it neatly into an explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Yes, atoms and molecules in the brain do collide, but they do far more than just bounce off each other like dumb, inert objects on a pool table. In the highly structured, interconnected system of the brain, those collisions drive synaptic changes, plasticity, and the encoding of memory—all of which are deterministic, but vastly different from simple Newtonian mechanics. We learn. Balls don’t. We understand. Dead objects don’t.

Right. Only here in regard to determinism as that pertains to being manipulated given our emotional reaction to art, it's got to be your own understanding of the "highly structured, interconnected system of the brain" that comes out on top.

There is no free will involved in this process—only deterministic learning, adaptation, and causally driven decision-making, much like how machine learning operates. And yet, you clearly recognize that this has profound consequences—that this difference between a human brain and a billiard ball matters. So, how do you explain it?

Come on, Mike, over and again I've explained how, even given free will as the Libertarians understand it, I am not able to explain any number of things about the human brain here.

So, I suppose you'll suggest that until science and philosophy actually do get around to resolving all of this [if that's even possible], we'll just have to accept that Nature has seen fit to fall back on you to provide us with the optimal assessment?

Click, of course.

So which is it? Do you accept that deterministic reasoning allows us to differentiate valid arguments from invalid ones...

Sigh...

I believe "here and now" that deterministic reasoning as some understand it amounts to including everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do as interchangeably valid and invalid. If nature unfolds as it does inherently and necessarily how can anything that must be be invalid?

...or do you retreat into incoherence by saying all beliefs are "equally determined" and therefore equally reasonable?[/b] Because if you go with the second, you’ve just obliterated any claim to having a meaningful position at all.

Over and again, my thinking about all of this is largely fractured and fragmented. Instead, in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, I can only assume that my own conclusions "here and now" might one day be effectively challenged.

Or, more to the point, I hope that they are.

Your response, as always, is a dizzying exercise in avoiding the point while pretending that simply acknowledging ignorance is some kind of profound insight. It isn’t. You keep throwing around The Gap and Rummy’s Rule like a shield, hoping it absolves you from engaging with actual evidence. But at some point, you have to stop hiding behind philosophical agnosticism and face reality: we know things.

The fact that the brain is staggeringly complex does not mean we are nowhere close to understanding it. Quite the opposite—neuroscience has made tremendous strides in mapping its structure, its functions, and its entirely deterministic operations. There is no mystery about whether the brain operates through physical laws—it does. What remains unknown are specific details, not the fundamental principles.

You ask, sarcastically, if nature has fallen back on me to provide the "optimal assessment." No, nature has provided something far more powerful: the scientific method. A system designed not to confirm personal biases, but to disprove them. My position is not based on some personal hunch—it is grounded in repeated, testable, and falsifiable scientific principles. Unlike your endless "what ifs," these principles hold up until someone actually disproves them. And guess what? No one has.

You claim that, under determinism, all beliefs must be equally valid because they are all determined. This is a complete misunderstanding of how reasoning works. The fact that beliefs are caused does not make them equally accurate. A calculator’s output is caused by its programming, but that doesn’t mean all calculations it produces are correct. Likewise, a human brain, despite being causally determined, can process valid arguments better than invalid ones—because reasoning is itself a deterministic process that tracks reality better when it aligns with evidence.

You say your thinking is fractured and fragmented—and I believe you. But that’s not an argument. That’s just an admission that your skepticism is directionless. You’ve built yourself a philosophical escape hatch—a way to never commit to anything, never stake a claim, never acknowledge when you’re wrong. You pretend this is intellectual humility, but it’s really just an excuse to avoid dealing with evidence.

You say you "hope" your conclusions are effectively challenged one day—well, here’s your chance. You’ve been challenged. Show one single instance where conservation laws fail in brain activity. Provide one single falsification of determinism. Until you do, you’re just floating in an abyss of doubt, while the rest of us stand on solid ground, using actual evidence to understand the world.

[iambiguous]

Your response, as always, is a dizzying exercise in avoiding the point while pretending that simply acknowledging ignorance is some kind of profound insight. It isn’t.

Unless, of course, my response, as always, is just another inherent component of the only possible world unfolding in the only possible reality.

Then the part where that includes your own responses in turn.

You keep throwing around The Gap and Rummy’s Rule like a shield, hoping it absolves you from engaging with actual evidence. But at some point, you have to stop hiding behind philosophical agnosticism and face reality: we know things.

We've been over this. You are apparently able to convince yourself that your own knowledge of the human brain "here and now" is such that, what, Nature provides you with the most rational assessments here post after post?

The fact that the brain is staggeringly complex does not mean we are nowhere close to understanding it. Quite the opposite—neuroscience has made tremendous strides in mapping its structure, its functions, and its entirely deterministic operations. There is no mystery about whether the brain operates through physical laws—it does. What remains unknown are specific details, not the fundamental principles.

Okay -- click -- just out of curiosity, given all that you think you know about determinism today vs. all that there is to be known about it -- scientifically/philosophically/theologically -- going back to the profound mystery that is the existence of existence itself, how close do you think you are to actually encompassing it all... ontologically? How about teleologically? 10%? 25%? 60%? 85%?

You ask, sarcastically, if nature has fallen back on me to provide the "optimal assessment." No, nature has provided something far more powerful: the scientific method.

Or, perhaps, more to the point, it has provided you over and again with the capacity to confront those who don't agree with you as sarcastically as anything I have noted of you here. But that's different, of course, because your assessment here really does reflect the most rational set of assumptions.

A system designed not to confirm personal biases, but to disprove them. My position is not based on some personal hunch—it is grounded in repeated, testable, and falsifiable scientific principles. Unlike your endless "what ifs," these principles hold up until someone actually disproves them. And guess what? No one has.

Hmm. Maybe -- click -- I'm just not understanding you correctly.

Are you or are you not arguing that what we post here is just another unherent manifestation of determinism? And that your own at times declamatory reactions to those who do not agree with you is in turn still just Nature unfolding wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

In other words, there's determinism understood by some as indeed encompassing everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do. Then there are those who seem to accept this but only if what they themselves think, feel, intuit, say and do is recognized as the optimal frame of mind.

You claim that, under determinism, all beliefs must be equally valid because they are all determined. This is a complete misunderstanding of how reasoning works. The fact that beliefs are caused does not make them equally accurate.

Back to this then:

Imagine the universe being such that there is a free will part and a wholly determined part.

Those from the free will part are hovering above planet Earth in the wholly determined part. They note that over and over and over again you and I and everyone else down here are choosing things.

But then they remind themselves that what we in fact choose we are not in fact choosing freely.

They think to themselves, "it's hard to believe that everything unfolding down there is unfolding autonomically in a wholly determined manner. We see them all toppling over onto each other like so many dominoes. But, really, if they are interacting entirely on cue given the laws of Nature there can be no responsibility as we in the free will sector understand it."

You say your thinking is fractured and fragmented—and believe you. But that’s not an argument. That’s just an admission that your skepticism is directionless.

No, what I argue "here and now" is that given free will, the either/or world is bursting at the seams with any number of things we can all agree on. But given determinism as some understand it, the is/ought is actually no less interchangeable with the either/or world. Why? Because acquiring value judgments and acting on them is no less entirely compelled by brains no less in sync with the laws of matter.

You’ve built yourself a philosophical escape hatch—a way to never commit to anything, never stake a claim, never acknowledge when you’re wrong. You pretend this is intellectual humility, but it’s really just an excuse to avoid dealing with evidence.

Again, given determinism as I understand it "here and now", any commitment from either one of us is such that any evidence we come to accept is no less "beyond our control".

Though, again, I am no more able to demonstrate this than you are able to demonstrate that what you think now, even 10,000 years into the future it will still reflect the default assumption in both the scientific and philosophical communities.

You say you "hope" your conclusions are effectively challenged one day—well, here’s your chance. You’ve been challenged. Show one single instance where conservation laws fail in brain activity. Provide one single falsification of determinism. Until you do, you’re just floating in an abyss of doubt, while the rest of us stand on solid ground, using actual evidence to understand the world.

Back to that again. We are all determined to post what we do, but that doesn't make you any less arrogant when insisting that your own posts "naturally" reflect the correct assessment.

[BigMike]

Your response, as always, is a dizzying exercise in avoiding the point while pretending that simply acknowledging ignorance is some kind of profound insight. It isn’t.

Unless, of course, my response, as always, is just another inherent component of the only possible world unfolding in the only possible reality.

Then the part where that includes your own responses in turn.

You keep throwing around The Gap and Rummy’s Rule like a shield, hoping it absolves you from engaging with actual evidence. But at some point, you have to stop hiding behind philosophical agnosticism and face reality: we know things.

We've been over this. You are apparently able to convince yourself that your own knowledge of the human brain "here and now" is such that, what, Nature provides you with the most rational assessments here post after post?

The fact that the brain is staggeringly complex does not mean we are nowhere close to understanding it. Quite the opposite—neuroscience has made tremendous strides in mapping its structure, its functions, and its entirely deterministic operations. There is no mystery about whether the brain operates through physical laws—it does. What remains unknown are specific details, not the fundamental principles.

Okay -- click -- just out of curiosity, given all that you think you know about determinism today vs. all that there is to be known about it -- scientifically/philosophically/theologically -- going back to the profound mystery that is the existence of existence itself, how close do you think you are to actually encompassing it all... ontologically? How about teleologically? 10%? 25%? 60%? 85%?

You ask, sarcastically, if nature has fallen back on me to provide the "optimal assessment." No, nature has provided something far more powerful: the scientific method.

Or, perhaps, more to the point, it has provided you over and again with the capacity to confront those who don't agree with you as sarcastically as anything I have noted of you here. But that's different, of course, because your assessment here really does reflect the most rational set of assumptions.

A system designed not to confirm personal biases, but to disprove them. My position is not based on some personal hunch—it is grounded in repeated, testable, and falsifiable scientific principles. Unlike your endless "what ifs," these principles hold up until someone actually disproves them. And guess what? No one has.

Hmm. Maybe -- click -- I'm just not understanding you correctly.

Are you or are you not arguing that what we post here is just another unherent manifestation of determinism? And that your own at times declamatory reactions to those who do not agree with you is in turn still just Nature unfolding wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

In other words, there's determinism understood by some as indeed encompassing everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do. Then there are those who seem to accept this but only if what they themselves think, feel, intuit, say and do is recognized as the optimal frame of mind.

You claim that, under determinism, all beliefs must be equally valid because they are all determined. This is a complete misunderstanding of how reasoning works. The fact that beliefs are caused does not make them equally accurate.

Back to this then:

Imagine the universe being such that there is a free will part and a wholly determined part.

Those from the free will part are hovering above planet Earth in the wholly determined part. They note that over and over and over again you and I and everyone else down here are choosing things.

But then they remind themselves that what we in fact choose we are not in fact choosing freely.

They think to themselves, "it's hard to believe that everything unfolding down there is unfolding autonomically in a wholly determined manner. We see them all toppling over onto each other like so many dominoes. But, really, if they are interacting entirely on cue given the laws of Nature there can be no responsibility as we in the free will sector understand it."

You say your thinking is fractured and fragmented—and believe you. But that’s not an argument. That’s just an admission that your skepticism is directionless.

No, what I argue "here and now" is that given free will, the either/or world is bursting at the seams with any number of things we can all agree on. But given determinism as some understand it, the is/ought is actually no less interchangeable with the either/or world. Why? Because acquiring value judgments and acting on them is no less entirely compelled by brains no less in sync with the laws of matter.

You’ve built yourself a philosophical escape hatch—a way to never commit to anything, never stake a claim, never acknowledge when you’re wrong. You pretend this is intellectual humility, but it’s really just an excuse to avoid dealing with evidence.

Again, given determinism as I understand it "here and now", any commitment from either one of us is such that any evidence we come to accept is no less "beyond our control".

Though, again, I am no more able to demonstrate this than you are able to demonstrate that what you think now, even 10,000 years into the future it will still reflect the default assumption in both the scientific and philosophical communities.

You say you "hope" your conclusions are effectively challenged one day—well, here’s your chance. You’ve been challenged. Show one single instance where conservation laws fail in brain activity. Provide one single falsification of determinism. Until you do, you’re just floating in an abyss of doubt, while the rest of us stand on solid ground, using actual evidence to understand the world.

Back to that again. We are all determined to post what we do, but that doesn't make you any less arrogant when insisting that your own posts "naturally" reflect the correct assessment.

You keep pretending that acknowledging ignorance is somehow more intellectually virtuous than confronting reality head-on. It isn’t. It’s just an excuse—a way to avoid taking responsibility for making a claim and sticking to it. You retreat into endless uncertainty as though it grants you some deeper insight, when really, it’s just an evasion.

Let’s clear this up: determinism doesn’t mean all beliefs are equally valid. It means all beliefs are caused. That doesn’t mean they are equally correct—because beliefs interact with reality. Some beliefs align with evidence, some don’t. It’s that simple.

You mock my position, saying I act as if nature has handed me the "optimal assessment." No, nature has handed us science—a method of testing, falsifying, and refining knowledge. I don’t claim certainty—I claim alignment with what we actually observe, test, and understand. And that understanding demolishes the idea of free will.

You ask how close I think we are to "encompassing it all." A meaningless question. Science doesn’t claim omniscience—it refines models, discards what fails, and builds on what works. Conservation laws and physical causality have never been falsified. The brain operates within those laws. That’s a fact.

Yet, you keep running back to your sci-fi thought experiments about "free will sectors" watching over a determined Earth. That’s not an argument. It’s a fantasy. There is no mechanism, no evidence, no process by which free will could operate. Until you provide one single falsifiable mechanism, you’re just making noise.

Your endless hand-waving about determinism leading to all beliefs being "equally determined" misses the point entirely. If reasoning itself is a deterministic process, then logic, evidence, and verification still apply. You don’t need "free will" to evaluate evidence. The process of reasoning is deterministic, but it still allows for correction, learning, and improvement. That’s how science works. That’s how knowledge progresses.

You want to play the skeptic who never commits, the philosopher who sits back and doubts everything while offering nothing in return. That’s not an intellectual position—it’s just a way to avoid being wrong. But skepticism without engagement isn’t deep. It’s cowardice.

So here’s the challenge—again:
- Show me a single falsification of conservation laws as they apply to brain function.
- Show me one mechanism by which free will interacts with physical reality without violating causality.
- Provide one testable, falsifiable way that "choosing freely" can bypass physical laws.

Until you do, you’re just floating in an abyss of doubt, watching from the sidelines while the rest of us engage with reality.

[iambiguous]

You mock my position, saying I act as if nature has handed me the "optimal assessment." No, nature has handed us science—a method of testing, falsifying, and refining knowledge. I don’t claim certainty—I claim alignment with what we actually observe, test, and understand. And that understanding demolishes the idea of free will.

All I can do now is to note that our failure to communicate revolves around the fact that we do live in a wholy determined universe and thus we were never able not to communicate other than what we must. But to attach words like "success" and "failure" to behaviors we were never able to choose freely...?

Then this part...

A couple of nights ago, I had another one of my "work dreams". In the dream, my old boss and I are arguing fiercely about the future of the company. I "won" the argument. On the other hand if I were to claim success...? It's all the brain's doing. So, the assumption here must be that the waking brain is "somehow" just different from the dreaming brain. But what if in ways we are simply unable to grasp in the present, it is the same.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about lots of things for now.

Click, of course.

Anyway this is the part that is most interesting to me:

Are you or are you not arguing that what we post here is just another unherent manifestation of determinism? And that your own at times declamatory reactions to those who do not agree with you is in turn still just Nature unfolding wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

In other words, there's determinism understood by some as indeed encompassing everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do. Then there are those who seem to accept this but only if what they themselves think, feel, intuit, say and do is recognized as the optimal frame of mind.

That, to me, is you in a nutshell.

You go on and on about science as though only your own understanding of it [and of the human brain] counts in these exchanges.

Even though you were never able to understand it any way other than as your brain compels you to.

That's what I would like to propose to those like Sam Harris. I watched a video of his this morning. He goes on and on defending determinism. But if I were in the audience, I would ask him if his own understanding of determinism is such that it includes his own argument. He could never have argued anything other than what he did. Meanwhile the audience members could not have reacted to that other than as they could.

[promethean75]

... and yet we could never know if someone could have acted other than they did, so granting freewill is as undemonstrative as granting determinism.

In different words, if you had freewill and wanted to prove it, you couldn't on account of not being able to go back in time to make the other decision rather than the decision you made. Proof would require a demonstration of two or more possible realities. One in which you chose to get up, the other in which you chose to stay seated. Otherwise, whatever you chose wouldn't be proof of freewill. You're gonna choose something. That isn't proof of anything.

[Atla]

You go on and on about science as though only your own understanding of it [and of the human brain] counts in these exchanges.

Even though you were never able to understand it any way other than as your brain compels you to.

Please show us two mutually exclusive ways how conservation laws can be understood. LOL.

[iambiguous]

You go on and on about science as though only your own understanding of it [and of the human brain] counts in these exchanges.

Even though you were never able to understand it any way other than as your brain compels you to.

Please show us two mutually exclusive ways how conservation laws can be understood. LOL.

Note to nature:

You take this one.
Too.