Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 10:13 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 9:18 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:47 am
I get it, this has Belinda's fingerprints all over it.

Just saying, this has been the thread where our far right north American contingent has been justifying the conversion of ICE into a modern Gestapo, and so I can see how they find it useful to switch to your hobby horse.

Flash, I hope you are right that this small special interest group can make a difference in the big city. I will try please count me in.

Don't get carried away, I am bemoaning that every time Mike sets foot in any conversation you guys have to turn that into the greatest hits from his first thread. Argue about determinism there please. You fuck stuff up by removing all the variety from this place.

Similarly, stop turning every conversation that IC is in into a boring discussion about God please, go to the religion sub for that.

I’m with Flash on this—we could all, myself included, use a bit more discipline. For the record, my first post in this thread was:

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:57 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:22 am Determinism...is...a metaphysical framework. A foundational assumption

Yes. It's not a proveable, scientific hypothesis at all, far less anything falsifiable. It's just an assumption.

That’s the base scaffolding beneath physics as we know it.

No, physics is more modest than Determinism. Physics limits itself to physical phenomena, and is scientifically testable. It does not even have an opinion about whether or not things that are not physical exist. It does not pronounce so dogmatically and inconsistently as Determinism.

If there are causal forces that are not describable through physical laws, physics has no opinion about them at all. It does not know whether or not mind exists, or whether or not rationality or causality are the basis of cognition, or whether truth exists, or whether logic or morals exist. It does not deny that individuals, including scientists, exist. And physics itself is premised on the assumption that such DO exist, for no other creature does physics, and only a mind can do it at all.

Now—if you or anyone else sees an event that violates causality, or that breaks one of those conservation laws, or that acts outside the structure of the four forces—bring it forward. Really. Do that. That’s the falsification.

Mind.

That’s the test. Show us a physical event

No, now you're cooking the equation again. You're demanding that mind be physical, and operate according to physical laws.

Find a force that isn't reducible to those four.

Mind.

If you do that, you're not just disproving determinism. You're rewriting the laws of physics.

No, the laws of physics remain untouched. They still word for physical phenomena, which is all they were ever intended to do. They were never meant to be what you call them, namely "metaphysical."

And if physics were all that is, you would not be capable of "listening." For there would be no "you," and no mind to "listen," no rationality to "hear," no "reason" to employ, no "logic" to recognize, and no "moral duty" upon you to stop fooling yourself...all of which do exist, and which you also assume every time you write one of these arguments.

QED.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 1:09 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:22 am Determinism...is...a metaphysical framework. A foundational assumption

Yes. It's not a proveable, scientific hypothesis at all, far less anything falsifiable. It's just an assumption.

That’s the base scaffolding beneath physics as we know it.

No, physics is more modest than Determinism. Physics limits itself to physical phenomena, and is scientifically testable. It does not even have an opinion about whether or not things that are not physical exist. It does not pronounce so dogmatically and inconsistently as Determinism.

If there are causal forces that are not describable through physical laws, physics has no opinion about them at all. It does not know whether or not mind exists, or whether or not rationality or causality are the basis of cognition, or whether truth exists, or whether logic or morals exist. It does not deny that individuals, including scientists, exist. And physics itself is premised on the assumption that such DO exist, for no other creature does physics, and only a mind can do it at all.

Now—if you or anyone else sees an event that violates causality, or that breaks one of those conservation laws, or that acts outside the structure of the four forces—bring it forward. Really. Do that. That’s the falsification.

Mind.

That’s the test. Show us a physical event

No, now you're cooking the equation again. You're demanding that mind be physical, and operate according to physical laws.

Find a force that isn't reducible to those four.

Mind.

If you do that, you're not just disproving determinism. You're rewriting the laws of physics.

No, the laws of physics remain untouched. They still word for physical phenomena, which is all they were ever intended to do. They were never meant to be what you call them, namely "metaphysical."

And if physics were all that is, you would not be capable of "listening." For there would be no "you," and no mind to "listen," no rationality to "hear," no "reason" to employ, no "logic" to recognize, and no "moral duty" upon you to stop fooling yourself...all of which do exist, and which you also assume every time you write one of these arguments.

QED.

Maybe if , instead of 'determinism', you referred simply to 'causes and effects' you would see that we all need to make causal connections.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 1:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 1:09 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:22 am Determinism...is...a metaphysical framework. A foundational assumption

Yes. It's not a proveable, scientific hypothesis at all, far less anything falsifiable. It's just an assumption.

That’s the base scaffolding beneath physics as we know it.

No, physics is more modest than Determinism. Physics limits itself to physical phenomena, and is scientifically testable. It does not even have an opinion about whether or not things that are not physical exist. It does not pronounce so dogmatically and inconsistently as Determinism.

If there are causal forces that are not describable through physical laws, physics has no opinion about them at all. It does not know whether or not mind exists, or whether or not rationality or causality are the basis of cognition, or whether truth exists, or whether logic or morals exist. It does not deny that individuals, including scientists, exist. And physics itself is premised on the assumption that such DO exist, for no other creature does physics, and only a mind can do it at all.

Now—if you or anyone else sees an event that violates causality, or that breaks one of those conservation laws, or that acts outside the structure of the four forces—bring it forward. Really. Do that. That’s the falsification.

Mind.

That’s the test. Show us a physical event

No, now you're cooking the equation again. You're demanding that mind be physical, and operate according to physical laws.

Find a force that isn't reducible to those four.

Mind.

If you do that, you're not just disproving determinism. You're rewriting the laws of physics.

No, the laws of physics remain untouched. They still word for physical phenomena, which is all they were ever intended to do. They were never meant to be what you call them, namely "metaphysical."

And if physics were all that is, you would not be capable of "listening." For there would be no "you," and no mind to "listen," no rationality to "hear," no "reason" to employ, no "logic" to recognize, and no "moral duty" upon you to stop fooling yourself...all of which do exist, and which you also assume every time you write one of these arguments.

QED.

Maybe if , instead of 'determinism', you referred simply to 'causes and effects' you would see that we all need to make causal connections.

No, because "cause and effect" is different from Determinism. NOBODY denies that cause and effect are physical realities. Nobody. The question is, is there anything more than physical realities? And Determinism insists there cannot be, arbitrarily and without any justification at all, while both physics and cause-and-effect have nothing whatsoever to say on such a question.

To say "physical realities exist" will never be an answer to the question, "are physical realities ALL that exist?"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 2:57 pm "cause and effect" is different from Determinism. NOBODY denies that cause and effect are physical realities. Nobody.

That's right. C&E is simply the regularity...

the direct relationship between an action or event (the cause) and its consequence or result (the effect)

...of the world. We observe and measure that regularity, er, regularly.

Determinism...

all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes, meaning free will is an illusion

...is a philo-stance goin' way beyond C&E.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 2:57 pm "cause and effect" is different from Determinism. NOBODY denies that cause and effect are physical realities. Nobody.

That's right. C&E is simply the regularity...

the direct relationship between an action or event (the cause) and its consequence or result (the effect)

...of the world. We observe and measure that regularity, er, regularly.

Determinism...

all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes, meaning free will is an illusion

...is a philo-stance goin' way beyond C&E.

Henry agrees with Immanuel and David Hume that all we know of determinism is constant conjunction of events. I agree, constant conjunction is all we know.

If , on top of constant conjunction, we presume to superimpose determinism as the overarching theory then we superimpose the idea that the Cosmos is meaningful as a complete system.

I hope that Henry at least will understand at that juncture we become deists. I.e. the 'deity' is a personification of ultimate meaning and system. Indeed the account of Creation in Genesis means creation of ultimate meaning and system---the whole ecology.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 4:57 pm ...constant conjunction is all we know.

Not true at all.

You know mental events, volition and choice. You experience them every day, and are experiencing them right now. But if you're a Determinist, you just won't acknowledge their existence -- and that's nothing close to showing they don't exist. That's just being disingenuous, or else, if you actually believe it, fooling yourself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 1:09 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:22 am Determinism...is...a metaphysical framework. A foundational assumption

Yes. It's not a proveable, scientific hypothesis at all, far less anything falsifiable. It's just an assumption.

That’s the base scaffolding beneath physics as we know it.

No, physics is more modest than Determinism. Physics limits itself to physical phenomena, and is scientifically testable. It does not even have an opinion about whether or not things that are not physical exist. It does not pronounce so dogmatically and inconsistently as Determinism.

If there are causal forces that are not describable through physical laws, physics has no opinion about them at all. It does not know whether or not mind exists, or whether or not rationality or causality are the basis of cognition, or whether truth exists, or whether logic or morals exist. It does not deny that individuals, including scientists, exist. And physics itself is premised on the assumption that such DO exist, for no other creature does physics, and only a mind can do it at all.

Now—if you or anyone else sees an event that violates causality, or that breaks one of those conservation laws, or that acts outside the structure of the four forces—bring it forward. Really. Do that. That’s the falsification.

Mind.

That’s the test. Show us a physical event

No, now you're cooking the equation again. You're demanding that mind be physical, and operate according to physical laws.

Find a force that isn't reducible to those four.

Mind.

If you do that, you're not just disproving determinism. You're rewriting the laws of physics.

No, the laws of physics remain untouched. They still word for physical phenomena, which is all they were ever intended to do. They were never meant to be what you call them, namely "metaphysical."

And if physics were all that is, you would not be capable of "listening." For there would be no "you," and no mind to "listen," no rationality to "hear," no "reason" to employ, no "logic" to recognize, and no "moral duty" upon you to stop fooling yourself...all of which do exist, and which you also assume every time you write one of these arguments.

QED.

I appreciate that you’re digging in—it’s a good thing to press these foundations. But let’s unpack this carefully, because what you're presenting as a rebuttal is really just a shift in terminology, not a break in logic.

First, yes—determinism is a metaphysical framework. That’s not a dirty word. It means it's a grounding principle—a lens through which everything empirical is interpreted. Just like causality, logic, and even truth themselves are not things you can hold in your hand or measure in volts. They're assumptions that science itself depends on. If you toss out determinism on the grounds that it's metaphysical, you're also tossing out the very structure of explanation, reason, and scientific method—because they all depend on things being caused and not just appearing out of nowhere.

Now, about “mind.” You're saying “mind” violates determinism. That it’s some kind of force not bound by the four fundamental interactions. Okay—fair challenge.

But let me ask you: What is this “Mind”-force, exactly? Is it physical? Nonphysical? Can it act? Can it move things? Cause anything to happen in the physical world?

Because if so—if it can actually do something—then you’ve introduced a fifth fundamental force. That’s a physics-level claim. Not just philosophy. And you’d need to show how this force works. How does it push neurons? How does it produce speech, decisions, muscle contractions? Is it a form of psychokinesis? If not—then what is it doing, exactly?

And if it can’t do anything—if it’s just some abstract presence that observes but never intervenes—then you’ve effectively described a ghost riding a machine it doesn’t steer. That’s not agency. That’s a mascot.

So again, if you're saying there's something that causes events but is not caused itself, or something that influences the physical world but is not governed by physical law—bring that forward. Show us how it works, where it operates, what it disrupts. Because that would be revolutionary. That would change science. That would win you a Nobel Prize. But until then, claiming “mind” is a causal force while offering no mechanics, no evidence, and no interaction with physical law isn’t a rebuttal to determinism—it’s an assertion wrapped in mystery.

So I’m asking directly: Is this “Mind” you’re referring to a causal force? If yes, what kind? Can it act on matter? If so—how?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 4:57 pm

Henry agrees...that all we know of determinism is constant conjunction of events.

Uh, no, B. What I know of determinism, as defined just above, is that it's horseshit, full stop.

Now, about “mind.” You're saying “mind” violates determinism. That it’s some kind of force not bound by the four fundamental interactions. Okay—fair challenge.

But let me ask you: What is this “Mind”-force, exactly? Is it physical? Nonphysical? Can it act? Can it move things? Cause anything to happen in the physical world?

Because if so—if it can actually do something—then you’ve introduced a fifth fundamental force. That’s a physics-level claim. Not just philosophy. And you’d need to show how this force works. How does it push neurons? How does it produce speech, decisions, muscle contractions? Is it a form of psychokinesis? If not—then what is it doing, exactly?

And if it can’t do anything—if it’s just some abstract presence that observes but never intervenes—then you’ve effectively described a ghost riding a machine it doesn’t steer. That’s not agency. That’s a mascot.

So again, if you're saying there's something that causes events but is not caused itself, or something that influences the physical world but is not governed by physical law—bring that forward. Show us how it works, where it operates, what it disrupts. Because that would be revolutionary. That would change science. That would win you a Nobel Prize. But until then, claiming “mind” is a causal force while offering no mechanics, no evidence, and no interaction with physical law isn’t a rebuttal to determinism—it’s an assertion wrapped in mystery.

So I’m asking directly: Is this “Mind” you’re referring to a causal force? If yes, what kind? Can it act on matter? If so—how?

Reading stuff like this kinda takes me down dark roads. Like if other people don't have minds then they have no inner world and no emotions and so there is no reason to care for them, or about anything.

It's not something I enjoy thinking about

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:39 pm

Now, about “mind.” You're saying “mind” violates determinism. That it’s some kind of force not bound by the four fundamental interactions. Okay—fair challenge.

But let me ask you: What is this “Mind”-force, exactly? Is it physical? Nonphysical? Can it act? Can it move things? Cause anything to happen in the physical world?

Because if so—if it can actually do something—then you’ve introduced a fifth fundamental force. That’s a physics-level claim. Not just philosophy. And you’d need to show how this force works. How does it push neurons? How does it produce speech, decisions, muscle contractions? Is it a form of psychokinesis? If not—then what is it doing, exactly?

And if it can’t do anything—if it’s just some abstract presence that observes but never intervenes—then you’ve effectively described a ghost riding a machine it doesn’t steer. That’s not agency. That’s a mascot.

So again, if you're saying there's something that causes events but is not caused itself, or something that influences the physical world but is not governed by physical law—bring that forward. Show us how it works, where it operates, what it disrupts. Because that would be revolutionary. That would change science. That would win you a Nobel Prize. But until then, claiming “mind” is a causal force while offering no mechanics, no evidence, and no interaction with physical law isn’t a rebuttal to determinism—it’s an assertion wrapped in mystery.

So I’m asking directly: Is this “Mind” you’re referring to a causal force? If yes, what kind? Can it act on matter? If so—how?

Reading stuff like this kinda takes me down dark roads. Like if other people don't have minds then they have no inner world and no emotions and so there is no reason to care for them, or about anything.

It's not something I enjoy thinking about

That feeling? That heavy, sinking sense that maybe none of this matters, that maybe other people are just machines running on rails with no “inner world”? I promise you—you’re not the first to go there. And you're definitely not alone. But the truth is: that’s not what determinism says. At all.

Determinism doesn’t deny that people have minds. It just says that minds emerge from matter. That consciousness, emotions, empathy—everything you feel inside—is caused by incredibly complex, exquisitely structured physical processes. And that—not some mystical ghost—is what makes them real.

Let me put it this way: does knowing that the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor make its warmth feel any less real on your skin? Of course not. Knowing why something happens doesn’t take away its beauty, or its meaning—it grounds it. Same goes for emotions. For love. For empathy. They're not illusions because they’re caused. They're profound because they arise from billions of years of natural history and neural evolution. That’s not nihilism. That’s a miracle with its feet on the ground.

And other people? They have inner worlds too. Rich ones. Deep ones. Just like you. The fact that those inner worlds are caused—by genes, upbringing, experience—doesn't make them fake. It makes them precious. Because they didn’t have to turn out that way. Every smile, every tear, every act of kindness—that’s real. And it ripples outward, changing the world in ways you might never even see.

You matter. They matter. Not because of some magic soul—but because you are part of a causal web that can change what happens next. That’s not a reason to give up. That’s a reason to care more.

So if you’re feeling that spiral—that sense of being lost in the machinery—just pause. Breathe. You're not a ghost. You're a living, feeling, thinking organism shaped by the universe, yes—but also shaping it, right now, just by being here. That matters. Hugely.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:20 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:39 pm

Now, about “mind.” You're saying “mind” violates determinism. That it’s some kind of force not bound by the four fundamental interactions. Okay—fair challenge.

But let me ask you: What is this “Mind”-force, exactly? Is it physical? Nonphysical? Can it act? Can it move things? Cause anything to happen in the physical world?

Because if so—if it can actually do something—then you’ve introduced a fifth fundamental force. That’s a physics-level claim. Not just philosophy. And you’d need to show how this force works. How does it push neurons? How does it produce speech, decisions, muscle contractions? Is it a form of psychokinesis? If not—then what is it doing, exactly?

And if it can’t do anything—if it’s just some abstract presence that observes but never intervenes—then you’ve effectively described a ghost riding a machine it doesn’t steer. That’s not agency. That’s a mascot.

So again, if you're saying there's something that causes events but is not caused itself, or something that influences the physical world but is not governed by physical law—bring that forward. Show us how it works, where it operates, what it disrupts. Because that would be revolutionary. That would change science. That would win you a Nobel Prize. But until then, claiming “mind” is a causal force while offering no mechanics, no evidence, and no interaction with physical law isn’t a rebuttal to determinism—it’s an assertion wrapped in mystery.

So I’m asking directly: Is this “Mind” you’re referring to a causal force? If yes, what kind? Can it act on matter? If so—how?

Reading stuff like this kinda takes me down dark roads. Like if other people don't have minds then they have no inner world and no emotions and so there is no reason to care for them, or about anything.

It's not something I enjoy thinking about

That feeling? That heavy, sinking sense that maybe none of this matters, that maybe other people are just machines running on rails with no “inner world”? I promise you—you’re not the first to go there. And you're definitely not alone. But the truth is: that’s not what determinism says. At all.

Determinism doesn’t deny that people have minds. It just says that minds emerge from matter. That consciousness, emotions, empathy—everything you feel inside—is caused by incredibly complex, exquisitely structured physical processes. And that—not some mystical ghost—is what makes them real.

Let me put it this way: does knowing that the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor make its warmth feel any less real on your skin? Of course not. Knowing why something happens doesn’t take away its beauty, or its meaning—it grounds it. Same goes for emotions. For love. For empathy. They're not illusions because they’re caused. They're profound because they arise from billions of years of natural history and neural evolution. That’s not nihilism. That’s a miracle with its feet on the ground.

And other people? They have inner worlds too. Rich ones. Deep ones. Just like you. The fact that those inner worlds are caused—by genes, upbringing, experience—doesn't make them fake. It makes them precious. Because they didn’t have to turn out that way. Every smile, every tear, every act of kindness—that’s real. And it ripples outward, changing the world in ways you might never even see.

You matter. They matter. Not because of some magic soul—but because you are part of a causal web that can change what happens next. That’s not a reason to give up. That’s a reason to care more.

So if you’re feeling that spiral—that sense of being lost in the machinery—just pause. Breathe. You're not a ghost. You're a living, feeling, thinking organism shaped by the universe, yes—but also shaping it, right now, just by being here. That matters. Hugely.

Well, the way I usually interpret that is that it robs the world of "magic" (not literal magic though) and to me knowing how something works and the parts it's made up makes it feel less real, like it's just a machine and nothing else.

Knowing the sun is like that does make it feel less warm under me, same for emotions like love and all that. If it's just chemicals and evolution then they have no real meaning or value, because you could just make them in a lab.

In short it makes everything feel robotic, all the animals and stuff like that, and I guess...makes me care for all of it far less.

LIke this says: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tPqQdLC ... 2ki6sSvAxu

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:28 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:20 pm

Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:39 pm

Reading stuff like this kinda takes me down dark roads. Like if other people don't have minds then they have no inner world and no emotions and so there is no reason to care for them, or about anything.

It's not something I enjoy thinking about

That feeling? That heavy, sinking sense that maybe none of this matters, that maybe other people are just machines running on rails with no “inner world”? I promise you—you’re not the first to go there. And you're definitely not alone. But the truth is: that’s not what determinism says. At all.

Determinism doesn’t deny that people have minds. It just says that minds emerge from matter. That consciousness, emotions, empathy—everything you feel inside—is caused by incredibly complex, exquisitely structured physical processes. And that—not some mystical ghost—is what makes them real.

Let me put it this way: does knowing that the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor make its warmth feel any less real on your skin? Of course not. Knowing why something happens doesn’t take away its beauty, or its meaning—it grounds it. Same goes for emotions. For love. For empathy. They're not illusions because they’re caused. They're profound because they arise from billions of years of natural history and neural evolution. That’s not nihilism. That’s a miracle with its feet on the ground.

And other people? They have inner worlds too. Rich ones. Deep ones. Just like you. The fact that those inner worlds are caused—by genes, upbringing, experience—doesn't make them fake. It makes them precious. Because they didn’t have to turn out that way. Every smile, every tear, every act of kindness—that’s real. And it ripples outward, changing the world in ways you might never even see.

You matter. They matter. Not because of some magic soul—but because you are part of a causal web that can change what happens next. That’s not a reason to give up. That’s a reason to care more.

So if you’re feeling that spiral—that sense of being lost in the machinery—just pause. Breathe. You're not a ghost. You're a living, feeling, thinking organism shaped by the universe, yes—but also shaping it, right now, just by being here. That matters. Hugely.

Well, the way I usually interpret that is that it robs the world of "magic" (not literal magic though) and to me knowing how something works and the parts it's made up makes it feel less real, like it's just a machine and nothing else.

Knowing the sun is like that does make it feel less warm under me, same for emotions like love and all that. If it's just chemicals and evolution then they have no real meaning or value, because you could just make them in a lab.

In short it makes everything feel robotic, all the animals and stuff like that, and I guess...makes me care for all of it far less.

LIke this says: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tPqQdLC ... 2ki6sSvAxu

Yeah. I get that. And honestly, that reaction makes sense—especially when the poetic surface of things gets peeled back to reveal something mechanical underneath. It can feel cold. It can feel empty. It can feel like the world just got smaller.

But here’s the thing: the world didn’t get smaller. It got deeper.

The way I see it, some people can stand the truth. Others can’t—or won’t. And I don’t mean that as a moral jab. I mean it as a temperamental reality. Some minds recoil when the myth dissolves. Others lean in. But truth doesn’t care how it makes us feel—it just is.

And what’s wild is this: the "machine" you’re talking about—this universe of atoms and energy, chemistry and neurons—it produced Mozart. It produced laughter. It produced people who cry at sunsets, who rescue animals, who fall in love and write novels and risk everything for people they care about. If that’s “just” machinery, then maybe the word “just” is the problem, not the machinery.

You can say love is made of neurotransmitters and evolved bonding behaviors. Fine. But it still rips your heart open when it’s lost. It still changes lives. You still write songs about it. If you could manufacture it in a lab, would that make it meaningless? Or would that just show you how damn powerful it is—so powerful we want to understand it, recreate it, preserve it?

Meaning doesn’t have to come from mystery. It can come from understanding. From connection. From the realization that, yes, we’re physical systems—but physical systems that care. That ache. That reach for each other, even knowing it’s all temporary.

That’s not less. That’s more.

So the question becomes: do you need “magic” to care? Or can you care even more, knowing how rare and fragile and astonishing this reality actually is?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 1:09 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:22 am Determinism...is...a metaphysical framework. A foundational assumption

Yes. It's not a proveable, scientific hypothesis at all, far less anything falsifiable. It's just an assumption.

That’s the base scaffolding beneath physics as we know it.

No, physics is more modest than Determinism. Physics limits itself to physical phenomena, and is scientifically testable. It does not even have an opinion about whether or not things that are not physical exist. It does not pronounce so dogmatically and inconsistently as Determinism.

If there are causal forces that are not describable through physical laws, physics has no opinion about them at all. It does not know whether or not mind exists, or whether or not rationality or causality are the basis of cognition, or whether truth exists, or whether logic or morals exist. It does not deny that individuals, including scientists, exist. And physics itself is premised on the assumption that such DO exist, for no other creature does physics, and only a mind can do it at all.

Now—if you or anyone else sees an event that violates causality, or that breaks one of those conservation laws, or that acts outside the structure of the four forces—bring it forward. Really. Do that. That’s the falsification.

Mind.

That’s the test. Show us a physical event

No, now you're cooking the equation again. You're demanding that mind be physical, and operate according to physical laws.

Find a force that isn't reducible to those four.

Mind.

If you do that, you're not just disproving determinism. You're rewriting the laws of physics.

No, the laws of physics remain untouched. They still word for physical phenomena, which is all they were ever intended to do. They were never meant to be what you call them, namely "metaphysical."

And if physics were all that is, you would not be capable of "listening." For there would be no "you," and no mind to "listen," no rationality to "hear," no "reason" to employ, no "logic" to recognize, and no "moral duty" upon you to stop fooling yourself...all of which do exist, and which you also assume every time you write one of these arguments.

QED.

I appreciate that you’re digging in

Ah, the patronizing opening line. You're always adding one. Are you sure you don't want to write, "let's dig deeper," instead, as if your interlocutor has been superficial, and you've been deep? Not that anybody believes that, of course...its Determinism that's superficial, and a "deep" account would surely have some explanation of mind. Those who simply deny it's existence are being far from "deep."

First, yes—determinism is a metaphysical framework. That’s not a dirty word.

You'll have to take that up with somebody who said it is. He's not here, apparently. But metaphysics is not physics. Speculative assumptions are not science.

It means it's a grounding principle

No, it doesn't "ground" anything. "Grounding" would imply rational justification, and an assumptive posture is without justification.

They're assumptions that science itself depends on.

In no way does science depend on Determinism. Rather, Determinism is an unscientific presumption, and a metaphysical one, just as you've said.

Now, about “mind.” You're saying “mind” violates determinism. That it’s some kind of force not bound by the four fundamental interactions.

I'm saying something more important, too: that Determinism offers no explanation at all of mind. It's simply a dismissal of mind -- and ironically, one that a person with no mind -- and hence, no rationality, not truth-seeking, no science (including physics), no personhood, no self, no identity and no morality cannot possibly explain at all. And that's what Determinism would require of the Determinist: the belief that all these things are illusions.

It's not at all interesting to claim that physics knows nothing of these things. We agree on that: physics knows physical things. About whether or not the world contains other things, physics is silent. Would that Determinism were so humble and self-aware.

But let me ask you: What is this “Mind”-force, exactly?

Great question. It's one of the huge philosophical, scientific, medical and phenomenological-existential challenges of the 21st Century. What's very clear is that physical science is unable to penetrate it. We're but nibbling at the edges of that question. But entities without minds could not even recognize the question, let alone do any work with it. So mind is one super-physical phenomenon that none of us can deny.

Does it affect material things? Absolutely. Your typing on a computer models it exactly. Somehow, in a way we don't quite yet understand, mind does interface with the physical. No doubt about it.

Somehow, in a way we don't quite yet understand, mind does interface with the physical. No doubt about it.

On the other hand, as some understand it faithfully, a God, the God, their God created the human mind -- the soul -- in order that mere mortals can use it to find their way to, citing just one example, Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if it is a Democrat's mind or a Republican's mind. Just so long as it accepts that objective morality, immortality and salvation are only possible through Christ.

And while some minds here insist this can be proven beyond leaps of faith and wagers, they won't examine, assess or draw conclusions based on the alleged scientific and historical evidence of others. 

Then the part where, in regard to the Democratic party hating America, some claim to be determinists, but it's always a determinism that sustains their own posts here as the most rational.