Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both determinism and the scientific principle of falsifiability.

Yeah, you seem to think I "misunderstand" thing, just because I know they're different from what you think they are. So one of us is wrong, but it isn't me.

Determinism is not an "unverifiable dogma"; it is grounded in the foundational conservation laws of physics

Show exactly how a law of physics proves Determinism. This should be good.

...science...

Oh, every fool pulls this one out: "science is on my side." No, no it's not. You don't get a win just by saying "science."

Let's see what you've really got. Do the syllogism for us: how does physics prove Determinism?

Let’s clarify:

Yes, let's. What's your syllogism?

The conservation laws of physics, such as the conservation of energy and momentum, demonstrate that every interaction in the universe is governed by cause and effect.

No, they do not. They only show that events not involving volition have physical causes. They do not one little thing to show that volitional causes aren't real.

So they show that rocks falling off cliffs, and trees combusting have physical causes. They don't tell us whether or not somebody pushed the rock or set the fire, or why they did, or whether their act of voliton commenced the chain of events. So you've just begged the central question. You're not making an argument; you're making a fallacy.

1. All events in the universe are governed by physical laws (demonstrated through conservation laws and empirical observation).

No, premise one is a non-sequitur: even if physical events proceed from physical laws, it does not show there's no such thing as a volitional cause.

So your syllogism is faulty from the get-go.

Your dismissal of science

I didn't dismiss science. I dismissed your scam of being "scientific," when all you're doing is assuming your wanted conclusion. It's an common ruse...remember how Fauci was "the Science," and then lied through his teeth?

Do some real science, and I'll be impressed. Do conjecture, and then try to secure your case against critique by claiming to represent "science," and I'll just call you out on the bluff.

Physics doesn’t “prove” determinism...

Now, if you stopped right there, you'd be 100% correct. It doesn't, in fact, even imply it.

And the hypocrisy you keep ignoring? That you present yourself as if you're trying to be "rational," and yet deny that "rationality" is anything other than the random productions of physical causes and physical effects. Obviously, even you don't believe what you say...so why should we?

[Alexis Jacobi]

… and so it appears, it is our volitional capability which is of such critical importance as a primary fact about human being.

If someone comes along and through intellectual chicanery robs men of this essential human capability by mind-fucking them with avalanches of sophistic argument, convincing them their agency is a false concept, my personal feeling is that spankings are in order!

What we choose, then, becomes a matter of such critical importance. Because we can choose.

[Will Bouwman]

Still that he thinks a "Leftist" can be a reliable source of information is some sort of progress.

No, I don't, of course.

Great. So I don't have to take seriously your source that even you don't think reliable.

But I do think they have an incentive not to be "right wing," which would be your accusation if I used any more moderate source; and I do note that, being Socialists, they OUGHT to be delighted with big government and internationalism...which means they are among the last people who would naturally have an incentive to be critical of something like the EU...unless they just happen to be telling an inconvenient truth.

You have no idea what you are talking about:

"Leading figures of the left wing of the Labour Party campaigned in favour of a ‘no’ vote in the 1975 referendum, and in the early 1980s Labour officially championed withdrawal, before adopting the aim of reforming European institutions from within. The Communist Party of Great Britain evolved in a similar manner. Consequently, by the early 1990s, organised opposition to the E.U. came mainly, but not solely, from Trotskyist groupings. In the 2009 and 2014 elections to the European Parliament, the No2EU lists brought together trade unionists, Trotskyists, Communists, Socialists, and left-wing ecologists. The 2016 referendum on British membership of the E.U. also saw left-wing alliances advocating withdrawal."
https://journals.openedition.org/osb/4759

[Immanuel Can]

You have no idea what you are talking about

Well, it's clear that ONE of us doesn't. And whether you're faking it, or whether you really don't understand...the question makes no difference, and no longer interests me.

[BigMike]

Yeah, you seem to think I "misunderstand" thing, just because I know they're different from what you think they are. So one of us is wrong, but it isn't me.


Show exactly how a law of physics proves Determinism. This should be good.
Oh, every fool pulls this one out: "science is on my side." No, no it's not. You don't get a win just by saying "science."

Let's see what you've really got. Do the syllogism for us: how does physics prove Determinism?

Let’s clarify:

Yes, let's. What's your syllogism?

The conservation laws of physics, such as the conservation of energy and momentum, demonstrate that every interaction in the universe is governed by cause and effect.

No, they do not. They only show that events not involving volition have physical causes. They do not one little thing to show that volitional causes aren't real.

So they show that rocks falling off cliffs, and trees combusting have physical causes. They don't tell us whether or not somebody pushed the rock or set the fire, or why they did, or whether their act of voliton commenced the chain of events. So you've just begged the central question. You're not making an argument; you're making a fallacy.

1. All events in the universe are governed by physical laws (demonstrated through conservation laws and empirical observation).

No, premise one is a non-sequitur: even if physical events proceed from physical laws, it does not show there's no such thing as a volitional cause.

So your syllogism is faulty from the get-go.

Your dismissal of science

I didn't dismiss science. I dismissed your scam of being "scientific," when all you're doing is assuming your wanted conclusion. It's an common ruse...remember how Fauci was "the Science," and then lied through his teeth?

Do some real science, and I'll be impressed. Do conjecture, and then try to secure your case against critique by claiming to represent "science," and I'll just call you out on the bluff.

Physics doesn’t “prove” determinism...

Now, if you stopped right there, you'd be 100% correct. It doesn't, in fact, even imply it.

And the hypocrisy you keep ignoring? That you present yourself as if you're trying to be "rational," and yet deny that "rationality" is anything other than the random productions of physical causes and physical effects. Obviously, even you don't believe what you say...so why should we?

Immanuel, your argument is a fascinating tangle of contradictions, misunderstandings, and—dare I say—wishful thinking. Let’s untangle it:

You assert that "volitional causes" somehow bypass physical laws. This belief implies that human "volition" overrides the conservation of energy and momentum, making it a magical force that injects effects into the universe without being caused itself. This is psychokinesis by another name—an extraordinary claim that directly contradicts every shred of physical evidence we have. If volition is unbound by physical interactions, are we to assume you think thoughts can move mountains? Or are you simply unaware of what conservation laws mean?

Your misunderstanding deepens when you claim that physical laws don't "imply determinism." You fail to grasp that interactions—those things described by the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak)—are what dictate changes in the state of objects. Every interaction is governed by the principle of cause and effect, the "equal and opposite reaction" that Newton described so elegantly. This is not conjecture or philosophy; it is the bedrock of science. If you reject this, show me the specific evidence where the fundamental forces mysteriously take a day off for your beloved "volition."

Your dismissal of the syllogism as "faulty" because it doesn’t account for "volitional causes" is laughable. Volition, as you imagine it, isn’t a cause—it’s a label slapped onto the output of countless physical processes in the brain, all governed by biochemical interactions. There is no evidence that volition operates outside these processes. To suggest otherwise is to propose magic.

Lastly, the notion that determinism negates rationality is pure projection. Rationality is the deterministic process of evaluating evidence and applying logical rules. Your argument against determinism essentially boils down to: "I don’t like it, so it can’t be true." Well, science doesn’t care about your preferences. It cares about evidence. And you, Immanuel, have yet to provide any. Until you do, I suggest you put away the smugness—you’re not wearing it well.

[FlashDangerpants]

You challenge me to "do the syllogism." Here it is, in its most basic form:

1. All events in the universe are governed by physical laws (demonstrated through conservation laws and empirical observation).
2. These laws are deterministic—they describe how physical states evolve based on prior conditions.
3. Therefore, all events are causally determined.

Uhm, syllogisms are deductive in kind, and your thing, last I knew, was masquerading as purely inductive and scientific from top to bottom. Casting it as a deductively valid syllogism probably ought to be impossible.

So, lucky the syllogism is so bad, eh?

[mickthinks]

...the question makes no difference, and no longer interests me.

Manny always “loses interest” when he knows we know he’s wrong.

[BigMike]

You challenge me to "do the syllogism." Here it is, in its most basic form:

1. All events in the universe are governed by physical laws (demonstrated through conservation laws and empirical observation).
2. These laws are deterministic—they describe how physical states evolve based on prior conditions.
3. Therefore, all events are causally determined.

Uhm, syllogisms are deductive in kind, and your thing, last I knew, was masquerading as purely inductive and scientific from top to bottom. Casting it as a deductively valid syllogism probably ought to be impossible.

So, lucky the syllogism is so bad, eh?

FlashDangerpants, let’s be clear about how this discussion started. It was Immanuel Can who set the premise by asking: "Do the syllogism for us: how does physics prove Determinism?" This explicitly invites an argument grounded in physics. If physics isn’t an acceptable starting point for you, that’s fine—but take it up with Immanuel, not me.

Now, onto your critique. You claim the syllogism is "so bad" because determinism is grounded in inductive reasoning. That’s a misunderstanding of how determinism operates within a physical framework. The premise of physics is not mere induction—it is a systematic observation of causality embedded in natural laws. The deterministic nature of these laws is deductively inferred because no empirical evidence has ever demonstrated a breakdown of causality or the violation of conservation laws.

If you’re arguing that this doesn’t qualify as deductive reasoning, then the onus is on you to explain where causality is violated in physical interactions. Otherwise, your objection boils down to pedantry over syllogistic form, not a substantive challenge to the argument itself.

[Will Bouwman]

You have no idea what you are talking about

Well, it's clear that ONE of us doesn't.

That'll be the one who picks sources whose opinion happens to agree with their own rather than references sources that provide actual facts.

And whether you're faking it, or whether you really don't understand...the question makes no difference, and no longer interests me.

I'm not faking it because I really do understand. Your characterisation of the EU Commissioners as

...insane ideologues...

is the hysterical nonsense of an insane ideologue.

...you ought to know the truth, but you aren't interested in seeing it, it seems.

As I have pointed out several times, the truth is that the EU Commission is nominated by the democratically elected heads of state that constitute the European Council. It is those democratically elected heads of state of the European Council who decide the political objectives of the EU. The job of the EU Commission is to formulate and implement policies that will realise the political objectives set out by the European Council. Before they get to do that, the nominated candidates for the EU Commission are vetted by the democratically elected Members of the European Parliament. Once the democratically elected Members of the European Parliament have ratified the nominations of the democratically elected heads of state of the European Council, the EU Commissioners remain accountable to the democratically elected EU Parliament.
Your characterisation of the EU Commissioners as insane ideologues is projection, so too your accusation that it is me who isn't interested in seeing the truth.

[FlashDangerpants]

You challenge me to "do the syllogism." Here it is, in its most basic form:

1. All events in the universe are governed by physical laws (demonstrated through conservation laws and empirical observation).
2. These laws are deterministic—they describe how physical states evolve based on prior conditions.
3. Therefore, all events are causally determined.

Uhm, syllogisms are deductive in kind, and your thing, last I knew, was masquerading as purely inductive and scientific from top to bottom. Casting it as a deductively valid syllogism probably ought to be impossible.

So, lucky the syllogism is so bad, eh?

FlashDangerpants, let’s be clear about how this discussion started. It was Immanuel Can who set the premise by asking: "Do the syllogism for us: how does physics prove Determinism?" This explicitly invites an argument grounded in physics. If physics isn’t an acceptable starting point for you, that’s fine—but take it up with Immanuel, not me.

I knew that, and I was helping you out by showing you why you ought to have been simply refusing to perform a syllogism. A syllogism is never grounded in physics unless you are doing deductive physics, and if you are doing that - you fucked up.

Now, onto your critique. You claim the syllogism is "so bad" because determinism is grounded in inductive reasoning. That’s a misunderstanding of how determinism operates within a physical framework. The premise of physics is not mere induction—it is a systematic observation of causality embedded in natural laws. The deterministic nature of these laws is deductively inferred because no empirical evidence has ever demonstrated a breakdown of causality or the violation of conservation laws.

No, I didn't claim the syllogism is bad for that reason at all. I just didn't bother discussing why the syllogism is bad because it shouldn't matter. It is lucky for you that the syllogism is complete shit for reasons not worth investigating further BECAUSE if you did a good syllogism that would make your reasoning dependent on a deduction, and you have claimed previously that it is not that, that it is based on observation only. So you can't have a deductive argument for it and therefore you don't want a working syllogism.

You are not a strategic thinker, you instantly choose to die on the next hill you see rather than letting trivial shit go. Luckily for you, Immanuel Can shares this failing and I don't care enough to stay in this conversation to take advantage of your weakness.

If you’re arguing that this doesn’t qualify as deductive reasoning, then the onus is on you to explain where causality is violated in physical interactions. Otherwise, your objection boils down to pedantry over syllogistic form, not a substantive challenge to the argument itself.

I haven't followed most of the recent stuff in your debates because I saw no progress being made. But unless I am mistaken you have been holding all along that everything you claim is all based on observation only? If so, am I correct in assuming you have been predicating everything on there being zero axioms, and no deductions, and no assumptions of any sort in your workings?

Problematically, your attempt to fulfil IC's challenge kind of shows that you know you do need a deduced core for your whole argument. Everything I have read of your priors suggests you ought to have refused the challenge rather than attempting to meet it. But it's a no-win situation for you because you have been wilfully ignoring rather than not relying on deductions and axioms.

You are a lot less capable than you tell yourself. So much so that fundamentally you got outwitted by Immanuel Can. A fun little Mexican standoff ensues between the guy who doesn't know how to apply the knife properly at the end of the argument, and the one so wrapped up in his own self-belief that he wouldn't notice he was stabbed anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

Let’s untangle it:

"Let's untangle it," "let's clarify," you write...and yet, you never do "untangle" or "clarify" a single thing. You just repeat your old devotion to Determinism, by way of the same bad arguments, it seems.

So let's really "clarify." Answer this: why do you argue, when you also claim to believe that a) your arguments are nothing but the accidental products of physical causality and, according to your theory, b) the ability of any listener to agree is also dictated strictly by physical precauses?

There's no thinker, no arguer, and no listener, according to Determinism. All there is, is physical causes issuing physical causes to a physically pre-caused terminal. No intelligence is going on, and no volition is being shaped thereby. All there is, is physical stuff.

So, if you believe Determinism, why are you arguing?

...you claim that physical laws don't "imply determinism." You fail to grasp that interactions—those things described by the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak)—are what dictate changes in the state of objects.

Here again, you call human beings mere "objects." So again, the question comes rushing back: why are you, a mere object, talking to other mere objects, all governenet by physical inevitabilities?

It doesn't make any sense.

...show me the specific evidence where the fundamental forces mysteriously take a day off for your beloved "volition."

Right here. Right now. You're arguing. Why are you arguing? Your own theory says it's an impersonal, physical, inevitable...and hence useless procedure.

Volition, as you imagine it, isn’t a cause—it’s a label slapped onto the output of countless physical processes in the brain, all governed by biochemical interactions.

Yes, that's your nominal assumption, I know. But then, by arguing, you deny it.

Why are you, a mere dumb-terminal in a purely physical process, arguing with other mere dumb-terminals of physical processes, when neither your arguments nor their hearing can alter volition..which you assume is not a real thing anyway?

Rationality is the deterministic process of evaluating evidence and applying logical rules.

Here again you attempt to sneak back into your account "evaluators," "reasoners" and "logicians." But you claim these processes are nothing but the physical outworking of physical forces. So there is no such person in your account. You don't get to illegitimately smuggle back in "persons" to Determinism, which banishes them forever as relevant forces in the eventualities that come out of any process.

So again: why are you arguing?

...science...

Ah, there it is again! The Faucian invocation of a mythical, monolythic "Science" as being on your side already. Give it up, Mikey...nobody's buying that just because you say "science," it joins your team. You need to actually DO some science, if you want us to believe you; and so far, you've done nothing but wishing.

So after you explain how a bunch of mere physical causes (i.e. you) can argue with a bunch of entities driven by nothing but physical causes (i.e. people) and change the minds-driven-by-nothing-but-physical-forces, you can maybe do some actual science for us, and maybe we'll find something interesting in that.

But first, answer the question.

[Immanuel Can]

...the question makes no difference, and no longer interests me.

Manny always “loses interest” when he knows we know he’s wrong.

No. Only when it becomes clear that the interlocutor is not going to change his mind, no matter what evidence one produces. When arguing becomes like drilling a hole in water, it's time to move on. Life's too short.

[Immanuel Can]

...it is me who isn't interested in seeing the truth.

Finally, a phrase we can agree on. The rest is rubbish.

[BigMike]

Let’s untangle it:

"Let's untangle it," "let's clarify," you write...and yet, you never do "untangle" or "clarify" a single thing. You just repeat your old devotion to Determinism, by way of the same bad arguments, it seems.

So let's really "clarify." Answer this: why do you argue, when you also claim to believe that a) your arguments are nothing but the accidental products of physical causality and, according to your theory, b) the ability of any listener to agree is also dictated strictly by physical precauses?

There's no thinker, no arguer, and no listener, according to Determinism. All there is, is physical causes issuing physical causes to a physically pre-caused terminal. No intelligence is going on, and no volition is being shaped thereby. All there is, is physical stuff.

So, if you believe Determinism, why are you arguing?

...you claim that physical laws don't "imply determinism." You fail to grasp that interactions—those things described by the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak)—are what dictate changes in the state of objects.

Here again, you call human beings mere "objects." So again, the question comes rushing back: why are you, a mere object, talking to other mere objects, all governenet by physical inevitabilities?

It doesn't make any sense.

...show me the specific evidence where the fundamental forces mysteriously take a day off for your beloved "volition."

Right here. Right now. You're arguing. Why are you arguing? Your own theory says it's an impersonal, physical, inevitable...and hence useless procedure.

Volition, as you imagine it, isn’t a cause—it’s a label slapped onto the output of countless physical processes in the brain, all governed by biochemical interactions.

Yes, that's your nominal assumption, I know. But then, by arguing, you deny it.

Why are you, a mere dumb-terminal in a purely physical process, arguing with other mere dumb-terminals of physical processes, when neither your arguments nor their hearing can alter volition..which you assume is not a real thing anyway?

Rationality is the deterministic process of evaluating evidence and applying logical rules.

Here again you attempt to sneak back into your account "evaluators," "reasoners" and "logicians." But you claim these processes are nothing but the physical outworking of physical forces. So there is no such person in your account. You don't get to illegitimately smuggle back in "persons" to Determinism, which banishes them forever as relevant forces in the eventualities that come out of any process.

So again: why are you arguing?

...science...

Ah, there it is again! The Faucian invocation of a mythical, monolythic "Science" as being on your side already. Give it up, Mikey...nobody's buying that just because you say "science," it joins your team. You need to actually DO some science, if you want us to believe you; and so far, you've done nothing but wishing.

So after you explain how a bunch of mere physical causes (i.e. you) can argue with a bunch of entities driven by nothing but physical causes (i.e. people) and change the minds-driven-by-nothing-but-physical-forces, you can maybe do some actual science for us, and maybe we'll find something interesting in that.

But first, answer the question.

Immanuel, your post is a tangled mess of contradictions and bad faith, but since you’re so intent on having this dismantled, here we go:

Your entire objection boils down to incredulity. You’re essentially asking, "If determinism is true, why argue?" The answer is straightforward: arguing is itself a causal process. My words, their structure, and their logical content are causal events designed to influence your neural processes—also deterministic. Just because the outcomes are determined doesn’t mean they don’t happen. A machine doesn’t stop working just because you don’t like its design.

Your repeated insistence on "why are you arguing?" reveals a desperate misunderstanding. Arguments, persuasion, and even your indignation are causally determined phenomena. You accuse determinism of denying rationality, yet rationality—like everything else—is a result of causal interactions. That doesn't negate its utility; it explains it. You might as well ask, "Why does gravity pull objects together if it's deterministic?" because the question is equally nonsensical.

Let’s address your bizarre notion that determinism "banishes" persons, thinkers, and listeners. Determinism doesn’t deny the existence of individuals or their thoughts—it explains them. You’re confusing "caused" with "nonexistent," which is a rookie error. If you actually understood the argument, you’d realize that determinism accounts for why you're so stubbornly wrong.

Finally, invoking "Fauci" and mocking "science" is a pathetic attempt to dodge the issue. If you’re so confident, point to a single physical interaction—just one—where causality fails or where volition magically overrides physical laws. Spoiler: you can’t, because it doesn’t happen. Instead, you bluster about "doing science" without offering anything but rhetorical fluff.

Your post doesn’t challenge determinism; it proves its necessity. Your confusion, indignation, and resistance are entirely predictable outcomes of deterministic processes. So why argue? Because causal chains dictate that I expose this nonsense, and hopefully, some determined interactions in your brain will finally click into place.

[Immanuel Can]

So again: why are you arguing?

But first, answer the question.

Immanuel, your post is...

Just answer the question.

Arguments, persuasion, and even your indignation are causally determined phenomena.

That's the point. They don't change anything, according to Determinism. An "argument" is not a physical phenomenon, so by definition, it cannot be included in the causal explanation.

Yet you try to. This is what I mean by you illegitimately reimporting elements you've already banished by way of your Determinism.

If you’re so confident, point to a single physical interaction—just one—where causality fails or where volition magically overrides physical laws.

If I believe you, then argumentation is just such a case. One the one hand, you say it's "physical" and "determined." On the other, you want to claim it can change things...most notably, minds. But "mind" is not a physical entity, just as "argument" is not, and "logic" is not, and "rationality" is not.

You need an explanation that only uses the word "brain," and "chemicals," and "electricity," and such. But you can't invoke these non-physical realities in any Physicalist or Materialist explanation, without thereby denying your own theory.

So again: why are you arguing?