Philosophy Now Forum

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 9:23 pm
You’ve pinpointed an essential tension here: that free will, even if we acknowledge it as limited, operates within deterministic boundaries, forming a sort of “container,” as you put it. But here’s a thought: maybe this isn’t about seeing free will as an illusion that somehow *creates* reality; rather, it’s about understanding free will as an interpretive layer. In this sense, free will becomes a perceived freedom, a way we navigate deterministic forces without necessarily escaping them.

That's a good way of putting it, as an *interpretive layer* meaning as one which transitions and transforms from the more deterministic fields of lower layers where only circumscribed probabilities rule.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:17 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pmif we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Not one damn thing ('cept things will get worse).

It's already largely the societal and governmental default that man is just a meat machine, that free will is an illusion, that morality is subjective, and that *ahem* God is just a fairy tale.

What has all that got us?

What has believing (in) God, [one thing], verses believing (in) Allah, [another thing], gotten you human beings, other than 'atrocities' as seen being 'played out' in parts of the world right now, when this is being written?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:17 am Atrocity, that's what. We aren't happier, prosperous, or enlightened. We're becoming cannibal apes.

Yet you are, most likely, the only here who BELIEVES that eating apes is perfectly okay and all right.

And, well believing (in) one thing over another has obviously not made any of you happier, prosperous, nor more enlightened neither.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:17 am And you wanna go further, yeah? Make that default total? You wanna obliterate all notions of personhood and autonomy and responsibility and accountability. We're pretty far down that road already, Mike.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:17 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pmif we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Not one damn thing ('cept things will get worse).

It's already largely the societal and governmental default that man is just a meat machine, that free will is an illusion, that morality is subjective, and that *ahem* God is just a fairy tale.

What has all that got us?

Atrocity, that's what. We aren't happier, prosperous, or enlightened. We're becoming cannibal apes.

And you wanna go further, yeah? Make that default total? You wanna obliterate all notions of personhood and autonomy and responsibility and accountability. We're pretty far down that road already, Mike.

Alright, Henry, I hear you loud and clear. The idea that moving further in this direction could lead us to lose everything meaningful—the sense of personal accountability, moral grounding, even humanity itself—resonates, and it's a serious concern. But here’s a twist to consider: what if a deterministic framework doesn’t strip us of responsibility and accountability but actually grounds it in something more stable than subjective, free-floating “choices”?

Neither, 'free will', {the ability to choose], nor 'determinism', [EVERY thing that happens and occurs, was 'pre-determined', because of past events], themselves, makes one 'responsible' or not. ONLY when, and if, one CHOOSES to be 'responsible', or not, makes one Truly 'responsible', or not.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am Think about this: if we know that people’s actions are shaped by their environments, biology, upbringing—forces outside of conscious choice—then accountability shifts to addressing those root causes rather than just punishing the behavior.

VERY True. However, 'looking at' 'the way' you adult human beings ARE, in the days when this is being written, just about all of you will just about always BLAME 'the past' on 'what you have done', and so will 'try to' USE this to get 'out of' 'taking any responsibility' for 'what you have done'.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am It’s not about seeing people as “meat machines,” but recognizing that behaviors, even harmful ones, are predictable under certain conditions. We’d move away from blame as a moral stance to problem-solving at a deeper level.

Once 'understanding', itself, is, and was, obtained, then, and only then, is 'the understanding' for HOW and WHY ALL human beings think and do what they think and do is KNOWN, which is ONLY when True 'forgiveness' comes into play, and then ONLY when HELPING and SUPPORTING absolutely EVERY one also comes into play.

Until then you adult human beings WILL, and DID, keep on 'judging', 'ridiculing', 'humiliating', and 'punishing' one another, for ALL of the Wrong reasons. There are, by the way, NEVER EVER ANY Right, nor excusable reasons for doing so.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am Would that make us less responsible?

There is just about NOTHING MORE that you adult human beings could do to make you 'less responsible' than you are in the days when this is being written.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am Or could it actually make us more effective at creating the conditions that lead to the outcomes we value as a society? It’s not an easy shift, I’ll give you that. But maybe it’s not a step toward cannibal apes; maybe it’s a step toward understanding and addressing why things go wrong in the first place.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose.

WHY?

'Determinism' can also imply 'pre-determined', which would have to also imply a 'determination' by some one/thing, or 'determined' by some one/thing, which could then imply 'a purpose' as well.

Also, let 'us' not forget that in the days when this is being written before one could even begin to jettison, or get rid of, 'free will' in favor of 'determinism', or vice versa, you adult human beings have not yet even reached an agreement and acceptance of what the words 'free will' and 'determinism' even mean, and/or are even referring to, exactly, yet.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

What "bigmike" means, or is 'getting at', is that if 'we' can find the 'root cause', which causes all of human behavior, then the 'current' government could 'fix' that thing, which, in turn, would then 'cause' the change of human behavior.

However, what I think "bigmike" has just not yet fully realized and/or fully understood is that it is just 'past experiences', themselves, that is the 'root cause' for ALL of human behavior.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:31 am

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:27 am they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose. The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

Alright, so here’s where things get interesting. If we ditch free will for determinism, it doesn’t erase the need for governance—it just reshapes our approach to it.

Just so it becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR ANY idea about ANY form of 'governance' OVER another being 'needed' will NEVER EVER WORK

A part of the reason WHY 'the world' is in the absolutely MESS that it is in 'now', when this is being written, is because you adult human beings 'hand over' 'the responsibility' for what you do, and for 'what you have done', TO 'others'.

Voting in, or wanting to vote in, 'others' to 'govern' over "one's" own 'self' is, besides a form of absolute LUNACY, is a form of absolute IMMATURITY.

Now, there may well be a 'need' for 'governance', but this 'need' is in the form of 'self-governance', and like having and using 'self-discipline' instead of having and using 'discipline, itself, OVER others', when implemented and in place is HOW and WHEN the Truly peaceful and harmonious world for EVERY one, as One, WILL, and DID, come to begin.

Now, for absolutely ANY one who would like to DISCUSS HOW and WHEN how a 'self-governing world' COULD, and DOES, come-to-be, then, ONCE AGAIN, 'I' am more than willing, wanting, and ready TO DISCUSS.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am Even under determinism, we still see distinct social systems emerge, driven by the same physics that guides all events. But those systems don’t need to rest on the belief in individual autonomy; instead, they can leverage our understanding of cause and effect.

In a deterministic framework, governance is about crafting environments that lead to beneficial outcomes, not about enforcing a “will,” whether of the individual or the leader.

BUT, EVERY so-called 'government' just about ALWAYS CLAIMS that it is, or is going to, do what leads to beneficial outcomes.

Although ALL of you adult human beings do, OBVIOUSLY, get CONNED, TRICKED, and/or LIED TO, you ALL, still, FALL INTO the TRAP, and BELIEF, that you ALL 'need to' be 'government' by some one, or some thing, else.

And, what kind of 'environment' do you want actually 'crafted', exactly?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am So yes, laws of physics guide behavior, but we can apply our understanding of those laws to build systems that consistently lead to societal well-being.

What 'government' do you think believes that it is not consistently doing what leads to societal well-being?

The government in "north korea" just like the government in "united states of America", for example, both BELIEVE that they are consistently doing what leads to societal well-being.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am It’s not about surrendering to fate; it’s about steering outcomes through empirically grounded design. That’s the purpose, if you will, of a government that respects the deterministic nature of human behavior.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The deterministic nature of the human being, and its behavior, is to end up living in peace and harmony with one another, as One.

you human beings, however, are, still, just in the evolutionary process of learning how to consciously create and make this happen.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:03 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Yet, as science is starting to reveal, free will might just be a mirage.

Science does not have the answer to that question. There is nothing that you can test experimentally to that effect. If the hypothesis is not backed by an experimental test report, then it is not science but pseudoscience.

I suggest that when, and if, you human beings actually agree upon and accept a definition for the term 'free will', then you will be able to decide if 'science' could provide an answer, or not.

Also, WHY even 'hypothesis'?

Furthermore, I suggest FIRST find what actually exists, and then designate words or terminology to 'them'. INSTEAD of the other way around and firstly making up guesses, assumptions, hypotheses, or theories, and then 'trying to' find out if 'those things' exist or not.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:53 am I suggest that when, and if, you human beings actually agree upon and accept a definition for the term 'free will', then you will be able to decide if 'science' could provide an answer, or not.

The definition that they use will be implicit in the input variables that they seek to control as well as the resulting output variables of their experimental test. At that point, we can check if these variables truly measure what they are purported to measure. Asking for an experimental test report therefore solves all these problems. In the end, a definition is just a word salad. It is much more interesting to look at what they actually did in a lab setting.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 1:40 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Alright, so here we go. Let’s dive right into “The Future of Government” from a fresh, philosophical angle that might just turn heads. Now, as we all know, traditional governance systems—democracy, autocracy, communism—each carry certain assumptions. But here’s the kicker: they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will, that we’re all out there making choices of our own accord. Yet, as science is starting to reveal, free will might just be a mirage. The result? Whole systems of governance that may not align with the actual dynamics of human behavior.

Where is this convoluted assertion that the term 'free will' refers to, 'making choices of our own accord', coming from, exactly?

If you human beings cannot 'make choices of your own accord', then WHY even mention it?

Again, when, and if, you come to find out the 'root cause' of WHY you do EVERY thing you do, then you WILL KNOW WHY you are mentioning some thing that does not even exist to begin with, and so you will be ABLE TO answer the clarifying question that I just posed, and asked, you, here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Imagine a system, though, that instead of punishing or rewarding based on presumed “free choices,”

What are so-called 'free choices', exactly?

And, do 'they' even exist, to begin with?

If no, then, again, WHY talk about and mention them?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm focuses on causes—root causes, determinants of behavior grounded in neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology. A government that anticipates, that applies what we know about cause and effect in human behavior to design policies that actually work.

WHY 'wait' for so-called 'governments'?

Some of the human adult population, in the days when this was being written, were so 'irresponsible' that they wanted, and expected, 'governments' to do just about every thing for them.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Here’s the starting question for everyone: if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Which definition are 'we' using in the 'concept of free will' here, exactly?

For example would 'you' like to use a definition that actually exists, or a definition that could not actually exist?

Obviously 'we' would NEED TO KNOW this FIRST before 'we' could answer 'your question' Accurately, and Correctly.

By the way, how many 'concepts of free will' are there, exactly?

Alright, let’s take a sharper angle here and dive into the mechanics of it all. Age’s question about "free choices" and the nature of will opens up a crucial point—one grounded in the physical reality of what “will” can and can’t do.

When we talk about “will,” whether it’s free or not, we’re dealing with a concept that’s non-physical. Will doesn’t have mass, it doesn’t carry an electric charge, and it doesn’t exert any physical force. In other words, it can’t push atoms around. Instead, it’s the atoms—the billions of neurons in the brain and the intricate biochemical reactions—that create what we experience as “will.” This flips the common view on its head: it’s not “will” directing the atoms in our brains; it’s the atoms and their interactions creating the experience of will.

So when we discuss choices, we're not denying that decisions are made; rather, we're saying those decisions aren’t made freely, in isolation from all causal influences. Our choices are shaped, even determined, by prior physical events—biological, psychological, social. The idea of "free will" often assumes that the mind can somehow initiate actions independently, but since will itself isn’t a physical force, it doesn’t have the power to command our neurons. It’s the neurons, organized by both our biology and external influences, that generate the thoughts and decisions we interpret as will.

On the topic of waiting for governments, it’s not about placing responsibility on some external force. It’s about acknowledging that systems, designed with this understanding of determinism, can intervene more effectively at the level of root causes. By aligning policies with the actual determinants of behavior, rather than attributing outcomes solely to personal “will,” we create governance that addresses real conditions—improving lives in ways that individuals alone may not have the capacity to change.

So, Age, to answer your question on the “concept of free will”—this isn’t about dismissing choice; it’s about recognizing that what we call “will” is the product of physical processes. Free or not, “will” itself isn’t at the helm; it’s a passenger, a product of the atoms that make us who we are.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:11 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose.

WHY?

'Determinism' can also imply 'pre-determined', which would have to also imply a 'determination' by some one/thing, or 'determined' by some one/thing, which could then imply 'a purpose' as well.

Also, let 'us' not forget that in the days when this is being written before one could even begin to jettison, or get rid of, 'free will' in favor of 'determinism', or vice versa, you adult human beings have not yet even reached an agreement and acceptance of what the words 'free will' and 'determinism' even mean, and/or are even referring to, exactly, yet.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

What "bigmike" means, or is 'getting at', is that if 'we' can find the 'root cause', which causes all of human behavior, then the 'current' government could 'fix' that thing, which, in turn, would then 'cause' the change of human behavior.

However, what I think "bigmike" has just not yet fully realized and/or fully understood is that it is just 'past experiences', themselves, that is the 'root cause' for ALL of human behavior.

Age, you’ve brought up a really compelling point here about determinism, purpose, and even how we approach understanding “will” itself. Let’s tackle these ideas head-on.

First, determinism doesn’t necessarily imply “pre-determined” in the sense that some external entity is orchestrating everything. When we talk about determinism here, we're looking at it as a cause-and-effect chain, one in which events unfold out of necessity based on the conditions that came before, without a guiding purpose. Think of it more like the physical process of dominoes falling rather than a grand design—each event leading to the next in an unbroken, natural chain.

Now, you're right to note that there’s a need for clarity on terms like “free will” and “determinism.” In the deterministic view we’re exploring, free will implies autonomy from causality. But the claim here is that what we experience as will—our decisions, our actions—is ultimately governed by physical processes. This means that what we consider “our will” doesn’t stand independently from these causal chains but is shaped by them.

As for your point about the root cause of human behavior being “past experiences,” that’s absolutely a crucial factor. Our experiences, combined with our biology, environment, and numerous other influences, contribute to shaping behavior. When we talk about systems designed to address these factors, it’s not to “fix” them in some simplistic sense, but to acknowledge these underlying influences and create conditions that promote better outcomes. So, instead of viewing governance as a system of punishment or reward based on presumed “free” choices, it becomes about addressing the real causes behind those choices, including past experiences.

In a deterministic framework, understanding these influences—whether past or present—is key to creating meaningful change. Not by “controlling” behavior, but by aligning our systems with the natural forces already at play.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:36 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:31 am

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:27 am they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose. The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

Alright, so here’s where things get interesting. If we ditch free will for determinism, it doesn’t erase the need for governance—it just reshapes our approach to it.

Just so it becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR ANY idea about ANY form of 'governance' OVER another being 'needed' will NEVER EVER WORK

A part of the reason WHY 'the world' is in the absolutely MESS that it is in 'now', when this is being written, is because you adult human beings 'hand over' 'the responsibility' for what you do, and for 'what you have done', TO 'others'.

Voting in, or wanting to vote in, 'others' to 'govern' over "one's" own 'self' is, besides a form of absolute LUNACY, is a form of absolute IMMATURITY.

Now, there may well be a 'need' for 'governance', but this 'need' is in the form of 'self-governance', and like having and using 'self-discipline' instead of having and using 'discipline, itself, OVER others', when implemented and in place is HOW and WHEN the Truly peaceful and harmonious world for EVERY one, as One, WILL, and DID, come to begin.

Now, for absolutely ANY one who would like to DISCUSS HOW and WHEN how a 'self-governing world' COULD, and DOES, come-to-be, then, ONCE AGAIN, 'I' am more than willing, wanting, and ready TO DISCUSS.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am Even under determinism, we still see distinct social systems emerge, driven by the same physics that guides all events. But those systems don’t need to rest on the belief in individual autonomy; instead, they can leverage our understanding of cause and effect.

In a deterministic framework, governance is about crafting environments that lead to beneficial outcomes, not about enforcing a “will,” whether of the individual or the leader.

BUT, EVERY so-called 'government' just about ALWAYS CLAIMS that it is, or is going to, do what leads to beneficial outcomes.

Although ALL of you adult human beings do, OBVIOUSLY, get CONNED, TRICKED, and/or LIED TO, you ALL, still, FALL INTO the TRAP, and BELIEF, that you ALL 'need to' be 'government' by some one, or some thing, else.

And, what kind of 'environment' do you want actually 'crafted', exactly?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am So yes, laws of physics guide behavior, but we can apply our understanding of those laws to build systems that consistently lead to societal well-being.

What 'government' do you think believes that it is not consistently doing what leads to societal well-being?

The government in "north korea" just like the government in "united states of America", for example, both BELIEVE that they are consistently doing what leads to societal well-being.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am It’s not about surrendering to fate; it’s about steering outcomes through empirically grounded design. That’s the purpose, if you will, of a government that respects the deterministic nature of human behavior.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The deterministic nature of the human being, and its behavior, is to end up living in peace and harmony with one another, as One.

you human beings, however, are, still, just in the evolutionary process of learning how to consciously create and make this happen.

Alright, Age, you’re raising a bold challenge here—a world without traditional governance, advocating instead for *self-governance* as the true path to peace and harmony. And you know, there’s actually an interesting alignment here with the deterministic approach we’re discussing, but perhaps from a different angle than the one you’re suggesting.

Let’s break it down. In a deterministic view, sure, all behavior—including the impulse toward governance or self-governance—is shaped by underlying causes. But here’s the catch: those causes don’t lead everyone in the same direction naturally. People’s behaviors and needs vary based on their environment, social influences, and biology. So, in the absence of organized systems, self-governance wouldn’t necessarily lead to harmony; rather, it might just mean each individual follows the conditions that shape them—whatever those may be.

This is where structured governance in a deterministic framework comes in. It’s not about enforcing control or imposing a hierarchy, as you rightly critique. Instead, governance becomes about understanding the diverse influences on behavior and designing systems that foster positive environments and minimize conflict. Think of it as creating the conditions for harmony and well-being rather than imposing a “will” from above. You’re absolutely right that even governments like North Korea and the U.S. claim they’re working toward societal well-being—but the question is, how closely do their systems align with the real determinants of well-being, like equity, health, and freedom from harm?

In the end, this isn’t a handover of responsibility; it’s a reconfiguration. Instead of expecting individuals to operate in total autonomy—which might sound appealing but doesn’t always match the reality of human behavior—governance in a deterministic model aims to shape a world where positive outcomes emerge more naturally. It’s about creating a setting where conflict is mitigated, and peace and self-governance are not just ideals but practical outcomes.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:53 am I suggest that when, and if, you human beings actually agree upon and accept a definition for the term 'free will', then you will be able to decide if 'science' could provide an answer, or not.

The definition that they use will be implicit in the input variables that they seek to control as well as the resulting output variables of their experimental test. At that point, we can check if these variables truly measure what they are purported to measure. Asking for an experimental test report therefore solves all these problems. In the end, a definition is just a word salad. It is much more interesting to look at what they actually did in a lab setting.

Except they will use words, in explaining what they did, and all words carry with them a 'definition', and, well according to you anyway, a definition is just a so-called 'word salad'.

So, where do you suggest one starts, exactly, if words, and thus definitions, are just 'salad', to you?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 1:40 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Alright, so here we go. Let’s dive right into “The Future of Government” from a fresh, philosophical angle that might just turn heads. Now, as we all know, traditional governance systems—democracy, autocracy, communism—each carry certain assumptions. But here’s the kicker: they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will, that we’re all out there making choices of our own accord. Yet, as science is starting to reveal, free will might just be a mirage. The result? Whole systems of governance that may not align with the actual dynamics of human behavior.

Where is this convoluted assertion that the term 'free will' refers to, 'making choices of our own accord', coming from, exactly?

If you human beings cannot 'make choices of your own accord', then WHY even mention it?

Again, when, and if, you come to find out the 'root cause' of WHY you do EVERY thing you do, then you WILL KNOW WHY you are mentioning some thing that does not even exist to begin with, and so you will be ABLE TO answer the clarifying question that I just posed, and asked, you, here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Imagine a system, though, that instead of punishing or rewarding based on presumed “free choices,”

What are so-called 'free choices', exactly?

And, do 'they' even exist, to begin with?

If no, then, again, WHY talk about and mention them?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm focuses on causes—root causes, determinants of behavior grounded in neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology. A government that anticipates, that applies what we know about cause and effect in human behavior to design policies that actually work.

WHY 'wait' for so-called 'governments'?

Some of the human adult population, in the days when this was being written, were so 'irresponsible' that they wanted, and expected, 'governments' to do just about every thing for them.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:55 pm Here’s the starting question for everyone: if we throw out the concept of free will in our governance model, what would change?

Which definition are 'we' using in the 'concept of free will' here, exactly?

For example would 'you' like to use a definition that actually exists, or a definition that could not actually exist?

Obviously 'we' would NEED TO KNOW this FIRST before 'we' could answer 'your question' Accurately, and Correctly.

By the way, how many 'concepts of free will' are there, exactly?

Alright, let’s take a sharper angle here and dive into the mechanics of it all.

you are FREE to 'change direction' and 'deflect' here, completely, if you so CHOOSE TO.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am Age’s question about "free choices" and the nature of will opens up a crucial point—one grounded in the physical reality of what “will” can and can’t do.

WILL you clean up the beach, or WILL you leave it with rubbish? for example, is a CHOICE that you are completely and utterly FREE to decide upon.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am When we talk about “will,” whether it’s free or not, we’re dealing with a concept that’s non-physical.

When you used the very thing, which led to that sentence that you just wrote and presented here, are we dealing with a concept that is physical or non-physical?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am Will doesn’t have mass, it doesn’t carry an electric charge, and it doesn’t exert any physical force.

Okay, if you say so.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am In other words, it can’t push atoms around.

Does Mind, thought, or emotion have mass? Do they carry an electric charge? Do they exert any physical force?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am Instead, it’s the atoms—the billions of neurons in the brain and the intricate biochemical reactions—that create what we experience as “will.”

If you say so.

Do you have any actual proof of this? Or, do you have any actual evidence of this, which is backed up and supported by some peer reviewed study?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am This flips the common view on its head: it’s not “will” directing the atoms in our brains; it’s the atoms and their interactions creating the experience of will.

1. How are 'you' defining the word 'will' here, exactly?

2. Who were the ones with that so-called 'common view'? And, why did 'that view' become a 'common view'?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am So when we discuss choices, we're not denying that decisions are made; rather, we're saying those decisions aren’t made freely, in isolation from all causal influences.

Do you know WHY you are spending so much time re-repeating some thing that I have not seen ANY one disagree with?

In fact are you even AWARE of just how much 'energy' and 'time' you have spend on this just ONE issue here?

And, who are this 'we' who when discussing 'choices' 'you' are saying 'choices' are NOT made 'freely', in isolation from all 'casual influences'?

Also, is it not just BLINDLY OBVIOUS that if there are 'casual influences', then 'the thing', which has been 'influenced', casually or not, could NEVER be in isolation 'without influence', nor be 'absolutely free', anyway?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am Our choices are shaped, even determined, by prior physical events—biological, psychological, social.

AGAIN, you KEEP RE-repeating this. And, from what I can tell there is absolutely NO one disagreeing with you, and this, here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am The idea of "free will" often assumes that the mind can somehow initiate actions independently,

1. WHO 'assumes' this, here?

2. WHY do you say 'often', here?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am
but since will itself isn’t a physical force, it doesn’t have the power to command our neurons.

Does Mind, thought, or emotion have the power to command neurons?

And, who and/or what, exactly, does the 'our' word here refer to, exactly, which 'you' claim have their own neurons?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am It’s the neurons, organized by both our biology and external influences, that generate the thoughts and decisions we interpret as will.

Well WHO is 'the ones' who have 'their neurons'?

If it is neurons that generate the thoughts and decisions within those human bodies, then 'I' suggest 'you' get 'those ones', who own 'their neurons' to 'take control' over the thoughts and decisions, within human bodies. Or, if it is, really, human beings biology and external influences that cause the neurons to generate the thoughts and decisions 'you', human beings, interpret as will, then just accept that 'you' have NO CHOICE AT ALL over nor in 'this', here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am On the topic of waiting for governments, it’s not about placing responsibility on some external force. It’s about acknowledging that systems, designed with this understanding of determinism, can intervene more effectively at the level of root causes.

AGAIN, what 'we' can see here is just MORE BLAME placed onto some other things.

ALL of the so-called 'systems' that you are referring to here are CAUSED and CREATED by you adult human beings. So, if you, really, WANT 'the systems' CHANGED, for the better, then JUST CREATE 'better' systems.

Voting, and/or waiting, for some OTHER governance to CHANGE 'the systems' for "yourselves" is just another form of NOT 'taking responsibility'.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am By aligning policies with the actual determinants of behavior,

AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY ANY and EVERY mis/behavior is BECAUSE OF 'past experiences/events', SOLELY.

So, HOW does one 'align policies' with actual 'past events'?

Now, OF COURSE, if you adult human beings CHANGE "yourselves" for the better, now, then ALL future people WILL BE much 'better' off.

But, AGAIN, you WILL have to 'admit responsibility' for the Wrong that you ALL do, BEFORE you can ALL 'take responsibility' by seeking out all you can to CHANGING for 'the better'.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am rather than attributing outcomes solely to personal “will,” we create governance that addresses real conditions—improving lives in ways that individuals alone may not have the capacity to change.

This sounds very words and NOT clear, at all.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:26 am So, Age, to answer your question on the “concept of free will”—this isn’t about dismissing choice; it’s about recognizing that what we call “will” is the product of physical processes. Free or not, “will” itself isn’t at the helm; it’s a passenger, a product of the atoms that make us who we are.

Keeping this SIMPLE, like ALL 'life' IS, then;

Do 'you' HAVE 'the ability to choose', or, 'the ability to make choices'?

If yes, then some just refer to 'this ability' as what the words 'free will' mean, and/or are referring to, exactly.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:11 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am they’re all built on a bedrock that assumes individuals have free will

I don’t think there’s any logical or scientific basis for that claim. Once you jetison free will in favour of determinism, everything is the way it is out of necessity rather than purpose.

WHY?

'Determinism' can also imply 'pre-determined', which would have to also imply a 'determination' by some one/thing, or 'determined' by some one/thing, which could then imply 'a purpose' as well.

Also, let 'us' not forget that in the days when this is being written before one could even begin to jettison, or get rid of, 'free will' in favor of 'determinism', or vice versa, you adult human beings have not yet even reached an agreement and acceptance of what the words 'free will' and 'determinism' even mean, and/or are even referring to, exactly, yet.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:25 am The distinction between autocracy and democracy collapses when the will of neither autocrat nor populace can be manifest in governance, meaning there is no government and everyone is governed by the laws of physics alone. Is that what you mean?

What "bigmike" means, or is 'getting at', is that if 'we' can find the 'root cause', which causes all of human behavior, then the 'current' government could 'fix' that thing, which, in turn, would then 'cause' the change of human behavior.

However, what I think "bigmike" has just not yet fully realized and/or fully understood is that it is just 'past experiences', themselves, that is the 'root cause' for ALL of human behavior.

Age, you’ve brought up a really compelling point here about determinism, purpose, and even how we approach understanding “will” itself. Let’s tackle these ideas head-on.

Just so you become aware I have already sorted all of 'this' out and have put it all into a G.U.T.O.E. which has already been verified as True. But, yet obviously not EVERY one has become aware of this, YET. So, what you want to 'tackle head on' has already been done, by another.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am First, determinism doesn’t necessarily imply “pre-determined” in the sense that some external entity is orchestrating everything.

Did ANY one it did?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am When we talk about determinism here, we're looking at it as a cause-and-effect chain,

Who and/or what is the 'we' here, exactly?

And, if you, and/or others, Truly WANT to 'look at' determinism while 'looking at' 'determinism' as a 'cause-and-effect chain', then, obviously, EVERY one of you 'sees' that the Universe HAS TO BE, irrefutably, ETERNAL.

Now that 'that' is settled, let 'us' move along here.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am one in which events unfold out of necessity based on the conditions that came before, without a guiding purpose.

Okay, ONCE AGAIN, you have PREVIOUSLY mentioned this, as well.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am Think of it more like the physical process of dominoes falling rather than a grand design—each event leading to the next in an unbroken, natural chain.

you are, now, asking me to think of some thing that I had 'thought about' a long, long time ago.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am Now, you're right to note that there’s a need for clarity on terms like “free will” and “determinism.”

AND, absolutely EVERY word that you human beings use in discussions.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am In the deterministic view

What do you, really, mean by, 'In the deterministic view', exactly?

WHY 'look' from 'one view' or 'one perspective', only?

WHY NOT just 'look at' what IS, FIRST, and ONLY?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am we’re exploring, free will implies autonomy from causality.

AGAIN, if you WANT to USE a definition of a word, which could NOT even exist, then 'that word' is completely and utterly REDUNDANT.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am But the claim here is that what we experience as will—our decisions, our actions—is ultimately governed by physical processes.

AGAIN, if you want to introduce some thing, or a concept, that was NEVER previously being talked about/discussed, then okay.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am This means that what we consider “our will” doesn’t stand independently from these causal chains but is shaped by them.

AGAIN, I have NOT seen ANY one here disagree with this.

So, AGAIN, I am NOT sure WHY you KEEP introducing things that absolutely NO one, as far as I am aware, is even disagreeing with.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am As for your point about the root cause of human behavior being “past experiences,” that’s absolutely a crucial factor.

Okay. But, WHY has it taken post after post after post for you to just recognize and see this?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am Our experiences, combined with our biology, environment, and numerous other influences, contribute to shaping behavior.

AGAIN, you can REMOVE ALL of the UNNECESSARY words and just GET TO the Truth.

EVERY thing you human beings do is BECAUSE OF what those, physical, bodies have 'previously experienced'.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am When we talk about systems designed to address these factors, it’s not to “fix” them in some simplistic sense, but to acknowledge these underlying influences and create conditions that promote better outcomes.

AGAIN, UNNECESSARY wording to just present some VERY, VERY SIMPLE Fact.

What factors? There is ONLY ONE factor. That is; 'past experiences' is WHY you ALL do what you do. Which MEANS that if 'you' had the EXACT SAME experiences that ANY one else had, then 'you' would be doing EXACTLY the SAME things that 'they' ARE DOING.

Also, UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING 'this' FULLY, REMOVES ANY and ALL 'judging' of others. Which then leads to HELPING and SUPPORTING ALL others to, also, become and be BETTER people, "themselves".

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am So, instead of viewing governance as a system of punishment or reward based on presumed “free” choices, it becomes about addressing the real causes behind those choices, including past experiences.

BUT, 'past experiences' is the ONLY fundamental cause, and thus THE 'root cause'.

Also, WHO was viewing 'governance' as a system of punishment or reward, based on ANY thing?

I CERTAINLY was NOT.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am In a deterministic framework, understanding these influences—whether past or present—is key to creating meaningful change.

BUT, what you call 'present', still, HAPPENED, in 'the past'.

AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one would like to discuss ANY or ALL of this any further, then I am more than 'willing', wanting and ready, to.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:35 am Not by “controlling” behavior, but by aligning our systems with the natural forces already at play.

BUT, the 'natural forces' ALL happen in 'the past', in some way.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 9:55 am

Alright, Age, let's get into this.

You’re raising some solid points about clarity and simplicity—especially around terms and the concept of past experiences being the root cause. I’m with you there, and you’re absolutely right that we could strip down some of this language to make things clearer. So, here’s the core idea:

When we say “determinism” here, we’re not implying a puppet master or a grand orchestrator; we’re talking about a simple cause-and-effect sequence. You’re right that past experiences play a central role. In fact, the argument here is that everything we think, choose, or do is indeed shaped by this causal history. “Past experiences,” if you will, are not just a factor—they’re the foundational force shaping behavior.

As for governance, you’re spot-on that it’s traditionally been approached as a system of rewards and punishments. But in a deterministic framework, we’re rethinking this. Governance here isn’t about “fixing” people or controlling behavior in the traditional sense; it’s about setting up conditions that foster positive behavior naturally. This isn’t to say governance is necessary *over* people but rather that systems are designed to work with the forces that actually influence human actions—past experiences being the central one.

To your point, aligning systems with these “natural forces” of causation doesn’t require present intervention on every choice. The past is the driver here, and by understanding that, we can create environments where peace and positive outcomes emerge organically—not by control but by understanding the conditions that lead to those outcomes.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:47 am

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:53 am I suggest that when, and if, you human beings actually agree upon and accept a definition for the term 'free will', then you will be able to decide if 'science' could provide an answer, or not.

The definition that they use will be implicit in the input variables that they seek to control as well as the resulting output variables of their experimental test. At that point, we can check if these variables truly measure what they are purported to measure. Asking for an experimental test report therefore solves all these problems. In the end, a definition is just a word salad. It is much more interesting to look at what they actually did in a lab setting.

Except they will use words, in explaining what they did, and all words carry with them a 'definition', and, well according to you anyway, a definition is just a so-called 'word salad'.

So, where do you suggest one starts, exactly, if words, and thus definitions, are just 'salad', to you?

Definitions are practically usable when they are expressed in a formal language and are machine readable. This guarantees that they have a unique reading:

2.1.4: Unique Readability

The way we defined formulas guarantees that every formula has a unique reading, i.e., there is essentially only one way of constructing it according to our formation rules for formulas and only one way of “interpreting” it. If this were not so, we would have ambiguous formulas, i.e., formulas that have more than one reading or interpretation—and that is clearly something we want to avoid.

Definitions in natural language are just commentary. They are merely meant to elucidate a particular concept for teaching purposes, but are not effectively actionable, and certainly not guaranteed to be unambiguous.

https://www.directimpactsolutions.com/e ... -comments/

Why are most comments bad?

Most comments are bad because developers can’t realistically maintain them. Over time, comments can become inaccurate and misleading, which is worse than not having comments.

Even though natural language is certainly the best format for teaching purposes, it is not a good carrier for precise and unambiguous definitions. The scientific researchers may produce explanations that include definitions, but these things cannot overrule the actual data and machine configurations used and obtained from their experimental test setup.