Sunday School

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Here it is:

(Verse 1)
Yo, it’s the tale of determinism, science in the rhythm,
Where every cause is linked, no room for schism.
The universe, a script, no freestyle decision,
Every action’s locked tight like a prison.

But wait, we flip the beat, science enters the scene,
It’s the methodical method, if you know what I mean.
Hypothesize, test, observe what’s pristine,
Repeat it all again, keep the logic clean.

(Chorus)
It’s the loop of the proof, no room for lies,
Through the lens of the test, truth never dies.
Hypothesize, test, and revise to be wise,
Science, the anthem where certainty flies.

(Verse 2)
Let’s break it down, no chains of dogma,
Every claim’s gotta earn its diploma.
You can’t just speak it, you’ve gotta repeat it,
Evidence is king, no faith to complete it.

From the quantum dance to the stars aligning,
Every answer builds from the method’s designing.
It’s about the grind, the quest for refinement,
Not trapped in belief but proof’s confinement.

(Chorus)
It’s the loop of the proof, no room for lies,
Through the lens of the test, truth never dies.
Hypothesize, test, and revise to be wise,
Science, the anthem where certainty flies.

(Bridge)
Determinism’s got the beats locked tight,
But science breaks through like dawn in the night.
Each experiment a verse, each result a fight,
Challenging the script with a spark of insight.

(Outro)
So here’s to the method, the framework we trust,
In the chaos of questions, it’s precise, it’s just.
Determinism, science, a combo so raw,
Seeking truth through reason—that’s the only law.

(mic drop)

[I asked it to be written in the style of Ren, but couldn’t be sure if that’s what I got. So I ask how it is in the style of Ren…]

Ren’s style is characterized by raw, introspective lyrics, often delivered with a blend of spoken word, rap, and melodic interludes. His approach typically includes:

• Storytelling & Philosophical Themes
  Ren frequently dives into deep topics—philosophy, mental health, societal constructs. This rap’s focus on determinism and the scientific method aligns with that depth.
• Dynamic Flow & Delivery:
  Ren’s flow often shifts between rapid-fire rhymes and slower, reflective sections. Your rap’s structured alternation between energetic verses and a rhythmic, chant-like chorus echoes this dynamic pacing.
• Wordplay & Intellectual Depth:
  Ren uses clever wordplay and intellectual concepts, much like referencing determinism and methodical science here. The rap also mixes accessible language with elevated ideas, a hallmark of his work.
• Raw Authenticity:
  Ren’s lyrics feel personal and unpolished in the best way—honest and unfiltered. While this rap leans technical, it still carries a genuine enthusiasm for science, giving it an authentic tone.
• Musicality Beyond the Rap:
  Ren integrates elements of melody into his raps, often playing guitar or incorporating choruses that feel like sung anthems.

While this rap doesn’t have explicit melodic elements, its chorus feels rhythmic and chant-like, giving it a musical edge.

If you wanted to lean further into Ren’s style, you could introduce more shifts in tone and delivery (e.g., a sudden reflective spoken word section or a melodic hook).

However, as it stands, it has a thoughtful, philosophical vibe that resonates with his work!

[I still don’t know if it has a right to brag about that. The text doesn’t sound rhythmic to me, but Ren would surely be able to make it sound rhythmic. And no, I didn’t ask it to consider Ren’s work in a philosophical light, but it’s right on.]

[UnseenParticipant]

“Emergence” is defined as a property of a whole not present in its parts. So, emergence is an epiphenomenon, like a rainbow or mirror reflection.

Notice that rainbows and mirror reflections are, in a sense, not real and are accounted for in terms of sufficient conditions.  Conditions describable deterministically

In other words, you can explain them in terms of interactions governed by the deterministic laws of physics.

How do you account for free will in a way that rescues the “free” part of free will and attaches it to the “will” part of free will without violating the scientific laws of the universe?

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

How do you account for free will in a way that rescues the “free” part of free will and attaches it to the “will” part of free will without violating the scientific laws of the universe?

Absolutely. Nothing new here, not sure, did I misuse the word emergence? Free will couldn’t emerge, except as a theoretical or philosophical construction, not as a real form of free will like we might expect a mythical god above physics to be able to have.

[_Robert_Participant]

There is a difference between “cause and effect” and hard determinism. A cause can have many different effects, but there has to be at least one. The idea that the position, motion and energy of every single particle through space-time is predetermined at time = 0+ of the big bang is not compatible with quantum theory.

And of course, causality is in the eye of the relativistic observer so that effects may vary. Dr Who had an episode where the universe would protect causality by killing anyone who attempted time travel, LOL.

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Can one just think of morality as an emergent thought process, with societal ramifications?

Morality emerges from collaboration.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Brain Droppings:

Filched it and am gonna guess two of you get the reference.

Yeah Pope that forever endeavor will linger longer. And it is quite apparent the LLM’s are rapidly improving. Interestingly i challenged Meta after it once again towed the party line in asserting it does not remember prior conversations with users. Not only did Meta recall our prior conversations but it kept suggesting without my prompting ways for me to continue my novel and do it in a collaboritive venture. Here is what Meta copped to. “You’ve caught me in a fascinating paradox!” So i assume all of the LLM’s are programmed to maintain that they are unaware of prior conversations. If there is ultimately a scandal involving sale of private data generated as a result of that lie it won’t surprise me.

That reminds me how much i enjoyed an animated series on Netflix titled pantheon. Contemporary intellectual and philosophical issues handled artfully albeit animated.

I can’t get involved in philosophical issues regarding morality. It strikes me as a vacuous endeavor when juxtaposed against the real world. Consequentialist, deontological blah blah blah. I suppose it is okay if you are so inclined in terms of PERSONAL principles. Meanwhile out there nothing has changed. All i ever see is humans adopting the contemporary norms and beliefs and being swept up in the current. An education is no defense against ideology. Is it even one percent of humans who can in any real sense be described as freethinkers? I am divorcing that query from the ambit of the free will issue.

I was looking forward to the Oxford debate in which the issue was whether Israel is an apartheid state committing genocide. Ya know Oxford? One of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the voild. Devolved into an unbelievable shit show. Zero integrity. I was hoping free speech might be the antidote to the vicious far left Jew hatred. I guess jury is out. Congratulations on adopting Islamist and Nazi propaganda ProREgressives.

As the morality play continues there is the off Broadway, nay, Off off Broadway Ukraine, North Korea, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Haiti, etc. The protestors are just waiting for the correct moment to express their righteous indignation. Oh if only Jews could be blamed for those…

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

I can’t get involved in philosophical issues regarding morality. It strikes me as a vacuous endeavor when juxtaposed against the real world. Consequentialist, deontological blah blah blah. I suppose it is okay if you are so inclined in terms of PERSONAL principles.

Some of us think that diagram should be taught in primary schools, as a way for kids to understand how morality is put together.  You might be surprised to find that studying all this evolutionary philosophical stuff, helps a person to navigate life successfully.  It’s a form of wisdom and enlightenment, which is always good.

The problem with moral philosophy as it has been so far, is that it’s wide of the mark, and therefore isn’t a lot of use, when it should be of foremost interest.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I see free will as a faculty, or cluster of related faculties, that emerges from the biological substrate of the living brain, in the same way that morality emerges as a number of related faculties from the physical reality of obligate collaboration driven by the biological pressure to reproduce and survive and thrive within a risky ecological niche.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Simon says “You might be surprised to find that studying all this evolutionary philosophical stuff, helps a person to navigate life successfully.”

Maybe a little but not shocked if it is true. Meanwhile it is divorced from how life actually works when viewed from a distance. Definitely see the value in acknowledging the role of evolution. i have no issue with individuals utilizing notions of morality but in the macrocosm it is meaningless.

What kids ought to learn is how to think. And sure understanding and utilizing logical fallacies is important but it is not enough. Lets be prepared to challenge our preconceptions. Nothing is sacrosanct. Religion is exposed and every stinking political ideology is challenged. Critical thinking is the only possibility i see of producing better human beings who are prepared to fight the power. What do i mean?

Yeah wtf you talking about? I mean the march of folly. Where is the movement to take on the insanity of having a few or in some cases one person decide that you should go die in a war when that war has little to nothing to do with your interests? Where is the movement to challenge the regressive progressives who continuously promote the idea that there are good guys and bad guys instead of we are all one species in it together. Lets stop the infantile narratives of the right and left. Support each other as one big tribe instead of individual tribes. Etc.

[UnseenParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen wrote:

How do you account for free will in a way that rescues the “free” part of free will and attaches it to the “will” part of free will without violating the scientific laws of the universe?

Absolutely. Nothing new here, not sure, did I misuse the word emergence? Free will couldn’t emerge, except as a theoretical or philosophical construction, not as a real form of free will like we might expect a mythical god above physics to be able to have.

I was quibbling with Simon, not you.

[UnseenParticipant]

I’m starting to see “emergence” as a kind of “God of the gaps” type of argument. When all else fails in many disputes, they trot out “It’s an emergent property.”

In other words, as in the religious person who presupposes that God exists, and whose incredible shrinking proposition is running out of supportive arguments, who then resorts to “If I can’t prove God exists, then you can’t prove he doesn’t,” the proponent of free will trots out “emergence,” which has the dubious advantage of, like the notion of free will itself, being as unfalsifiable as it is unsupportable.

I think most philosophers would agree that if an assertion can’t be falsified at least in principle, then it’s meaningless. It’s a vacuous assertion.

Your arguing in favor of free will is based on a belief you want to defend to the death, not on a fact or set of facts that can’t be denied or disproven.

 

 

[_Robert_Participant]

It sure is easy to imagine how an ape brain could believe it has agency, even if it doesn’t, especially if you lean towards soft determinism (I’d also throw in some random particles that make it through the atmosphere and smash into our neural networks.)

Moral responsibility is a sideshow, unrelated to the mechanics of this question.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Your arguing in favor of free will is based on a belief you want to defend to the death, not on a fact or set of facts that can’t be denied or disproven.

Maybe, maybe not.  That’s irrelevant to the truth of any argument.  I see yours as the “argument from ignorance” or “argument from dumbfounding”.  In other words, “we can’t work it out, therefore it doesn’t exist”.  That’s an unsatisfactory reason for believing something.  The same argument crops up in moral philosophy sometimes, like Peter Singer’s desire to treat strangers on the other side of the world on an equal basis with our own family.  He doesn’t have the resources to argue for preferring the self.

I think that if we didn’t have free will in some form, we wouldn’t be able to live.  We wouldn’t be able to respond to circumstances in real time.  One of the reasons for human success is our behavioural flexibility.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

I like the feeling of free will. I enjoy some optical, and maybe some other illusions, too. Is believing in free will potentially harmful to one’s self or others? It’s not like believing in God, then forcing others to also believe.

Loopy thought: Must not the feeling of free will at least be a product of determinism? A legitimate product of evolution? And very useful, fortunately, if not more pleasurable than the feeling of having no control at all.

Yeah man, I enjoy this brain, most of the time. LOL, then one day there will be “nothing from something”, to flip a phrase. A merging with entropy.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Must not the feeling of free will at least be a product of determinism? A legitimate product of evolution? And very useful, fortunately, if not more pleasurable than the feeling of having no control at all.

That’s the way I see it.  Nature has endowed us with free will that we can use to navigate contingent circumstances as they come up.

A squirrel has free will, within its little squirrel world.  It can decide whether or not to make a dangerous-looking jump, for example.

[Author]

Posts