Oh, I'm for reasonable gun control as are most gun owners in the US. But outright gun bans including of law enforcement and the military is practiced... Uummm... nowhere on planet Earth.

True, that number is zero, whereas the numbers of deaths that could have been prevented from occurring through the use of a firearm is greater than zero.

Okay, I guess my previous understanding is correct. Namely that academic Metaphysics does NOT necessarily (even with a ten foot pole apparantly) address the actions of "metaphysical" entities. That second use of the word perhaps being a "colloquial" use of the term.

So we're addressing two different uses of the term.

You never heard of the "Pious"? You obvious don't watch Fox News.

JC sure seems to fit the description of someone who practiced magic, for one example

Exactly. As an aside, I thought it was interesting the you distinguished stage magic from purported Magick, since stage magic is, of course completely logical and scientific ie in no sense metaphysical.

Anyway, your example of religious miracles as an example is right on. How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? Magic? Some rationalization using vague pseudoscientific terminology?

Like I posted, it's not about what one consumes or doesn't consume. It's the announcement. Of course in environments where herd mentality is strong (younger age groups, members of insular groups, etc) you're not going to see the outlier opinion causing such an effect.

The backlash against Prius drivers in the 2000s was the same thing. It's the perceived "I'm better (purer) than you".

Your post makes sense if the definition of metaphysics is the musings of ivory tower metaphysicians. Whereas, to me the purported beyond physical actions of metaphysical entities also qualifies.

As usual, perspective is key.

Perhaps one is "Metaphysics" and the other is an example of the metaphysical.

What is interesting to me though as a non-drinker is the sociological reaction to the non-drinker. I think non-drinkers make drinkers uncomfortable. I'm not sure if they feel judged or something or if they feel guilty for doing something that they'd feel less guilty about if everyone around them were joining in.

It's like I need to walk around with a glass of melting ice and a skinny little straw so that people can see I am one of them. Walking around a party without a drink is like walking around without a shirt on or something where everyone notices and wants to get you a blanket or something.

Yeah, it's the same psychology as vegetarians making meat eaters uncomfortable.

However, there's a difference between someone not consuming alcohol (or meat) and another person announcing they're a teetotaler (or a vegetarian).

It's not about the noncomsumption, it's about the conversation.

Several things:

First, unless you want to redefine metaphysics in the current era from what it has meant historically, the role of "magic" cannot be excluded from it's repertoire.

To be clear I am NOT using the term "magical" perjoratively or dismissively. Rather I mean it as a explanation that defies observation, experience and knowledge.

If one is intellectually honest one cannot reasonably evaluate the role of metaphysics using it's current application, because in the current era we can only know the question, never the (true) answer. No, in order to fully evaluate what metaphysics is (and more importantly for this conversation, what it is not) we must use historical examples and put ourselves in the mindset of those in that era.

For example explaining lightning in the absence of an understanding of electricity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism all ascribed lightning to the workings of gods (surprising no one) when those religions were invented in the Bronze and Iron ages, clearly not science, that's metaphysics. However, in Medieval times lightning (which commonly struck the tallest structures ie churches) was either thought to be prevented by the piety of the ringing of church bells warding off evil spirits (a metaphysical proposal) or that the sound of the ringing of the bells disrupted the air and thus prevented the lightning from striking the tower (a physical or a scientific theory).

That sort of thing used to be the norm. But now in the Post Truth era, one decides on an expedient conclusion, then cherrypicks data to support the predetermined conclusion. You really need to get with the times...

Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it?

I believe I get what you're saying, and I don't absolutely disagree with the analogy of an old fashioned mechanical slot machine. By my understanding a modern electronic slot machine that includes a random number generator is less analogous.

Though I have a large problem with your analogy in the sense that human decision making is in fact predictable somewhat, that is better than purely random (unlike slot machines) though of course well short of 100% predictability.

I assumed that the only way to know such an event would be to observe it in its occurrence, because no other information could necessitate the logical conclusion of the event's occurrence

Oh, I got that originally. My point was why look at the issue solely "logically" when the hallmark of the metaphysical is the "magical"? After all, that was the whole reason humans invented the metaphysical, namely to explain the (currently) unexplainable.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I agree your analysis makes "logical" sense.

Okay, then why did you limit the options of gods to the logical?

Several things:

First, you're discussing amortality (one doesn't die of old age, but can be killed just as you can be currently), not immortality (you can't die).

Secondly, immortality without eradication of aging and disease is torture (of an exquisitely twisted variety) that no thinking person would desire.

That's the case currently ie in the Humanist era. But back when religion was invented it occupied the space currently filled by science.

If someone is a fundamentalist Christian then their religion MUST accept a worldwide flood. Etc.

Well, sure the more extreme members of ANY group can be shown to be... extreme. But your OP attempted to describe a whole group.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and I completely agree that was the situation before Humanism. That is, the role of religion before the Enlightenment is very different than the role of the identical religions today.

Or, are you proposing that the god knows the outcome through some other means, perhaps by actually having observational capacity in the future, while existing at the present? So the god, at the present, would know the future outcome by observing it before it actually happens for us, at the present. But wouldn't this just be determinism, if future acts, which are dependent on present choices, can be observed by God, before they are chosen by the person at the present?

Ah, you missed my reference to gods being metaphysical. I am not necessarily proposing any particular mechanism for the operations of gods because 1) being personally physical, I (and you, perhaps?) have no experience with the metaphysical and more importantly, it's inner workings and 2) I don't personally believe gods exist objectively (they do exist inter-subjectively).

Though I completely agree with your assessment of the potential situation, logically speaking.

Uummm... to my view you've "proven" the answer to a slightly different question. Namely: "CAN religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview?" or "can religion be USED to perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview".

Obviously entities invented by Iron age (or earlier) inventors are going to be geared towards an Iron age customer. Of course ancient processes can and have been updated to take into account Modern ethical standards to try to stay relevant though I agree with you that dogma is especially appealing to those who find critical thinking difficult or otherwise unappealing.

Kudos on your review of possibilities.

I'd add a few observations.

First, as metaphysical entities gods to my view can in fact "know" the outcome of random events (which, of course are unknowable to physical entities like humans and computers). For example being able to fool gods with card tricks and coin flips is considered ludicrous to theists and most atheists.

Secondly, humans clearly have a robust ability to make quick decisions in cases with equal supporting data for each choice, or no data whatsoever. This is commonly glossed over by Determinists. Thus there clearly is a separate process from that of memory and reasoning. Whether this is called Will or randomness or whathaveyou doesn't matter but it does explain why to my way of thinking, antecedent state X can lead to multiple possible resultant states, ie Y and Z.

Yes, the rationalization that the materially deprived (globally) are such is their own fault due to personal flaws is easy to understand psychologically as it serves both the purpose of making the wealthy feel superior and absolved from needing to address the issue.

Really described in detail in Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

I’ve always struggled to understand the appeal for mind altering substances. Whenever I tried it, it just felt like a dream where I wasn’t fully in control of my thoughts, and I never liked it. Why do humans want to escape their mind and avoid reality? How is it an advantage?

I understand your struggle, since yours is an atypical reaction to alcohol.

As to the advantage, while I can identify admittedly minor competitive advantages, it is my opinion and experience that the main advantage of alcohol consumption (especially when alcohol was invented) is personal, not competitive.

Critiquing "Western civilization" begs the question: as opposed to the alternative of... Eastern civilization?

"People are responsible for their actions"
— Tzeentch

Responsible to whom?

Depends on perspective.
Legally? To the state.
Morally? To yourself.
Ethically? To your "community" (depending on whose standard you are referring to).

Exactly, thus the desperate went outside the system (just like now).

Well the OP inquires about the "origin" of antisemitism, which predates Modern community behavior by millenia. Though kudos to you for not a bad review of some reasons for it's perpetuation.

In my opinion, the origin lies closer to the Jewish rules prohibiting usury (as was common in antiquity)... BUT only to others Jews, ie allowing (encouraging?) usury upon Gentiles.

Well since in Real Life here on planet Earth while physical systems are getting more and more complex, biological systems are rapidly becoming simpler and simpler. If current biological trends are extrapolated indefinitely, there will be a zoo, a corn field and an industrial feed lot.

It's erroneous on it's face.

Arguing about charitable giving loses sight of the fact that by definition it is voluntary, that is free of moral obligation. If it was obligatory it wouldn't be a charity, it would be a tax.

The tactics used by groups have more to do with the technology and infrastructure available to the warring parties than their moral superiority. Sure, Israel's job would be easier if Hamas fighters all wore uniforms, grouped up under flags, had military bases far away from civilian populations, and abandoned guerrilla tactics and fought "conventionally". But would anyone logically do that if you have little to no relative war resources? No doubt the pilot zooming by at 350 knots, feels morally "cleaner" than the ground fighter looking ther victims in the eye. But again, that's more due to resource availability than moral superiority.

Nah, much more likely to be:

L. Did you strike my client with your fist? Yes or no.
D. Well, he came at me with a tire iron...
L. I asked you YES or NO did you strike my client with your fist?
J. Please answer yes or no.

Exactly my point. Lawyers are almost universally understood to be a prime example of someone uninterested in the truth, and instead seek to manipulate others to give answers that serve the lawyer's best interest.

Though one can argue there's no such thing as an inherently "yes/no" question, just askers not interested in the whole truth, instead seeking to artificially constrain answerers with arbitrary "rules" predefining "acceptable" answers.

Fantastic song but it's describing 1958's outlook.

Uummm... I see a greater problem with the artificial constraint of the set of possible answers than I do with the questions, per sè.

Wow. Where to start?

First, the robots that beat humans at rock, paper, scissors 100% of the time essentially cheat (that is they don't have any "thinking" algorithm) since their camera sees the human hand start whichever motion their human opponent has chosen, then with superhuman speed, has their mechanical "hand" display the winning hand rapidly to end the motion simultaneously with the human, thus fooling the human into thinking the two "chose" at the same time.

As to robot vs robot, since there is no "data" to enter into the algorithm to truly predict what the other robot will choose, the programmer has used some other way to come up with a choice. If one knows what the algorithm is, one can reproduce it.

As to pondering leading to different choices with the same input, I agree with you that humans commonly use the same analysis based on memories, emotions, objective variables such as price etc, however the priotization of the numerous variables leading to different choices in essentially identical situations is a common human experience. Any lay person has experienced this countless times.

If what you imagine is going on in the Black Box of human decision making was actually true, when faced with a decision between two choices of equal merit, humans would be unable to make a choice, yet we do every day.

Well the programmer of the robot can predict with 100% accuracy what his robot is going to choose. Unless his program notes (accurately) that the three options are equally probable and therefore it chooses randomly.

As to the factor, lay persons call it "thinking" or "choosing". I'm not much into labels. If you want a scientific label, sorry, it lies within the Black Box of human decision making therefore no one has worked out the intricacies of that.

One can know the initial conditions perfectly and still not be able to predict the outcome

I’d love to hear the details of this trivial experiment.

If a Determinist can’t use his Determinism to predict outcomes, what is the practical value of this Determinism?

Got it.

There are some things we know and others we don't. We know there are initial conditions before a "decision" is made (though don't know them in granular detail), we don't know the details of the process of decision making (it is thus essentially a Black Box) and we know that when faced with "choices", decisions of individuals can be predicted much better than random chance but nowhere near 100% of the time.

Obviously folks guess how the Black Box works. One possibility is that it's workings are predictable solely through physical laws, like neurology. Another acknowledges that physical laws play a role (perhaps a major role), but there are also factors that have not been demonstrated to be predictable solely by physical laws, like psychology.

I suspect that the impact of this factor is likely at the level of the prioritization of the various initial analyses (the pros and cons of various choices) to come up with the final decision.

This would explain why your memories of burritos and tacos would be the same, their prices would be the same etc, but sometimes you choose one over the other.

As a non professional in this field (you?), I don't follow the cutting edge of research but it is my prediction that this question will not be answered definitively in my lifetime.

I have a different definition of a free choice, one where it very much is a good thing

Okkaaayyy... You may be unimpressed with those who I have conversed with before (which is entirely reasonable) yet at least when they state a contrary opinion or fact those represent their beliefs. I guess I assumed too much in this exchange.

While I am happy to reply to your queries, could you please enlighten me with what you're referring to above. It is tedious having an exchange where one party's input is a set of opinions/understandings that they don't actually believe in.

This is pretty funny since by this definition, we have free will even in a deterministic world because antecedent brain state X does not always lead to the same decision being made since decisions are not solely a function of the brain state. The decision of when to cross the street depends far more on the traffic than it does the antecedent brain state

Well, since in your view, Determinism can have antecedent state X leading to many possible resultant states, that (as I stated previously as you quoted) is a "Determinism" that I can get behind.

I am somewhat amused that you're stumped as to what additional factors might be responsible for multiple resultant states that are not "randomness", yet you provided one yourself. Namely traffic patterns when deciding when to cross the street.

Bottom line, I have previously conversed with Determinists who do believe 1) it's all about the antecedent brain state, 2) what we subjectively experience as pondering is an illusion and 3) there is only a single possible resultant state. I apologize for assuming your brand of Determinism was similar. You've been clear, though that none of those 3 features of other's Determinism is part of your understanding of it. Like I said before, that's the kind of "Determinism" I can live with.