Stef's wager (free will)

[Mole]

In FDR358 (Stef's wager) Stefan argued that it is better to believe in free will when lacking information to its existence. He calls this argument Stef’s wager. If you believe in free will but determinism is true then you were determined to believe in free will so you lost nothing. If you believe in determinism but free will is true then you lost your ability for personal responsibility which is worse. In this post, I will argue against the wager and utilise my argument against the wager to provide a case for, and to defend determinism. I will not cite all my paraphrases of Stefan for obvious reasons, but that is not a problem given that others may correct me if they believe I have misrepresented Stefan. Also, phrases with single quotation marks are quoting Stefan.

Free will is defined as that which any person who possesses it could have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being uncaused by any physical effect. Decisions may be caused by something non-material like a soul. Or they may be self-caused, as Stefan has favoured. This definition of free will is the same definition Stefan has used.

No sane determinist truly believes that beliefs cannot be changed or that choice does not exist. No sane determinist truly believes people cannot be rational or cannot debate. So naturally, a determinist will probably not find Stef’s wager convincing given that the determinist had probably considered the ability to choose when they adopted their belief in determinism.

A determinist will not believe that beliefs cannot be influenced. Therefore, I argue that a better wager would be to show the pragmatic consequences of a determinist morality vs. a free will morality. This is more in line with the original Descartes wager. Descartes did not argue that if you believe in God but God does not exist then you cannot have lost anything because then morality does not exist anyway and so free will doesn't exist and you could not have changed your mind. Rather, he weighed up the consequences of the belief without changing epistemological postulates. He said if you believe in God but there is no God then you have not changed much in your life. If you believe in no God but there is a God then you will go to hell. Nowhere in this argument are one’s epistemological beliefs challenged. The wager is a pragmatic rather than a philosophical argument.

Speaking in pragmatic terms, the wager favours neither position particularly strongly. There are many changes that a person makes if they are committed to determinism, for which it would be costly if they didn't make if determinism is true.

Firstly, you stop evaluating people based on the decisions they make and start evaluating them on their behaviour. This makes life much simpler because you stop judging your own desires about people. You don't try to convince yourself someone is worth your time because they are trying their best to be a good person. You don't feel guilty for being selfish with regards to your relationships. According to a study, 44% of trait conscientiousness is heritable. This study supports the claim that virtue is predetermined.

Secondly, you become compassionate towards others. You understand anger does not appeal to their rationality. Given that you evaluate them on their behaviour, you can infer that they are not worthy of your time if they don't change their behaviour. You may call them stubborn without any need to grant them free will.

Thirdly, you have a richer understanding of human nature. How anger could change someone even if free will is true is difficult to imagine. A much simpler approach is to understand our emotions do not necessarily have any moral content. Anger may be a fight or flight mechanism. Shame may be a way of keeping the integrity of a tribe. Hatred depends on subjective values. There is not necessarily an unconscious 'true self' that 'knows everything' and then the extra component of free will. Rather, we can understand how people think by analysing their biology and experiences. According to free will, brain damage may affect a person’s emotions or unconscious motives, but it should not be able to affect a person’s virtue or moral worth, which should be solely determined by free will, and free will not being determined by physical effect. However, a study found that brain damage can casually make changes in the way that people reason which can causally change moral beliefs.

Fourthly, you become compassionate towards yourself. A meta-analysis found a large effect size for the negative relationship between self-compassion and psychopathology, r = − 0.54 (95% CI = − 0.57 to − 0.51; Z = − 34.02; p < .0001). We can come to understand that when we say ‘sorry’, we don’t really mean we are worthy of shame, but rather that we understand that we should change how we behave in the future compared to the past. We also stop comparing ourselves to others. Under the dictum that reason equals virtue equals happiness, we may feel compelled to compare our levels of happiness to others, or to compare our virtue to that of others. This is not a good approach. We can accept that we are not all dealt the same hand, and there may as well be things that determine our virtue for which are difficult to control. It is not to say that we ought not to strive for virtue, but that virtue should not necessarily be the determinant of self-esteem. What is more appropriate is to compare oneself in the present to oneself in the past.

Stefan has argued that determinism is paradoxical because it presupposes that a person is capable of choice, that is, changing their beliefs, while at the same time asserting that choice is impossible.

Determinism is the opposite of free will. So, determinism is defined as not being able to have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being caused by physical effects. According to this definition, whether a person has actually made a choice remains untouched. So, the ability to choose and the fact that a person could not have chosen differently are compatible.

Choice itself does not require free will. Choice is the ability to change behaviour in virtue of being rational. Rationality is simply conceptual ‘fidelity to reality’. This does not entail free will. Rationality distinguishes us from animals. Animals cannot think conceptually, and we can. Free will then is not required to distinguish human and animal thought.

Stefan has argued that if a determinist attempts to debate because they believe others are 'inputs and outputs', then it explains why other people debate, but it would also mean the determinist is also an input-output machine. And therefore, a determinist has not chosen to debate with others and cannot attempt to debate in the first place which is a performative contradiction.

To this argument I rebut. If free will does exist and we are watching two others debate, we can explain their behaviour without appealing to free will by labelling them as inputs and outputs much like philosophical zombies. A determinist simply takes that further to say that this is also a characteristic of the observer. We can still choose to debate even if it was determined. I am yet to have heard a philosophical argument from Stefan against determinism without him appealing to the argument of performative contradiction.

If there is no contradiction with the belief of free will, we should look at the evidence and the simplest explanation. Stefan has acknowledged that determinism should be accepted only if it is non-contradictory given that it is simpler. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that determinism is simpler to free will for the following reasons.

Firstly, everything else seems to be determined by all effects acting as also as all causes. Stefan has argued that we should not be surprised to find that the human mind possesses free will given that it is only the brain that possesses consciousness. However, I am not sure whether it's correct to assume that only the brain possesses consciousness. Consciousness cannot be objectively observed. If it were not for what we have observed in the physical human body and comparing it to our subjective experience, there would have been no way to know that consciousness resides in the brain. In fact, we still don't really know whether animals are conscious. In that regard, a rock could even be conscious in some manner, a position known as panpsychism. If a computer was capable of conceptual processing, it is likely that the computer would be conscious at a level similar to our own. Consciousness may have to do more with complexity and feedback loops than it has to do with the brain. I had a dream a while ago in which I saw consciousness and life itself arising from feedback loops, weird dream.

Secondly, I do not know what it means to feel free. At least from my perspective, I see my thoughts as constant dialectics. I have said sorry enough times to my girlfriend where I really feel like I don't have much control as I thought I had. Do any men concur? Split-brain patients will often have opposing preferences in separate hemispheres. For example, one hemisphere may have atheistic leanings while the other has theistic leanings. Whether the person is actually theistic may have to do with what ever preference dominates consciousness as a unitary experience, but it does go to show the power of causality in the brain. Also, in my experience the biggest changes in my behaviour have arisen from changes in my environment rather than changes in my attitude.

Thirdly, morality requires rationality but it does not require free will. Nowhere in the UPB framework is there a requirement for free will. If a person is rational, they will be moral by adopting universal preferences. Whether a person is rational may be predetermined.

Fourthly, it is difficult to articulate what free will actually is. If you were asked to pick a random grass leaf from a field, it is difficult to claim you could have chosen differently. Every choice must depend on knowledge. Picking a grass leaf from a field is not an informative decision. You cannot for example say to have free will about whether to steer a ship east or west while in the middle of an unknown ocean at least without some scientific acuity. Likely, you will pick based solely upon gut feelings, or some kind of patterns of thinking or heuristics. Indeed, this is why neuroscientists can predict such behaviour before the person is aware of their decision.

But even if a decision were to be more informative, like for example whether to watch this movie or that movie, there is nothing in your environment which informs you about what you ought to do. It is not intrinsically more rational to watch either movie. There is no ought from an is. Now, we can still say that morality exists. We can say it’s rational to be moral, for your behaviour to be universally preferable. However, choosing to watch a movie is not a moral decision. Subjective taste would largely determine which movie to watch, which arises from unconscious processes. If you are rational, unconscious motives will drive your specific behaviours. If you are irrational, unconscious motives will still drive your specific behaviours. Then, free will might not exist in the behavioural decisions per se, but rather in the choice about whether one acts rationally or irrationally regardless of what behaviour that entails. This is certainly what Ayn Rand believed. The point here is that free will how it is typically conceptualised as existing in every choice we make is unnecessary, and creates the problem of supposing some open system where we get inspiration or information from something that is neither in our environment or biology.

To conclude, whether or not a person believes in determinism has significant effects on their life regardless of whether determinism is true. Determinism is not incompatible with the ability to choose. Therefore, it does not contradict how we act. Given that determinism is the simplest explanation, determinism is true.

Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently. Free willers would argue the corollary to determinism is that choice does not exist. Conventionally then, determinism is also defined as the lack of choice. But I would argue that this belief is the idea of fatalism and not determinism. Given that morality exists and free will is an important concept in moral reasoning, I am in favour of compatibilism which states that free will does not contradict determinism if we define free will conventionally as the ability to choose and determinism as not having been able to have chosen differently. A person who is a compatibilist is still a determinist. I also wish not to do a disservice to free willers by abandoning the term known as free will used to describe the position of believing in the ability to have chosen differently, so I think it is appropriate to call that position free will while separating it from conventional free will.

[PillPuppetPoet]

I tend to agree; I believe determinism and freedom, as you have defined them, are compatible. However, whether our decisions are materially determined or just spiritually determined, I'm not sure. But if its the latter, I still think that the flow of ideas and actions flows according to cause and effect; however, I wouldn't discount the notion of teleology and a 'final cause' either; in other words, our motives are fundamentally related to our intentions, which are ultimately reducible to Will To Power or Will To Happiness, or such like. But the idea that they are independent of identifiable or even theoretical causal relation seems like lunacy to me, an idea concocted solely to deny God responsibility for His Creation or any potential scrutability, or to deny society, parents, etc. that same responsibility. 

[Boss]

1. "Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently"

To claim people lack the ability to have chosen differently is to claim to have known the choice of the person. Like if I claimed people are not able to choose differently from Coca-Cola or Pepsi, then I would put my money where my mouth is and play the market solely on "determinism" outcome. But the reality is people choose differently so the market is not a determined outcome.

It reminds me of the phrase when someone tells you "You have no choice in this matter" it means the person saying that already knows the choice. And normally enacts it by force 

2. "determinism is also defined as the lack of choice"

You are making a decision when faced with the possibility of replying or not replying to this post. Which are two choices 

Stefan has imo a slippery slope, claiming some people are "stripped of free will" I say maybe if they are unconscious. Other than that I strongly disagree with the idea of someone being stripped of free will.

Everyone reading this made the choice to do so, And everyone reading this will make a choice on what to do after reading this.

[shirgall]

People can't help but bring up determinism again. Determinism is a rationalization that going through the motions is not only sufficient but your highest aspiration.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

1 hour ago, shirgall said:

People can't help but bring up determinism again. Determinism is a rationalization that going through the motions is not only sufficient but your highest aspiration.

Yup. It's also the first step to revoking responsibility. I can't be responsibility for anything if I didn't choose to do it.

[RichardY]

@shirgall So is getting rid of Freewill a generally positive thing? or is it more deterimental as @Dylan Lawrence Moore seems to imply, by the revoking presumably of moral or perhaps personal "responsibility" or both?

-----------------------

Perhaps getting rid of Freewill, is seen by some as "Enlightenment". Though wouldn't this be the equivalent of death in some maner? In order to take full advantage of feedback loops or "Freewill" what thoughts should be in the forefront of a person's mind?

I can't see how Freewill can exist without the presence of some Diety, or some Quantumn Mechanical God. If science is structured around causality, what uses does synchronicity have, perhaps the phenoma of Freewill only exists to vacilitate the transfer of information, between two people.

[shirgall]

 

21 hours ago, RichardY said:

@shirgall So is getting rid of Freewill a generally positive thing? or is it more deterimental as @Dylan Lawrence Moore seems to imply, by the revoking presumably of moral or perhaps personal "responsibility" or both?

-----------------------

Perhaps getting rid of Freewill, is seen by some as "Enlightenment". Though wouldn't this be the equivalent of death in some maner? In order to take full advantage of feedback loops or "Freewill" what thoughts should be in the forefront of a person's mind?

I can't see how Freewill can exist without the presence of some Diety, or some Quantumn Mechanical God. If science is structured around causality, what uses does synchronicity have, perhaps the phenoma of Freewill only exists to vacilitate the transfer of information, between two people.

How do you get that living your life like you don't have free will was positive from what I wrote? Free will justifies being proud of your accomplishments and empathetic to your fellow man's troubles.

[RichardY]

@shirgall So if determinism is a rationalization, would you say that is an equivalent of being stuck in some kind of loop?

Freewill in contrast, would you say that it is not a rationalization? I could have chosen something different than I did. Consciouness reflecting back on itself. Would you agree with Mole that Freewill exists in compatibilism, but ultimately things are determined through causality.

Because if things are ultimately determined, from a pure survival point of view wouldn't it be better to kill any form of freewill as a psychological process that delays reaction time. Maybe it would be best to reserve freewill for interactions between people, and always choose the same thing at a restaurant for example.

[shirgall]

 

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

@shirgall So if determinism is a rationalization, would you say that is an equivalent of being stuck in some kind of loop?

Freewill in contrast, would you say that it is not a rationalization? I could have chosen something different than I did. Consciouness reflecting back on itself. Would you agree with Mole that Freewill exists in compatibilism, but ultimately things are determined through causality.

Because if things are ultimately determined, from a pure survival point of view wouldn't it be better to kill any form of freewill as a psychological process that delays reaction time. Maybe it would be best to reserve freewill for interactions between people, and always choose the same thing at a restaurant for example.

I call determinism rationalization because I think the operating principle is free will. Determinists can't help but they the way that they do. There's no loop, just a dead end.

[Jsbrads]

Shirgall, when a determinist claims the can rationally choose action, the difference in results can shrinks dramatically.

As to changes due to brain damage, there is no significant difference between that and changes in thought patterns when someone becomes handicapped. Much like when someone becomes handicapped, they can choose rationally or via free will to become bitter, or Zen like happy, so too someone suffering a brain injury can accept their new brain patterns or see them as a challenge to overcome.

My thought patterns have changed due the past 3.5 yrs of poverty, tho I consider myself somewhat recovered at this moment, I most probably will never view the world in quiet the same carefree, optimistic manner I did before. 

[shirgall]

If "you" can make any difference in the universe by choosing to do so, then you aren't a determinist.

I do not deny the physical world has an effect, even causal, in most things. I'm saying that "free will" as an operating principle and emergent property of sufficiently expressive brain matter will garner you better results than flowing down the river of atomic choices made on your behalf.

https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2017-12-brain-zap-saps-destructive-urges.html

[A4E]

On 12/16/2017 at 4:10 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

It's also the first step to revoking responsibility.

So what if I say the idea of physical law breaking free will, is the first step to thinking you have superpowers?

You guys are smart people, but it seems you have enormous difficulty accepting that you are a part of what looks like a deterministic universe. I don't get it.

Revoking responsibility/agency does not have to mean anything bad happening to society, because we have no problems revoking agency from wolves or other predators, but it does not mean we let them hunt down our children. We keep them away from society, just like we will with bad people.

Imagine if all people accept that they have no agency, but that the number one priority is to have a peaceful society, maybe it would result in a completely new way of thinking on the part of immoral people. (I know that is a stretch...).

Lets say Bob steals another guys phone. Then the other guy calls the pol... wait that example did not work.

Lets say Adam hits a random guy on the street because he is so pissed off at how much sense Stefan Molyneux is making online. The equivalent of a police force track him down, and tell him: "We all know that you have no agency in what you did, but you are hurting and threatening the continued existence of our peaceful and prosperous free market society. You have the right to make amends and go to counseling, (since we all make mistakes sometimes), so that you can continue to work with and build our society. If we see that you will not do this, then you are not welcome in this society no more. and sufficient measures will be used to make sure you are not in our society." What will Adam think? And more importantly what will he think when evaluating if he should even do any immoral thing, since he has already learned how his society works. Either he make amends (some kind of work or restitution) and have to be counseled until his bad ways are exorcised, or he will be banished/killed.

I know my idea can create a new set of problems. But its not like the current systems (like jails) are working very well.

 

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

6 hours ago, A4E said:

So what if I say the idea of physical law breaking free will, is the first step to thinking you have superpowers?

Yup. It seems the more I accept the fact that I have free will, the more power I gain over my life and my ability to interact with my natural environment. Likewise, the reverse seems to be true. The more I reject freewill, the more I become a leaf floating in the windows of accidental circumstance.

When someone argues lack of free will, ignoring the fact that they are choosing to do so, they are setting up a way to excuse themselves of responsibility, whether at that moment or in the future. If a person couldn't help but do what he did, then then he can't be morally responsible for what he did, because what he did was outside of his control, and we are not responsible for things outside of our control. When someone starts playing freewill vs. determinism games with me ("games" meaning arguing the lack of existence of one or the other, or misidentifying one for the other), I know there is a manipulation coming right around the corner. There will be a lazy excuse for behavior that I will have been primed to accept. No thanks.

 

[RichardY]

Perhap Freewill can be thought of the accumulation of experience and the projection of consciousness that makes you, you...

So if Compatibilism(Freewill as Consciousness or accumulated experience?) allows for Atheism but is ultimately Deterministic. Couldn't it be said that Pantheism is as equally viable as Atheism? Consciousness as primary to reality.

Yeah arguing over freewill is pointless, as it presumes you have freewill to change your mind. Else 1) Verbal domination/brainwashing. 2) Why not get the Axe?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boyAll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

"I'd sell my soul for a glass of beer." The Shining
"Here's Johnny!!!" - The Shining

[shirgall]

I dunno why there's a lot of controversy or interest in religion with respect to determinism. The mind/body problem is orthogonal. In fact it's purely caused by language imposed dualism. Everyone is born an atheist. What happens next depends on indoctrination.

[RichardY]

@shirgall People still make a God of something though, to truly be an Atheist wouldn't a concept(?) such as war have to be totally incomprehensible, instead would be a bunch(another God maybe/The collective) of people killing one another. I'm sure there are other things people make a God out of, Determinism.

So if your superordinate principle is Freewill, does that in some way imply non-duality? So "Born to Kill" born is just born and kill is "just" kill.

Language imposed dualism, I wonder if runic languages had that problem. Makes me think of the Predator movies and the runic like markings (although a countdown) on their "arm fixed" computer. "Want some Candy?" - Predator 2 

Although in a contest to the death between 2 beings is reality the final arbiter? A lion presumably doesn't conceive of reality, where as a human "can" conceive of reality.

[A4E]

14 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

The more I reject freewill, the more I become a leaf floating in the windows of accidental circumstance.

I accept determinism for the moment, but my life is the complete opposite of 'going along to get along' or leaf floating around.

14 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

ignoring the fact that they are choosing to do so,

As mentioned in op and countless other posts around, determinism does not mean people don't make choices based on their exp and knowledge and circumstances. The only difference in determinism is that those choices were predetermined.

I am assuming free willers do not affiliate spiders with free will, so when a spider makes a web somewhere, did it choose to do so, or was it just pure robotic behaviour that happened by chance to result in that location?

 

[RichardY]

47 minutes ago, A4E said:

I accept determinism for the moment, but my life is the complete opposite of 'going along to get along' or leaf floating around.

As mentioned in op and countless other posts around, determinism does not mean people don't make choices based on their exp and knowledge and circumstances. The only difference in determinism is that those choices were predetermined.

I am assuming free willers do not affiliate spiders with free will, so when a spider makes a web somewhere, did it choose to do so, or was it just pure robotic behaviour that happened by chance to result in that location?

 

Predetermined to what point though?

The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the waterspout.
Down came the rain
and washed the spider out.
Out came the sun
and dried up all the rain
and the itsy bitsy spider climbed up the spout again

Interesting that you should mention spiders and free will, "made" me think of the "widow of the web" scene from a movie called "Krull" (Cult, Fantasy Film).

 

[shirgall]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

@shirgall People still make a God of something though, to truly be an Atheist wouldn't a concept(?) such as war have to be totally incomprehensible, instead would be a bunch(another God maybe/The collective) of people killing one another. I'm sure there are other things people make a God out of, Determinism.

So if your superordinate principle is Freewill, does that in some way imply non-duality? So "Born to Kill" born is just born and kill is "just" kill.

Language imposed dualism, I wonder if runic languages had that problem. Makes me think of the Predator movies and the runic like markings (although a countdown) on their "arm fixed" computer. "Want some Candy?" - Predator 2 

Although in a contest to the death between 2 beings is reality the final arbiter? A lion presumably doesn't conceive of reality, where as a human "can" conceive of reality.

War is horrifying, but not incomprehensible. People make gods as placeholders for systems they do not understand and feel incapable of ever understanding. When they impose those placeholders on people who might be capable of understanding the underlying systems, they are wrong to indoctrinate them away from understanding or at least interest in understanding.

Why would you assume that free will is my superordinate principle? My superordinate principle relates to consent: and the classification is between natural things which ignore my consent (null), and interactions with people that are either consented to (positive) or not consented to (negative).

My point is, and I first learned of the idea from Searle, that we probably wouldn't even consider the mind/body problem a problem if we didn't have different words for mind and body.

[RichardY]

8 hours ago, shirgall said:

War is horrifying, but not incomprehensible. People make gods as placeholders for systems they do not understand and feel incapable of ever understanding. When they impose those placeholders on people who might be capable of understanding the underlying systems, they are wrong to indoctrinate them away from understanding or at least interest in understanding.

Why would you assume that free will is my superordinate principle? My superordinate principle relates to consent: and the classification is between natural things which ignore my consent (null), and interactions with people that are either consented to (positive) or not consented to (negative).

My point is, and I first learned of the idea from Searle, that we probably wouldn't even consider the mind/body problem a problem if we didn't have different words for mind and body.

Heard the term Superordinate Principle in a J.Peterson online lecture somewhere, sounded fancy. Trying to figureout the most logical way to orientate my psychology. I figured if God was some kind of superordinate principle to J peterson, Freewill might be so for you, though I presume now you take Freewill as self evident.

Consent though, I guess that's an interesting one. You say your Superordinate principIe relates to consent, but is it consent? Maybe too personal a question. I "feel" though in the modern world, people are perhaps disconnected from consent. Check boxes on Agreements, automated messaging services, trying to actually to talk to a person when dealing with taxes or businesses, state schools, mass migration (50% of a nearby town is Polish speaking near me), foreign remote control wars and drone strikes etc All heavily influenced by the state.

Perhaps a persons Subordinate principle can be different for all, rather than let it be, trying to figureout how Freewill might tie into everything. Feed on itself and grow or sustain. 

[shirgall]

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

Heard the term Superordinate Principle in a J.Peterson online lecture somewhere, sounded fancy. Trying to figureout the most logical way to orientate my psychology. I figured if God was some kind of superordinate principle to J peterson, Freewill might be so for you, though I presume now you take Freewill as self evident.

Consent though, I guess that's an interesting one. You say your Superordinate principIe relates to consent, but is it consent? Maybe too personal a question. I "feel" though in the modern world, people are perhaps disconnected from consent. Check boxes on Agreements, automated messaging services, trying to actually to talk to a person when dealing with taxes or businesses, state schools, mass migration (50% of a nearby town is Polish speaking near me), foreign remote control wars and drone strikes etc All heavily influenced by the state.

Perhaps a persons Subordinate principle can be different for all, rather than let it be, trying to figureout how Freewill might tie into everything. Feed on itself and grow or sustain. 

People are disconnected from consent like they are disconnected from the operational principles of sausage-making. I spent much of my life reminding them of this while trying to eke by.

[RichardY]

9 hours ago, shirgall said:

People are disconnected from consent like they are disconnected from the operational principles of sausage-making. I spent much of my life reminding them of this while trying to eke by.

"Betrayal of Robert the Bruce" - Braveheart. Thought some of of the symbology was poignant. Not sure really how to put it, but have felt a degree of power from those who, actually have a heart or some belief system, even if they are devout christian.   

"Lands, Titles, Men, Power, Nothing" - Braveheart

Scottish Thistle moto "No one provoke me with impunity".