Lee , you are not trying to understand me. Whether a person is normal or abnormal , that's not the question. I am only trying to point out that a person behaves irrationally when there is a chemical imbalance and rationally when treated with medicines which goes to show that the' will' is subject to mental condition and hence not free.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Again my freind teh opperative word is abnormal. > > Acepting that a brain is functioning normaly, then freedom of choice > is certianly present. > > You know even when the brain is not functioning normaly, freedom of > choice is still present. > > A freind of mine is schizophrenic, I have seen hinm on the very worst > of his days and the very best, during each time, 'He' has still been > present. He know has a grip on his condition so that when an episode > hits he realieses just what is occouring and takes steps to rectify > it. > > So you see even when he is in the grip of these chemical inbalances, > he enjoyes enough freedom of will to decide to take his pills, or go > to bed, or call me up, or go sit with his mum, or whatever he decides > there and then is the best course of action at that moment in time. > Yep this includes some aspects of his self destructivity and he may > instead smoke a jay or drink some beer. > > On Mar 4, 12:21 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> If abnormal behaviour is due to chemical imbalance or normal behavior >> due to chemical balance , then keeping all things aside where is your >> free will ? If will can act awry due to chemical imbalance how can you >> call it free ? >> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:26 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The opperative word here being madman. >> >> > The brain is the seat of the person, the personality. If the brain is >> > not working correclty, like any other part of the body our medicines >> > can indeed help fix this. >> >> > Or there is cognative therapy, where-in the madman is given tools to >> > help himself get himself better. >> >> > If free will does not exist why does CT work? >> >> > On Mar 4, 2:44 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A madman is dancing around the streets , his actions and thoughts are >> >> bizarre but whatever he is doing it is with free will. He is given >> >> medicines over a period of time and is not interfered with in any >> >> other manner. Over a period of time his actions and thoughts become >> >> normal , where is your free will , Lee? Actions and thoughts are made >> >> rational with medicines , in other words thoughts and actions can be >> >> controlled with physical or chemical administrations. In other words >> >> the will is not free but controlled from within and outside the >> >> organism , and from within in the sense that your very nature comes >> >> into play. >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:43 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Again my friend I agree, man sure does interpret scripturein a biased >> >> > manner. >> >> >> > Again I don't argue against determinisim, but I question the level of >> >> > effect it has on rational, thinking beings, and I alo simply do not >> >> > belive choice within a limitted scope is not free. >> >> >> > As I say I may wish to fly unadied by machines, but cannot due to the >> >> > confineds of my body, however I can still fly if that is my wish. My >> >> > choice may be restricted, but it is still ther for me to make. >> >> >> > Choice. >> >> >> > We make many choices everyday. Either do A or do not do A. The fact >> >> > that my choice is limited to one of these does not negate the fact >> >> > that I can still make that choice. >> >> >> > Undoubedlty you may question, what in my past has determined what my >> >> > choice may be, unknownst to me, in my subcociouse. I say such a >> >> > belife is grounded in the very act of beliefe itself. >> >> >> > Unless one can point to all that you say may determine choice then to >> >> > take the stance of determinism based upon this is at best an educated >> >> > guess, and at worst unsubstanciated belife. >> >> >> > On Mar 3, 4:52 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Man interprets the Scriptures in a biased manner , but if you look >> >> >> closely and take into account diverse verses you will find that the >> >> >> meaning is quite clear. Science is so advanced now that the laws of >> >> >> biology , genetics , psychology etc. give credence to the faith in >> >> >> determinism. You say there are conditions, but I see conditions within >> >> >> conditions. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:04 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > Quite poetic really RP. >> >> >> >> > I can't help but wonder how many ways this passage could be >> >> >> > interpreted though. That addition of the word heart makes me think >> >> >> > automaticly that the power of love can move anything. >> >> >> >> > Does this really suggest then God literaly controls us, or indeed our >> >> >> > movments, or could it perhaps suggest that Gods love moves the hearts >> >> >> > of man? >> >> >> >> > On Mar 3, 3:35 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I am quoting a verse from the last chapter of the Bhagvadagita :- >> >> >> >> The Lord abides in the hearts of all beings , Oh Arjuna , causing >> >> >> >> them >> >> >> >> to move around by His power as if they were mounted on a machine. >> >> >> >> >> You will find similar verses in other Scriptures as well if you take >> >> >> >> the trouble to look. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I think you are correct in some aspects RP. I would call what you >> >> >> >> > call bondage by a differant name. >> >> >> >> >> > I would name it condition. If your argument is that ther is no >> >> >> >> > unfettered freedom, that all is dependant on other things then >> >> >> >> > you'll >> >> >> >> > get no argument from me. >> >> >> >> >> > Everything is conditional. I might like to fly unaided by >> >> >> >> > mechanics, >> >> >> >> > but I simply cannot. This is a condition of my body, and my >> >> >> >> > species. >> >> >> >> >> > Reason, human reason like much else about us is not static, that >> >> >> >> > is to >> >> >> >> > say what resonable conclusions I may have made ten years ago, can >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> > subject to change. >> >> >> >> >> > Of course there are also conditions that apply to our reasoning, >> >> >> >> > I may >> >> >> >> > never have a larger than avarage IQ, for example. >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 2:04 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Lee why do you choose to believe in free will whereas I in >> >> >> >> >> bondage? It >> >> >> >> >> is because our beliefs and reasoning is different. Free will >> >> >> >> >> appears >> >> >> >> >> logical to you whereas to me it does not. Our reasoning is at >> >> >> >> >> loggerheads because our reasoning faculties and experience is >> >> >> >> >> different. We are bound by our reason , and this itself is >> >> >> >> >> bondage. >> >> >> >> >> Where is your free choice then? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:56 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > Sorry RP I can't get with that at all, as you well know by now. >> >> >> >> >> >> > A persons nature is not static but moves as the person does. >> >> >> >> >> > It is >> >> >> >> >> > possible to shake of the products of an 'early envirmonent', >> >> >> >> >> > hence we >> >> >> >> >> > have so many atheists from religious households. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do we all act within the scope of Gods will? >> >> >> >> >> >> > If this is true then no religous text would contain no words of >> >> >> >> >> > punishment for denying Gods will. They do though, it is clear >> >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> >> > that we have a choice to obey or not the will of God. There >> >> >> >> >> > is a >> >> >> >> >> > prayer prevalent in more than one of the worlds religions that >> >> >> >> >> > runs >> >> >> >> >> > basicly 'not my will ohh lord but yours' >> >> >> >> >> >> > What is the meaning of this? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Does it admit that there is one will and that is Gods, or does >> >> >> >> >> > it beg >> >> >> >> >> > God grant me the strenght to obey not my will but yours? >> >> >> >> >> >> > I would obviously plump for the latter. >> >> >> >> >> >> > What is religious dogma if not a list of things designed to >> >> >> >> >> > get one to >> >> >> >> >> > God? Why the need for it, if all was Gods will anyway? >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 1, 1:14 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> When a person thinks or acts he does so as if he were the >> >> >> >> >> >> master of >> >> >> >> >> >> his will but in fact unknown to him various forces within >> >> >> >> >> >> himself are >> >> >> >> >> >> taking him along as a current takes along a boat in turbulent >> >> >> >> >> >> waters. >> >> >> >> >> >> Most of the times a man's motives are hidden to him , he acts >> >> >> >> >> >> ostensibly for some reasons whereas the real motives lie in >> >> >> >> >> >> his >> >> >> >> >> >> unconscious. This has been dealt in various books of >> >> >> >> >> >> psychology. If >> >> >> >> >> >> you act according to your nature that nature was given to you >> >> >> >> >> >> by the >> >> >> >> >> >> Almighty in the form of your genes and early environment , >> >> >> >> >> >> and so >> >> >> >> >> >> whatever you do it is not your but God's doing. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:39 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Is that true though? Or is it better expresed thusly: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > My nature has been created by both internal and external >> >> >> >> >> >> > influences >> >> >> >> >> >> > yet is still my nature, and thus is me? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What is the differance between a persons nature and a >> >> >> >> >> >> > person? Is not >> >> >> >> >> >> > the nature of the man, the man himself? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 28, 5:31 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My nature consists of the forces within me which bind my >> >> >> >> >> >> >> freedom of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> will. In that context it can be said that your nature is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> separate from >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > And you and your nature is seperate? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 27, 3:20 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Whether you adapt or you revolt , in either case it is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not you but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> your nature which makes the choice. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM, rigsy03 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Adaption may be phoney/false in order to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > survive/prosper/get along. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Afterall, a child is controlled in beliefs and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behaviors by his >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > parents. The child cannot even change its name unless >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it goes to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > court- even marriage only changes the last name. (I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > was named to match >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > family monograms on linens, silver and as a bone >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > tossed to my father's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ego and my mother's determination to establish a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stake in a failing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > marriage.) The brain is not mature until the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > mid-twenties. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > We should discuss motive and its role in making >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > choices. Often motive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is not apparent until you are beyond the choice or >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > older and in the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ruminating stage. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Women developed manipulation to an art form. Power is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > another >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > important element in choice. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It is human to try various adaptions on for size. I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > thought of a line >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > the other day: I tried on sin but found it unbecoming. >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
