Hah hah RP, you'll just have to except my word that I would never intentialy try to misunderstand anybody. However can i not then level the same accusation at yourself?
As I have made it plain that in my own experiances I have witnessed a man with such chemical imbalances as you describe still be master of his own will. On Mar 4, 3:34 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
