Vehement language , Vam , I don't think you have the authority to use such words against others. Maybe , you are a great success but what makes you think that all others having a determinist view are spent people ?
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > "... if we can reflect upon ourselves- as > an object- we have created distance from those markers-determiners- > and can choose in an independent manner- thoughts, actions." > > This is the kind of experiential understanding and empowerment I was > speaking of ! > > Most people do not discover this. And if they do, they do not practice > it enough to lead to empowerment. It is because of this that they > continue to look upon themselves as programmed robots and automatons, > and continue to doubt the clear measure of power they have to choose > their beliefs, thoughts, words and action. Then they project it over > entire humanity, as us all being some creation of some obscure god > playing fiddle. Fking shit ! Such regressives should be barred from > public activity, and sent to a correction facility instead. > > On Aug 10, 5:53 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, Hocking made some sense to me about Free Will- though I could >> read it again. It goes like this- if we can reflect upon ourselves- as >> an object- we have created distance from those markers-determiners- >> and can choose in an independent manner- thoughts, actions. Reflection >> is an endless process rather than fixed. But- "freedom is a matter of >> degree". >> >> On Aug 10, 5:26 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes it does not mean that that they do not exist, but it does mean >> > that this stance is as aI say a best guess, or perhaps we shall call >> > it an inferance. >> >> > Yes again I belive that these markers may well be part of the >> > desicion, yet you can still choose to act contrary to any of these >> > markers. >> >> > If you are non violent you act in a violent mannor, if you are violent >> > you can choose to not use violence. And what is a marker, is it a >> > force or as the word suggests a marker? >> >> > On Aug 9, 10:23 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > We can point to many causes- our genes, mental and physical health of >> > > mother before, during and after pregnancy, early bonding and childhood >> > > development, placement in family, economic and social influences, etc. >> > > Even the country of birth and historical period matter. Reason doesn't >> > > kick in until around age seven and many early influences are >> > > forgotten, misinterpreted or markers for life. The fact that one >> > > cannot readily trace back to initial influences and causes does not >> > > mean that they don't exist. At the moment of choice, I believe these >> > > markers are part of the decision- even if the decision is to reject >> > > the influences and do the exact opposite of the past- like a child who >> > > swears he will be different than the parent but winds up being similar >> > > or tries to out-do the parent and fails. >> >> > > On Aug 9, 8:38 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Heh heh Rigsy. >> >> > > > Nope I think the deterministic stance is kinda like a best guess. >> > > > I mean for us to be sure that our lives are determined we need to >> > > > coreleate all causes. >> >> > > > Besides, I do not belive that cause and effect bars our freedom of >> > > > choice. >> >> > > > On Aug 9, 12:41 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > One's will is shaped by numerous influences and experiences therefore >> > > > > it is determined. Notes from the Underground-D does not convince me >> > > > > otherwise. I'll see if Hocking can offer something. >> >> > > > > You really have to be a detective of self and follow choice back to >> > > > > its root cause. Maybe you are too young or busy! :-) >> >> > > > > On Aug 8, 6:12 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Ahh then I see. I do not belive that choice and free will are >> > > > > > seperate things at all. >> >> > > > > > Let us look at the words. >> >> > > > > > Free will. >> >> > > > > > The ability to chose in acordance with your will. >> >> > > > > > On Aug 8, 11:47 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > Haven't you noticed trying to get from A to B and winding up at >> > > > > > > C? I >> > > > > > > have. So far I have been going over some stuff by Sophocles. >> > > > > > > Epictetus, Zola, Marx&Engels, Huxley and Skinner (Determinists) >> > > > > > > but >> > > > > > > have to read Dostoyevsky and Hocking (Free Will). I think there >> > > > > > > is a >> > > > > > > difference between choice and free will. I make choices all the >> > > > > > > time >> > > > > > > but am not sure my will is really free. >> >> > > > > > > On Aug 8, 5:07 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > Ohh I disagree with this entirley Rigsy. >> >> > > > > > > > At the time the Minds says take action B, then we have made a >> > > > > > > > choice. >> > > > > > > > I question the ability of things to force a desicion from us >> > > > > > > > and I'l >> > > > > > > > ask once again is it possible for somebody to force anybody >> > > > > > > > into >> > > > > > > > makeing a choice that they do not want to? >> >> > > > > > > > On Aug 6, 2:22 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > I disagree that we possess or always have free will at our >> > > > > > > > > disposal- >> > > > > > > > > even the civil laws make distinctions. We are forced onto >> > > > > > > > > many paths >> > > > > > > > > and decisions- softly or harshly. >> >> > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 2:04 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > You lays have free will no matter how you seeing it >> > > > > > > > > > created. It is the consequences of those choices that can >> > > > > > > > > > be a bitch, >> > > > > > > > > > Allan >> >> > > > > > > > > > On 4 aug. 2011, at 17:48, paradox <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of approaches to this question, Jo; >> > > > > > > > > > > but essentially >> > > > > > > > > > > and in summary (and i do a great injustice to a very >> > > > > > > > > > > powerful >> > > > > > > > > > > philosophical school), the deterministic tradition >> > > > > > > > > > > suggests that since >> > > > > > > > > > > we''re fundamentally bounded chemical systems immersed >> > > > > > > > > > > in a "sea" of >> > > > > > > > > > > ever more elaborate chemical processes, regulated by >> > > > > > > > > > > immutable >> > > > > > > > > > > (replicable and predictive) physical laws, and nothing >> > > > > > > > > > > else (which >> > > > > > > > > > > takes you back to the mind/brain question), our actions >> > > > > > > > > > > are no more >> > > > > > > > > > > than expressions of these chemical processes, >> > > > > > > > > > > constrained at an >> > > > > > > > > > > aggregate level by universal physical laws. When we >> > > > > > > > > > > think we make >> > > > > > > > > > > decisions based on choice, it is the mind "stroking" >> > > > > > > > > > > itself since, in >> > > > > > > > > > > terms of "proximate" action, we know that our decisions >> > > > > > > > > > > are preceeded >> > > > > > > > > > > in time by a neuro-electrcal "footprint" (interesting >> > > > > > > > > > > work by Benjamin >> > > > > > > > > > > Libet, presented in his book "Mind Time"); and in terms >> > > > > > > > > > > of more >> > > > > > > > > > > deliberative action, we are pretty certain to make the >> > > > > > > > > > > same decisions >> > > > > > > > > > > over and over again given the same set of variables, >> > > > > > > > > > > since our >> > > > > > > > > > > cognition is hard wired, and its operations are governed >> > > > > > > > > > > by the self >> > > > > > > > > > > same chemical processes and physical laws. Hence the >> > > > > > > > > > > question: do we >> > > > > > > > > > > have free will? and if we do, how much free will do we >> > > > > > > > > > > have? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> I don't understand how some can say we don't have free >> > > > > > > > > > >> will. You can >> > > > > > > > > > >> choose to do anything you want at any given time. How >> > > > > > > > > > >> is that not free >> > > > > > > > > > >> will? >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> "We have access to a technology that would have looked >> > > > > > > > > > >>> like sorcery in >> > > > > > > > > > >>> Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's >> > > > > > > > > > >>> head and read >> > > > > > > > > > >>> their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us >> > > > > > > > > > >>> any nearer to >> > > > > > > > > > >>> knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you >> > > > > > > > > > >>> measure brainwaves, >> > > > > > > > > > >>> you can never know exactly what experience they >> > > > > > > > > > >>> represent," says >> > > > > > > > > > >>> psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, >> > > > > > > > > > >>> UK. If >> > > > > > > > > > >>> anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's >> > > > > > > > > > >>> maxim. You, too, >> > > > > > > > > > >>> might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says >> > > > > > > > > > >>> Stanford >> > > > > > > > > > >>> University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even >> > > > > > > > > > >>> if you don't >> > > > > > > > > > >>> realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based >> > > > > > > > > > >>> on the belief, >> > > > > > > > > > >>> particularly common among neuroscientists who study >> > > > > > > > > > >>> brain scans, that >> > > > > > > > > > >>> we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the >> > > > > > > > > > >>> machine; our >> > > > > > > > > > >>> actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely >> > > > > > > > > > >>> beyond our >> > > > > > > > > > >>> control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an >> > > > > > > > > > >>> illusion. >> > > > > > > > > > >>> So, it may well be that you live in a computer >> > > > > > > > > > >>> simulation in which you >> > > > > > > > > > >>> are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a >> > > > > > > > > > >>> zombie and so >> > > > > > > > > > >>> could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent >> > > > > > > > > > >>> New Scientist) >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> We range over debates in free will and what it is to >> > > > > > > > > > >>> be human. So far >> > > > > > > > > > >>> we haven't established free will or even that we are >> > > > > > > > > > >>> not merely >> > > > > > > > > > >>> avatars in 'something else's game'. >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> I wonder whether there are advantages in considering >> > > > > > > > > > >>> ourselves as >> > > > > > > > > > >>> creatures limited by programming and also capable of >> > > > > > > > > > >>> it?- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text -
