I can open my fingers or close them , i.e. free will is obvious. Most people can see only the obvious , it takes a trained understanding to know the truth.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry RP Vam has both the wisdom and authority to make such a statement. > Allan > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:20 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 - > > > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, > >
