"... it takes a trained understanding to know the truth." RP, tell us more specifically about
(1) training you speak of, (2) the understanding that would be accrue with the training, and (3) the truth we will know upon the understanding. Will you ? On Aug 11, 2:45 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
