Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 102

Thread: Freedom Doesn't Exist.

  1. #1
    Pessimistic Philo Writer Mr Hyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kansas, United States
    Posts
    155
    Blog Entries
    21

    Freedom Doesn't Exist.

    I believe that freedom doesn't exist. I believe it is a elaborate illusion that a great deal of people with authority use to control others by preying on people's fears and emotions.

    I believe nothing is free but instead is determined.

    Everything in the world is limited, restrained, confined and dependent by somthing else.

    I really don't understand how people say freedom exists or that free will is a prevailing factor in existence.

    My defence goes as the following:

    P1. The experience of free will is no more than an appearance.
    P2. If the experience of free will is no more than an appearance, then people don't really have free will.
    C1. So, people don't really have free will.


    P1. If a choice is free, then it is not caused.
    P2. If a choice is not caused, then it is a random occurrence.
    P3. But, if a choice is free, then it is not a random occurrence.
    C1. So, if a choice is free, then it is both a random occurrence and not a random occurrence, which is impossible.
    C2. So, no choice can be free.

    P1. Whatever future events will happen, it is now true that these future events will happen as they do. (E.g., if I will in fact sing tomorrow, then it is true, and it is true now, that I will sing tomorrow.)
    P2. If it is now true that these future events will happen as they do, then it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen. (E.g., if it is now true that I will sing tomorrow, then it is now not possible for me to bring it about that I will not sing tomorrow.)
    P3. If it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen, then people are not free with respect to any future events.
    C1. So, people are not free with respect to any future events.

    P1. Computers can perform every task that people can perform.
    P2. Computers do not have free will.
    C1. So, no task that people can perform requires that people have free will.
    P3. If no human activity requires free will, then we have no reason to believe that people have free will.
    P4. If we have no reason to believe that people have free will, then we should not believe that people have free will.
    C2. So, we should not believe that people have free will.

    P1. Things made only of matter can only have actions that are caused.
    P2. Things that can only have actions that are caused do not have free will.
    C1. So, things made only of matter do not have free will.
    C2. So, if people are made only of matter, then people do not have free will.

    P1. The entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice.
    P2. If the entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice, then a human being cannot have freedom of choice.
    C1. So, a human being cannot have freedom of choice.
    Life is a sadistic joke with no pun line.

  2. #2
    it is what it is. . . billyjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    twin cities
    Posts
    474
    appearances are reality. free will exist

  3. #3
    Registered User mangueken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Grew up in Kentucky, Lived in Brazil for a decade and have now returned to Kentucky
    Posts
    88
    Is this from an Introduction to Logic class?

  4. #4
    Registered User armenian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    138
    P1. The experience of free will is no more than an appearance.
    P2. If the experience of free will is no more than an appearance, then people don't really have free will.
    C1. So, people don't really have free will.


    -you make to many connections without explaining what the hell your talking about (experiece of free will is no more than an appearance? explain)

    P1. If a choice is free, then it is not caused.
    P2. If a choice is not caused, then it is a random occurrence.
    P3. But, if a choice is free, then it is not a random occurrence.
    C1. So, if a choice is free, then it is both a random occurrence and not a random occurrence, which is impossible.
    C2. So, no choice can be free.


    -WHAT

    P1. Whatever future events will happen, it is now true that these future events will happen as they do. (E.g., if I will in fact sing tomorrow, then it is true, and it is true now, that I will sing tomorrow.)
    P2. If it is now true that these future events will happen as they do, then it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen. (E.g., if it is now true that I will sing tomorrow, then it is now not possible for me to bring it about that I will not sing tomorrow.)
    P3. If it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen, then people are not free with respect to any future events.
    C1. So, people are not free with respect to any future events.


    - and what about changing our minds?

    P1. Computers can perform every task that people can perform.
    P2. Computers do not have free will.
    C1. So, no task that people can perform requires that people have free will.
    P3. If no human activity requires free will, then we have no reason to believe that people have free will.
    P4. If we have no reason to believe that people have free will, then we should not believe that people have free will.
    C2. So, we should not believe that people have free will.


    -computers can perform every task that people can perform? uh no, this isnt even true in star wars


    P1. Things made only of matter can only have actions that are caused.
    P2. Things that can only have actions that are caused do not have free will.
    C1. So, things made only of matter do not have free will.
    C2. So, if people are made only of matter, then people do not have free will.


    -...

    P1. The entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice.
    P2. If the entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice, then a human being cannot have freedom of choice.
    C1. So, a human being cannot have freedom of choice.


    -humans are made of 75% water, thus humans have the ability to understand 75% of what a fish says

  5. #5
    Registered User cfgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8
    we are condemned to be free

  6. #6
    Champion Pierogi Eater Mr. Vandemar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Where the Wild Things Are
    Posts
    91
    Complete and utter freedom is certainly an illusion. It's enigmatic, it's a vision that is clearly unattainable. But does that mean we shouldn't strive for it?

    Let me point out that there is a difference between a "liberty" and true "freedom". I have the liberty to go outside, but I am not free.

  7. #7
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde View Post
    I really don't understand how people say freedom exists or that free will is a prevailing factor in existence.
    I'm fully with you on determinism, but the trouble is that the illusion of free will persists due to the almost-infinite choices available to us.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  8. #8
    Ataraxia bazarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In spleen
    Posts
    2,219
    Free will exists, freedom exists, but it ends when it starts to mess with someones other freedom so sometimes we get the feeling that we are not free, but we are. There has to be some restrains, otherwise freedom would lead to anarchy.

    Or like Jean Jacques Rousseau said: Freedom is not to do what you want, it's not to do what you don't want to do.
    Last edited by bazarov; 10-06-2008 at 10:25 AM.
    At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
    During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
    The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.

    To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
    If you need me urgent, send me a PM

  9. #9
    Something's Gone hoope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dad's Heart
    Posts
    1,026
    greatly disagree with ur point of view Hyde!
    and what ur based on is not even a strong evidence 4 u to say that FREEDOM DOESN'T EXIST

    I think that freedom is there and u urself is experiencing it ... U r home , breathing , living, working , having the ryt to vote , having th ryt to go wherever u want without any restrictions.... but we have to be careful to not harm others or cross their line because they too need freedom .. So we can say there is limitations but that is 4 the betterment of other & us. And to live a life full of respect & peace.

    " P1. Computers can perform every task that people can perform.
    P2. Computers do not have free will.
    C1. So, no task that people can perform requires that people have free will.
    P3. If no human activity requires free will, then we have no reason to believe that people have free will. "


    that is silly .. computers have no free will coz they r machines desinged by humans to help us do what we have programmed it to.
    But humans have a free will in performing their own tasks.. for example u will go to work even though u might not like it .. but coz u need to earn money & maybe coz they pay u good. U have a choice to not do anything but we humans have minds .. we think , calculate it and realize whats best 4 us .. though it might not be what we want.
    life goes on .. lol


    " P1. The entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice.
    P2. If the entire human body (including the brain) is made up of cells each of which has no freedom of choice, then a human being cannot have freedom of choice.
    C1. So, a human being cannot have freedom of choice. "

    now that is rediculous ! ( nuthin personal )
    what the hell u mean by cells have no choice of freedom.. ! LOL
    well am a nursing student.. and i know well the structure of cells & brain.. and how delicate unlikely structure they have been made in .Which makes us the humans special smart creatures....
    so , the think is that God created us that way for our own betterment.. Skin & hair cells have the ability to repair itself & increase in number because they r always prone to damage or change .. whereas braine cells dnt have the ability to reproduce simple because they have no DNA.. no nucleus..
    SCIENCE.. all been made in structure & function that help human being.. in a system that can't be changed..

    So the question is what freedom where u talkin about in here... ?



    HYDE ! i think that freedom exist , though many try to misuse it & many try to restrict it ... But we r happy that we r not in the slavery days...

    Philosophy is crazy talking about things we r aware of and the same time not aware of.. its like Harry Truman once said " IF YOU can't convince them Confuse them ' ...
    Last edited by hoope; 10-08-2008 at 06:07 PM.
    "He is asleep. Though his mettle was sorely tried,
    He lived, and when he lost his angel, died.
    It happened calmly, on its own,
    The way the night comes when day is done."



  10. #10
    Super papayahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    17,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde View Post
    I believe that freedom doesn't exist. I believe it is a elaborate illusion that a great deal of people with authority use to control others by preying on people's fears and emotions.
    Could you explain this part? How do those in authority use freedom to control others?
    Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda


  11. #11
    Lady of Smilies Nightshade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Now that would be telling it, wouldnt it?
    Posts
    13,715
    Blog Entries
    144
    P1. Whatever future events will happen, it is now true that these future events will happen as they do. (E.g., if I will in fact sing tomorrow, then it is true, and it is true now, that I will sing tomorrow.)
    P2. If it is now true that these future events will happen as they do, then it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen. (E.g., if it is now true that I will sing tomorrow, then it is now not possible for me to bring it about that I will not sing tomorrow.)
    P3. If it is now not possible for anyone to bring it about that any of these future events will not happen, then people are not free with respect to any future events.
    C1. So, people are not free with respect to any future events.
    Ok correct me if Im wrong here but your talking about predetremination and what in a religious context would be called fate, are you not? And the problem with this is you are assuming the exsistance of a known solid unchangeable truth about the unknown ( that is the future) which in itself is as far as Im concerended illogical but here's the thing taking your example say you were going to sing ( that is you are intending to sing tomorrow but I come along and I dont know.. brek your jaw, then you wont
    be able to sing, but the fact is it was never true that you were going to sing in the first place because the future is a composite of multiple factors one of which was me coming to stop you sing. Do you follow?

    Quote Originally Posted by armenian View Post

    P1. Computers can perform every task that people can perform.
    P2. Computers do not have free will.
    C1. So, no task that people can perform requires that people have free will.
    P3. If no human activity requires free will, then we have no reason to believe that people have free will.
    P4. If we have no reason to believe that people have free will, then we should not believe that people have free will.
    C2. So, we should not believe that people have free will.


    -computers can perform every task that people can perform? uh no
    The words activity and tasks are not precisely interchangeable, emotions for example are an activity that to date computers are incapable of preforming, as for that matter is comprehension of real world language.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    I'm fully with you on determinism, but the trouble is that the illusion of free will persists due to the almost-infinite choices available to us.
    Do you mind giving a short run down on what determinism is ?

    Quote Originally Posted by bazarov View Post
    Or like Jean Jacques Rousseau said: Freedom is not to do what you want, it's not to do what you don't want to do.
    Who was it that said somthing along the lines are the freest are those who are allowed to choose their own prisons?


    So the question is what freedom where u talkin about in here... ?



    HYDE ! i think that freedom exist , though many try to misuse it & many try to restrict it ... But we r happy that we r not in the slavery days...

    Philosophy is crazy talking about things we r aware of and the same time not aware of.. its like Harry Truman once said " IF YOU can't convince them Confuse them ' ...
    Quote Originally Posted by papayahed View Post
    Could you explain this part? How do those in authority use freedom to control others?
    You know what? I think we need a working definition of freedom here.
    My mission in life is to make YOU smile
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:

    Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em

    |Litnet Challange status = 5/260
    |currently reading

  12. #12
    Jai Keshava NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,287
    Blog Entries
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightshade
    Ok correct me if Im wrong here but your talking about predetremination and what in a religious context would be called fate, are you not? And the problem with this is you are assuming the exsistance of a known solid unchangeable truth about the unknown ( that is the future) which in itself is as far as Im concerended illogical but here's the thing taking your example say you were going to sing ( that is you are intending to sing tomorrow but I come along and I dont know.. brek your jaw, then you wont
    be able to sing, but the fact is it was never true that you were going to sing in the first place because the future is a composite of multiple factors one of which was me coming to stop you sing. Do you follow?
    Nightshade Hyde is correct in this I believe. It can be put quite simply like this: whatever will be, will be. It's not that I intend to sing and thus it can't be stopped, it's more, if I do sing tomorrow, if it happens, then it happens.

    There was a sage or mystic called Ramana Maharshi who used to take vows of silence for some times. One thing he said to explain this to someone who wished he would speak was that if he spoke, it could not change his fate, so he would be silent and accept what fate bestowed.

    I think the question is whether the future is fixed or not. Because of course by all appearances we can control our actions freely. But we can't be free completely-- we can't be free of fate: what will be will be. Now presumably this shouldn't really change our view of things... but then the question can be raised, is the future fixed? is the past fixed?

  13. #13
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,021
    Blog Entries
    72
    The logical premises in this debate are a bit flawed in that they do not include definitions, for instance, "freedom." That is among the "abstractions" that
    writers are urged to avoid, because they are amorphous ideas floating around and thus the word can have multiple meanings. "Freedom" has different even contrasting connotations among various political "isms", religions and
    philosophies.

    Is "freedom" what a person "has" or what he is? Is the term restricted to human beings? Are animals "free" or
    slaves to instinct? A human being can be "born free" in one sense, but in another he is totally dependent on maternal care. A human being can start out with freedom, and have it taken away by the culture, government, religion, etc. in which he is raised.
    Are children "free" in that they don't have to earn their own
    keep, but are constrained into roles of inferiority (compulsory school attendence, obedience to parents and/or caregivers, etc.)?

    What does Freud say about freedom, as regards the id, the
    ego, the superego? When a person makes a moral choice --stemming from his own personal conscience rather than
    by exterior cultural pressure -- he is making a conscious choice. He is exercizing freedom in his choice not to be free!

    These are just a few of the pitfalls an argument can fall into when it deals with unspecific generalizations and
    abstractions. Use concrete, specific terms in discussions.


    Oh, and I forgot to add: scientific research in the past century or so, especially observations into subatomic particles, such as quarks, has found that matter can and often acts unpredictably. The "Chaos" theory perhaps takes any notion of
    fate or determinism out of the picture.
    Last edited by AuntShecky; 10-10-2008 at 12:42 PM.

  14. #14
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    Use concrete, specific terms in discussions.
    Great advice!

    Except...


    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    Oh, and I forgot to add: scientific research in the past century or so, especially observations into subatomic particles, such as quarks, has found that matter can and often acts unpredictably. The "Chaos" theory perhaps takes any notion of
    fate or determinism out of the picture.
    Chaos Theory, right or wrong, is 100% compatible with determinism.

    Your first point is wrong as well. Subatomic particles may behave counter-intuitively and possibly contrary to what we predicted might be the case, but we haven't yet found any which behave unpredictably. There are some we don't understand well enough to be able to even have theories for yet, let alone predict their behaviour, but it's a little early to cross out determinism on that basis.

    The best defence against literal determinism is Uranium 238, if that's what you were after.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  15. #15
    Pessimistic Philo Writer Mr Hyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kansas, United States
    Posts
    155
    Blog Entries
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by billyjack View Post
    appearances are reality. free will exist
    Not to sound cliche but appearances can be deceiving and can lead just about anybody through delusional visions of grandeur.

    Is this from an Introduction to Logic class?
    No. Do you wish it to be one?

    -you make to many connections without explaining what the hell your talking about (experiece of free will is no more than an appearance? explain)


    -WHAT
    Choice is dominated by necessity where what is necessary in existential survival is dictated by interdependencies that are predetermined by existence itself.



    - and what about changing our minds?
    What about it? Even certain changes that happen to our individual character which we interpret through appearances as free will is instead actually determined by the make up of our expiriences that lead us towards change.

    Quote Originally Posted by cfgs View Post
    we are condemned to be free
    I would argue that we are condemned through our biological programming.

    Complete and utter freedom is certainly an illusion. It's enigmatic, it's a vision that is clearly unattainable. But does that mean we shouldn't strive for it?
    Why strive for somthing that is knowingly unattainable?

    That makes no sense to me.

    Let me point out that there is a difference between a "liberty" and true "freedom". I have the liberty to go outside, but I am not free.
    Hence why I write this thread of mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    I'm fully with you on determinism, but the trouble is that the illusion of free will persists due to the almost-infinite choices available to us.
    We must remember however that choice is dominated and is a slave to necessity. Choices are nothing without necessity and it is the determined nature of necessities ingrained within us all biologically that alludes to a predetermined universe.

    Free will exists, freedom exists, but it ends when it starts to mess with someones other freedom so sometimes we get the feeling that we are not free, but we are. There has to be some restrains, otherwise freedom would lead to anarchy.

    Or like Jean Jacques Rousseau said: Freedom is not to do what you want, it's not to do what you don't want to do.
    How can somthing contingent be free?

    How can somthing which is imposed by limitations, confinements, restrictions,and dependencies ever be free?

    How can somthing that is in constant need ever be considered truely independent?

    Quote Originally Posted by papayahed View Post
    Could you explain this part? How do those in authority use freedom to control others?
    Freedom is a reference to a absent absolute. In order to keep the masses laboring and toiling away through work we invent freedom as this pleasureable paradoxical pristine appearance owed only to the most compromising or sacrificial of the human race but the reality of it all is that such a appearance is non-existent where it's only applicable function is of fear and control.

    You must do this and that or else you'll gain or not have any freedom.

    What is really being said is that you must do this and that or else those in power will not relinquish any control of your own life for yourself.
    Life is a sadistic joke with no pun line.

Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. For what purpose does God exist, if he exists?
    By Splendour in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 12:03 PM
  2. A Novel that Calls for Attention
    By ~Robert~ in forum General Writing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 06:45 PM
  3. Mirror for freedom
    By Unregistered in forum Huckleberry Finn
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •