Freedom Doesn't Exist.

[Mr Hyde]

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.

[billyjack]

appearances are reality. free will exist

[mangueken]

Is this from an Introduction to Logic class?

[armenian]

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 :lol:


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

[cfgs]

we are condemned to be free

[Mr. Vandemar]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

[bazarov]

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.

[hoope]

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 :lol:.. 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 :sick:! ( 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 ' ...

[papayahed]

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?

[Nightshade]

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?




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.


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 ?



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 ' ...


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.
:D

[NikolaiI]

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?

[AuntShecky]

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.

[The Atheist]

Use concrete, specific terms in discussions.

Great advice!

Except...



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.

[Mr Hyde]

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.


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. :)


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?


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.

[Ohmyscience]

How would you go about proving determinism? You would have to have multiple equal starting universes and observe the outcome. If they all have the same preset collision course they would have to end up exactly the same. That would be difficult to test. It also impossible to prove free will since changing your mind or changing a planned outcome could just as well be determined. So wouldn't it be best to take the position that has a positive edge i.e. free will.

[eric.bell]

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?

I think, Mr. Hyde, that there is a misconception within the philosophical realm that a word has but one meaning. I do not mean all philosophers fall ill to this but many, oh so many, do.

There is freedom in its concrete sense, which is unattainable—for all things (presumably) are contingent to cause & effect, therefore cannot truly be free: for there are only so many effects that go with any particular cause, but there are multiple effects; and therefore, though there is a limited freedom in which effect will occur, there is a freedom—and then there is the applicable sense of the word (which falls more into the plain of thought of liberty): I have the choice (today) to A, B, or C; I will do B. The only real freedom one has is an inner freedom—a freedom to not follow the passions of life, to resist the causes of negative (or even positive) effects (i.e. I know that shooting myself in the foot will (in all likelihood) cause a severe pain to register from the nerves in my foot, therefore I will not shoot myself in the foot). It is true we have no (or at least little) power over effects, but one can simply not initiate the cause that will bring about the effect. This is our freedom.

Political Freedom, on the other hand, has its limits because we bring ourselves into a social contract that says to heighten the overall freedom of all we must subject ourselves to confining our freedom (or choices) to choices that do not hurt other members of the contract’s freedom. In other words, we forfeit the freedom to shoot someone, in order to take on the right not to be shot by someone—and, so long as no one deviates from the contract (which we all know happens), no one within the social contract will be harmed.

[Katy North]

Of misuse of syllogisms!

Personally, I like syllogisms because they are a very elegant argument and easy to use... however, these suckers are also quite easy to use to argue false points...

Here is a syllogism that is used correctly. I will use it to demonstrate the flaws in the arguments:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.


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.

What proof do you have that free will is no more than an appearance? In my example syllogism, we have proof that men are mortal, and that Socrates is a man, but in your syllogism, we have no proof that free will is no more than an appearance. Nice attempt but... NEXT:


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.

In all 36 definitions of the word "free" on the online dictionary, I saw no definition that stated that something "free" is not caused. That may possible be a scientific or mathematical definition somewhere, but scientific or mathematical definitions usually don't work in philosophy. Thus, the rest of your argument does not follow, and is in fact, somewhat ridiculous. Here is my definition of free will:

free: the power to determine action without restraint.
will: the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:




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.

Unless you are either god or a fortune teller, you can have no way of knowing what is going to happen tomorrow. I personally doubt the existence of both. So, your argument does not follow. I can SAY "I will sing tomorrow", but if this evening I'm in a car crash and end up being unconscious tomorrow, it's pretty certain I won't be singing. Your first statement is flawed, and thus the other statements fall apart under it.


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.

First of all, let's pretend that this is 1000 years from now and computers can, in fact, do everything that people can.

The main problem with your argument is P3. We call this a slippery slope. If no human activity REQUIRES, free will, you argue, then there is no free will.

However, your conclusion does not automatically follow. What if we have free will anyway? Computers and humans are completely different constructs. Computers make a choice based on programming, and humans make their choices based on.... what? Some may say there's a god, but others may say that god has given us free will. There is no proof for or against. Unless you're willing to attempt to prove that people are computers, your argument, again, has a shaky foundation.


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.

Again, you're using science (Isn't science fun??!!) to argue about human actions. True, in science, there is only potential or kinetic energy, and objects with energy transfer it to others, giving objects kinetic (active) energy. Humans are matter, this is true, and our MATTER may not have a lot of free will... however, who decides what our matter does? We do! We have the ability to decide what our bodies do. If you were to actually believe your above argument, there would be no need to get up in the morning. We'd just sit around and wait for stuff to happen to us. I sure hope it rains, 'cause I'm thirsty.


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.

I'm sure that there's a name for the fallacy you made here, but I can't remember. You're right, in the sense, that cells probably don't really have conscious thought, and probably don't actively choose what they do. However, the brain is BUILT of cells, it isn't just a bunch of cells... and when those cells are put together they create something (the brain) that DOES have free will. The qualities of the parts do not reflect the qualities of the WHOLE.

[mayneverhave]

Human personality is determined by genetic and environmental influences - nature vs. nuture. Therefore, there is choice, but that choice is determined by the mass of your genetic data and your personal life experience. For example, there is genetic coding to determine how extroverted/introverted you are.

Therefore there is no free will because the individual making choices himself is determined.

[BienvenuJDC]

I agree with Katy North, there is a gross misuse of the rules of logic and syllogism. An argument must be a) accurate and b) sound, of which the creator of these arguments have not established the accuracy of any of the statements made in the arguments. Most if not all of them are greatly flawed. Therefore the conclusions are also profoundly flawed. Others have exposed enough of their errors that it doesn't need to be rehashed.


Human personality is determined by genetic and environmental influences - nature vs. nuture. Therefore, there is choice, but that choice is determined by the mass of your genetic data and your personal life experience. For example, there is genetic coding to determine how extroverted/introverted you are.

Therefore there is no free will because the individual making choices himself is determined.

Genetic code does not determine personality, it merely influences it. Otherwise, a murderer has no choice but to murder. This is a ludicrous statement.

[mayneverhave]

Genetic code does not determine personality, it merely influences it. Otherwise, a murderer has no choice but to murder. This is a ludicrous statement.

Genetic code and environment determine personality. Every organism is the product of some sort of natural process.

[BienvenuJDC]

Genetic code and environment determine personality. Every organism is the product of some sort of natural process.

You have left out the major determining factor, and that is one's own will to choose. Neither genetic code nor environment determine anything. One chooses according to their own will.

[DanielBenoit]

Neither genetic code nor environment determine anything. One chooses according to their own will.

Almost all criminal and social theory disagrees with you. Are you telling me that a kid born in North Korea and a kid born in America are going to grow up to be the same people? How about one born in the slums of Brazil and one born in suburban California? Did the people of North Korea just choose to be indoctrotated into believing their leader is a deity? Did the six year old in Third-World slums who knows how to use a handgun just choose that lifestyle, or was it the only thing he knew? the only hierarchy there was?

And also "no murder chooses to be a muderer"? Well what about sociopaths? How about sadists? No one chooses to be deranged or to possess no conscience, these are mental disorders brought about by either environment or generics. A person may choose to kill someone out of say pleasure, but it is a basic psychological fact that people who do that are clearly mentally unstable. Is the murderer still responsible? yes. Should he be locked up? absolutely. If an induvidual's mental disorder poses a danger to society then it is only sensible that they'd be thrown in prison.

[BienvenuJDC]

Almost all criminal and social theory disagrees with you.

Can you document your statement? I think that you are way off base on your facts.



Are you telling me that a kid born in North Korea and a kid born in America are going to grow up to be the same people? How about one born in the slums of Brazil and one born in suburban California? Did the people of North Korea just choose to be indoctrotated into believing their leader is a deity? Did the six year old in Third-World slums who knows how to use a handgun just choose that lifestyle, or was it the only thing he knew? the only hierarchy there was?

Not all people in these areas believe their leaders. This really has no application to my statement. While people make personal choices every day, being oppressed has nothing to do with genetic code or environmental influence.



And also "no murder chooses to be a muderer"? Well what about sociopaths? How about sadists? No one chooses to be deranged or to possess no conscience, these are mental disorders brought about by either environment or generics. A person may choose to kill someone out of say pleasure, but it is a basic psychological fact that people who do that are clearly mentally unstable. Is the murderer still responsible? yes. Should he be locked up? absolutely. If an induvidual's mental disorder poses a danger to society then it is only sensible that they'd be thrown in prison.


You are trying to apply the exception to the rule. You also are making assumptions that you are not qualified to make. You need to document your claims about "basic psychological facts". I think that you are blowing a bunch of smoke, making a distraction from the statement that I made.

For the average individual, they make their choices based on their own will. It may be influenced by genetic code or environment, but we all make our own choices.

[Nax]

I think there are too many issues floating around here.

Humans can make choices yes but they are detirmined by an insurmountable number of variables.

However all of that is moot, and I am with the OP in saying that we are not free. Nor can we ever be free for a number of reasons. Give me an example of being truly free, and I will argue that it is false in our current world. Unless your example is something cliche like falling in love, or being able to watch the sun go down, in which case your a romantic and a slave to ur heart anyways.

Humans inherintly desire control, as both a means of preservation and lust, and in order to have control there must be a heirarchy of power. All of us in this forum are at the lower rungs of this chain, the higher rungs are not known to almost anyone. Some would say government is thus, but they would be incorrect, as the government is just another tool by the corperations in order to give the illusion of freedom of choice. Does it really matter who you vote for? The policies generally are all lies either way, and the government will do watever it has to to stay in power, be it against their alignment or not. No one will actually make the choices we NEED right now, because it would result in the masses having to make sacrifices to comfort, like not having 100 appliances and three cars and hot water all day every day even when ur not using it. Its all well and good to say, were going to do somethin! But to actually impliment it is just not going to happen as long as politicians only care about the next election, and not actually doing what they are supposed to. Because when they are in power, they are getting money, lots of money, as well as alot of "benifits" which stay off the books. Socialists amung us will say that it is saving the weaker among us and providing us with essential services, which is true. But last time I checked, if it wasnt for the taxman, I could walk out to almost any strip of land and be completely self sustained and happy. Yes some would suffer, and some would die, but its this exact empathy that is used against us in order to keep those of us quite capable of surviving without any form of government in check, which is a great great deal of us. Even dim people can put a seed in the dirt, they were doing it for eons before someone stood up and said "holy ****, we can be making money off these people!"

We in the modern era have been completely brain washed and imprisoned. Fear is force fed to us through media, newspapers and television every single day. And if it isnt fear its complacency. Because of this we are more then willing (partially due to our parents) to sacrifice everything that we are in order to be another cog in the machine, making money to buy things we dont need to impress people we dont know for reasons we dont really understand. We have had some of our most basic morals and compulsions used against us in the form of materialism. "You dont need to think! You can watch tv! Friends? PFFT they are nothing but trouble, come buy yourself something and forget your worries. Things getting a bit sketchy towards the government? Fat cash payouts!" Epicurus believed that we needed to have friends, reflection, and a self sustained existence in order to be truley happy, and I believe he was right.

Everything around us is crumbling. Societies mental health issues are skyrocketing, physical health issues continue to climb, even though we have greater and more powerful ways of fighting it. People are eating, drinking, and drugging themselves to death. The gap between rich and poor is of course growing ever bigger. The planet is being crippled at an astounding rate on land, in water, and in the air all in the name of progress. Are these the symptoms of a happy free people? Are these indicators that what we are doing is working?

We are bred to be slaves under the illusion of freedom. If given the illusion of freedom, we will quite happily sacrifice the only thing which is truly ours (time) and in exchange we are given some liberties and assistance. We feel like its our choice, but what choice do you have really? Become a bum? A hermit? Eventually they will find you, like that poor man a few months back, lived on a tract of land completely self sustaining for decades, till the taxman found him, said he was 2 million behind in unpaid taxes, and threw him in jail. Freedom indeed.


At the end of the day it all comes down to money, the day we threw away the barter system was the day we gave up our rights as individuals, the right to produce our own goods and exchange them in whatever way we saw fit. We gave this up in exchange for the safety of the mass and greed, kinda like ants. It wasnt enough to just exist and survive anymore, we needed to hoard our wealth, show everyone how much better we are then them.

We have strayed from the path. Now we are gripped by a planetary struggle on almost every continent in the world. Environmentally, economically, and internally. Its only a matter of time before enough people become aware. I hope anyways.


To finish, I would just like to post this quote by Hunter S Thompson.

"It's a strange world. Some people get rich and other eat **** and die. A fat man will feel his heart burst and call it beautiful. Who knows? If there is, in fact, a Heaven and a Hell, all we know for sure is that Hell will be a viciously overcrowded version of Pheonix - a clean well-lighted place full of sunshine and bromides and fast cars where almost everybody seems vaguely happy, except for the ones who know in their hearts what is missing...And being driven slowly and quietly into the kind of terminal craziness that comes with finally understanding that the one thing you want is not there. Missing. Back-ordered. no tengo. Vaya con Dios. Grow up! Small is better. Take what you can get.......the swine will be sorted out at the gate and sent off like rats, with huge welts and lumps and puncture wounds all over their bodies - down the long black chute where ugliness rolls over you every 10 or 16 minutes like waves of boiling asphalt and poison scum, followed by sergeants and lawyers and crooked cops waving rule books; and where nobody laughs and everybody lies and the days drag by like dead animals and the nights are full of whores and junkies clawing at your window and tax men jamming writs under your door"

[DanielBenoit]

Can you document your statement? I think that you are way off base on your facts.

Look up nature vs. nurture debate.





Not all people in these areas believe their leaders. This really has no application to my statement.

Interesting, well how do you explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-hyVzTVDLg) or this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYGrVTJkS_s)



While people make personal choices every day, being oppressed has nothing to do with genetic code or environmental influence.

Oh really? I think being oppressed by ones government and by society at large pretty much fits the definition of environmental influence. ;)



You are trying to apply the exception to the rule. You also are making assumptions that you are not qualified to make. You need to document your claims about "basic psychological facts". I think that you are blowing a bunch of smoke, making a distraction from the statement that I made.


The statement you made is that "Neither genetic code nor environment determine anything." I gave the easy example of sociopathy (or psychopathy).

Well if you've never heard of sociopathy as a mental disorder, I suppose you're not well informed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)



For the average individual, they make their choices based on their own will. It may be influenced by genetic code or environment, but we all make our own choices.

But when there's less influence, the more "choice" is available to the individual. Again, how is it that a kid born into slavery have more "choice" than one not? How is it that a kid born into an enviroment of war and violence has more of a chance to be mentally disturbed?

[BienvenuJDC]

Daniel,
You are not addressing the context of my statement. I am not addressing that someone is being oppressed or forced by an oppressive government. I am not addressing the small minority of the clinically insane. I am addressing the majority of individuals that use free choice based on their will. They make decisions based on sound decisions. Stay on topic.

[mayneverhave]

You have left out the major determining factor, and that is one's own will to choose. Neither genetic code nor environment determine anything. One chooses according to their own will.

But how is that will determined? Who is the one you speak of, and how did it biologically develop? I'm not saying humans have no choice. I'm just saying humans have no decision in determining themselves, and therefore the decisions they make are already determined.

[BienvenuJDC]

But how is that will determined? Who is the one you speak of, and how did it biologically develop? I'm not saying humans have no choice. I'm just saying humans have no decision in determining themselves, and therefore the decisions they make are already determined.

And I disagree with your conclusions...:)

[DanielBenoit]

Daniel,
You are not addressing the context of my statement. I am not addressing that someone is being oppressed or forced by an oppressive government. I am not addressing the small minority of the clinically insane. I am addressing the majority of individuals that use free choice based on their will. They make decisions based on sound decisions. Stay on topic.

But are we not all oppressed by our own environments? (I do not mean this in a political way)

The examples oppressive governments and societies were made because they showed a clear image of indoctrination. If you want to be more general then how about this: why is it that most generations of religious cultures create more generations possessing the same belief-system? That said, things are different now in this age of globalization with the emergence of cultures in which all different sorts of cultural enviroments juxtapose.

As far as personality traits go, as I said before, look up the nature vs. nurture debate. Look up any disorder, idiosyncrasy or personality trait and you will almost always find the determining factors to be either enviromental (i.e. social) or genetic.

Semantically speaking, we must address the question, what is free will? Well, it can basically be determined that free will is an act made of ones own choice. But that's not good enough, because one can freely choose to go join the mob or join a terrorist organization, but there are factors determining that choice (you have come to believe that social issues can be solved through violence, etc.). In fact, all our choices are determined by factors, that is, choices with reasons behind them. You choose to accept the theory of gravity. Why? Because you believe in the evidence presented. Why? Because you believe in the scientific method., etc.

In a sense the concept of free will is really just a semantic word game based on creating a gap between cause and effect. For as the foundational principle of determinism is that all events are determined by a causal chain of prior occurences or rather all things are determined by their causes. The only free act is an act without cause or purpose.

[BienvenuJDC]

Daniel,

I think that your logic is as flawed as the poster's original argument. But that is my opinion. :yesnod:

[Katy North]

I read an article a few weeks ago about how scientists are able to predict what people do based upon past data. People are creatures of habit, and in a sense yes we are "oppressed" by our environment. I was raised by parents who valued intellect above all else, so perhaps it is not surprising that I want to be a professor. I have a job, so it's not surprising that I go there every day instead of, say, going water skiiing.

Having habits and a predictable nature is different, however, from not having free will. I personally like having habits. I wouldn't really want to change the way I am plodding along to my destiny. However, we do have the ABILITY to change. If you're walking across the road from a candy shop, you have the ability to walk in, even if that's not what you normally do. You have the ability to buy the black jelly beans instead of the green.

Just like, say, people in Korea have the ability to form a revolt and take over the government. And serial killers can decide to kill young women instead of old men. This ABILITY to do what we want, and to change our lives is free will. If we choose not to, and keep to our habitual ways, that does not make our choices any less free; it just makes them more predictable.

[mayneverhave]

Humans are as predictable as dogs or mice, only we are more complicated; there are more variables. Theoretically, if all genetic/environmental data were at our disposal, a complete prediction of human life is possible.

[BienvenuJDC]

Humans are as predictable as dogs or mice, only we are more complicated; there are more variables. Theoretically, if all genetic/environmental data were at our disposal, a complete prediction of human life is possible.

Your conclusion is based on concepts only seriously considered in science fiction. I believe there are some episodes of Heroes with a person with precognitive abilities.

http://emediagallery.com/wp-content/uploads/heroes-downloads.jpg

[Michael T]

If you believe in the physical laws of the universe, i.e. 'cause and effect', - which most of us would probably accept (and tend to live our lives by) -then it is hard to reconcile that with the idea of free will. I suspect it's more a case of how free we 'feel' as individuals that concerns us, regardless of whether we actually are free to choose or not.

[DanielBenoit]

Your conclusion is based on concepts only seriously considered in science fiction.

Ummm, no.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107143755.htm

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/089976699300016890

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-18693-001&CFID=6989099&CFTOKEN=62139751

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html


Evolution was presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Damn! I guess evolution isn't true then.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-2/2001-a-space-odyssey-ape.jpg

[BienvenuJDC]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;864453
Evolution was presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Damn! I guess evolution isn't true then.
[/QUOTE]

Ummm...no, it isn't true

...and I'm not starting that stupid argument again...
:beatdeadhorse5:

[Scheherazade]

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further warning.

~

[angel92]

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.

I agree that freedom is an illusion. Take for example in makine choices. We are not free to make decisions because we tend to think of ourselves before the others. Those few that can get out of this mind set tend to have a bit more choice making but are not entirely free because something or people affect the freedom that person does. The governments tend to say that they are free but we are truly not because we have to live under a set of rules. And even without a government we would still have a set of rules which is the food change in which we must be careful in what we do for our lives. This idea still restricts our freedom even though we may not be aware of it.

Am I making any sense out their can anyone help me out?

[Katy North]

Hey Angel,

You're making sense, but I think we're arguing about different things.

For example, let's talk about the slaves. Over 150 years ago, African Americans were owned by white people in the united states. Most had to obey their masters or they were punished in some way. They had no FREEDOM.

Despite the fact that these slaves had no FREEDOM, however, they did have FREE WILL. They could choose whether or not they wanted to sing while they worked. They could choose whether to use what little time they weren't working to eat or sleep or dance.

[eric.bell]

If you believe in the physical laws of the universe, i.e. 'cause and effect', - which most of us would probably accept (and tend to live our lives by) -then it is hard to reconcile that with the idea of free will. I suspect it's more a case of how free we 'feel' as individuals that concerns us, regardless of whether we actually are free to choose or not.

Determinism is an easy idea to hold and to defend, but I believe, like many philosophers, that it is a flawed one. I do believe that we, as humans, are limited in our choices, as well as rather predictable, but to say we have no free-will would be to say we are not just limited to certain choices but are secluded to a specific choice, which is not true. True, if a "snapshot" of the universe were taken at any given moment and all the assorted variables of the universe at said moment were attainable and we--humans, that is--were of a high enough intellect to solve the highly complex problem that is the universe, then we would be able to calculate--within close proximity--where every atom would be going, as well as where it would be going from there. But this does not mean that they could predict each atoms movements forever with 100% accuracy, because there are many different paths that an atom can take at any given time. Chaos does still exist. It is just to our eye that the cosmos appear to be in order. There are so many paths--just as the atoms that make us up--that humans can take. True, you can predict decisions to a certain proximity but never to any certainty.

[Revolte]

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.

forgive me, but anarchy is freedom. The idea of anarchy and chaos being one is a classic misunderstanding. In the early american movements, in the time of Emma Goldman and the Industrial Revolution, Roosevelt was threatend by the anarchists aboloshing his choo choo trains and all the happy fame, power, and economical progress the man would have obtaind. In direct opposition to the anarchist movement he stated "Anarchists are the enemy of humanity" and from that day on the incorrect idea of anarchy, anarchism, and anarchists has made it strong like a cockroach. I'm not sure how that even happens considering its almost impossible not to get the correct information, unless the people simply hear the word being used and assume its context is correct, which is a pretty stupid thing to do in the political world. It makes me wonder if people know what those pink and black flags in the spanish revolution are, or who the CNT-FAI really is, who Emma Goldman was and so on.


some more information http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca11


and at the OP, we are in no way free, we have rights, and as long as we have rights we will have restrictions. We are in a world of privilage, nothing more. But I have to wonder, with all the chaos in the world, are we even mature enough to be free? Sadly I doubt it. This doesnt mean you cant be free in other aspects though, self liberation is just as important as political, sexual and social liberation.

[Razzleg]

There seem to be a variety of different types of freedom being discussed in this thread. I think it is probably important to distinguish between political, economic, and some sort of metaphysical freedom-to-do-whatever-one-wants-in-freaking-magic-land. That being said, even without a working definition of freedom, your syllogisms are not quite logical. I know that others have already tried their hand at picking them apart, but i thought i would lend my two cents since i can't sleep.

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.

This is a circular argument. You are stating that the appearance of freedom does not correspond to reality. But you aren't proving anything by making this statement.

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.

This is again more of a statement than an argument. In P2 you give only two options, chance or determination. Then you say that both options exclude freedom, and so...again, kind of circular. C1 is, logically speaking, nonsense and completely unconnected to the rest of you proof despite using a lot of the same words.

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..

This seems to be a statement that might be summarized: "Causation exists." That the future is a consequence of the past might be taken as a given. Most of modern Western culture structures its entire understanding of time based upon this assumption of linearity. Someone who considered a circular model might disagree. Regardless, this still doesn't function as a proof of anything.

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.

While I don't necessarily agree with your premises, I believe that the first part of this argument is logically valid. However, P4 is both almost tautological and it states an ethical precept not a necessary consequence. Also (and i'm being picky here,) the "if/then" of P3 is not demonstrated within the syllogism.

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.

Here is the crux of your argument. All of the other syllogisms could be omitted, and this one would be enough state your point of view. I'll address your point of view after this final comment on your logical exercises.

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.

There is no proof presented in this argument that a whole is not greater than its parts. It's kind of like pointing at a house and saying, " A house is made of bricks. A person cannot live in a pile of bricks. No one could live in that thing."

Like I said above, the lack of a strong definition of freedom bothers me, but there does seem to be an even greater absence in this discussion. And that is an adequate definition of "cause". For example, what causes a tree to grow? Is it the earth it is planted in? The weather that regulates that growth? The genetic material that it has inherited that provides the blueprint for its development? The farmer that planted it, the fence that protects it, the sun that feeds it, the gravity that holds it to the planet, its own internal organs that perpetuate its progress? Aristotle named four different types of "causes". I'm sure that if we were feeling pedantic enough we could subdivide his categories endlessly. All of these are necessary elements, efficient causes, none of them are sufficient unto themselves.

In my opinion, and you can take it for what its worth, the debate of free will v. determinism is a controversy based upon a false dichotomy. You can imagine each object, be it a statue, a cue ball, a person or an apple tree, as the singular product of a huge number of forces. A point of intersection for a variety of causes, and perhaps it could be considered to be fated or free to be nothing but itself. A limited being to be sure, but that "self", once caused, is hardly a passive puppet. It becomes a dynamic force in its own right. And to the degree that it exploits (and i'm getting pretty anthropomorphic here, forgive me) its own limitations to it's advantage, then the question of freedom or determinism is moot. Nothing is free, nothing is determined. It kind of just is what it is.

What a deflated ending to all of that...Sorry for the wall o'text. i'll be surprised if anyone reads all of this crap.

[hoope]

Absolute Freedom is the independent ability to or not do ; without any act of any superior force whether interior force or exterior.

I once read that Allan Bloom said ( as i recall it ) " If we try to prove or give evidence for the existence of Freedom , then we are killing the freedom "

[Shatov]

Absolute Freedom is the independent ability to or not do ; without any act of any superior force whether interior force or exterior.


Fortunately for us compatibilists, that's not usually the concept of freedom we're talking about.




Christine Korsgaard (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/) "solved" for me the problem of free will in a few short paragraphs. Here's an abridged excerpt, which I believe gives a very satisfactory account of free will.




Occasionally one meets the objection that the freedom we discover in reflection is a delusion. Human actions are causally determined. The philosopher's bugbear, the Scientific World View, threatens once more to deprive us of something we value.
…

The afternoon stretches before me, and I must decide whether to work or to play. Suppose first that you can predict which one I am going to do. That has no effect on me at all: I must still decide what to do.

…

Having discovered that my conduct is predictable, will I now sit quietly in my chair, waiting to see what I will do? Then I will not do anything but sit quietly in my chair. And that had better be what you predicted, or you will have been wrong. But in any case why should I do that, if I think that I ought to be working? Well, suppose that you tell me what you predict I am going to do. If you predict that I am going to work, and I think that I should work, then there is no problem. Or do I now have to do it less freely?

…

Determinism is no threat to freedom.

Now it will be objected that this is not what philosophers mean when they claim that determinism is a threat to freedom. They aren't talking about a practical problem -- that knowledge could somehow take away our freedom -- but about a theoretical one -- that knowledge would show us that we weren't free after all. But how is it supposed to do that? By showing that we could not have done otherwise?

That might show that we aren't responsible. But it is a different question whether determinism is a threat to responsibility. Freedom is the capacity to do otherwise, not the capacity to have done otherwise. No one has that capacity, because you cannot change the past. That sounds like a joke but I mean it. The freedom discovered in reflection is not a theoretical property which can also be seen by scientists considering the agent's deliberations third-personally and from outside. It is from within the deliberative perspective that we see our desires as providing suggestion which we may take or leave. You will say that this means that our freedom is not 'real' only if you have defined the 'real' as what can be identified by scientists looking at things third-personally and from outside.

. . .

The Scientific World View is a description of the world which serves the purposes of explanation and prediction. When its concepts are applied correctly it tells us things that are true. But it is not a substitute for human life. And nothing in human life is more real than the fact that we must make our decisions and choices 'under the idea of freedom'. When desire bids, we can indeed take it or leave it.


Source: The Sources of Normativity ( http://www.tiny.cc/normativity )

[hoope]

Many people try to conect or link between the determinism and free will ..infact mostly philosophers do that.
But i think that they don't meet ..
The existence of free will has always been there .... and human being is responsible for his acts .. Determinism can not be versus to the free will
But the actual opposite to free will is the fatalism , here the will is uneffectual.

[dizzydoll]

Forgive me for checking and speaking up, but you are still very young and at a very intense age at this time.... 'this too shall change'.

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbiasg2xMIo&feature=related)
Makes you think eh?

In life we should learn to challenge our own perceptions :hurray: dont you think?

Try this, you wont regret... I love it, you will too.


OM
Every vibration has a corresponding sound and everything in the universe has a vibration and thus a sound. Each atom, molecule, cell, object, group of objects, even the entire universe, has its own collection of vibrations and unique sound.

When you chant a mantra, you merge with the sound vibration and become at one with the energy wavelength of the object of your mantra. Mantra chanting makes you at one with everyone, everywhere who is chanting that mantra and with everyone who has ever chanted the mantra. All the saints who have ever reached enlightenment through the technique of chanting that mantra connect with you as you connect with the vibration of the mantra. You merge with their essence which has been purified and is holy and you become pure and holy because that divine level of existence vibrates only with holiness, peace, and bliss.

By chanting a mantra, your cells, molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles all vibrate in the same wavelength as the mantra. Once attuned with this vibration you connect with everything resonating on that plane of existence. It’s like tuning a radio. At first you may get static, but once you are in the right frequency your reception is perfect. Om is the universal sound. It is within every word and within everything. So when you chant Om, you merge with all energy and all forms, from the sub-atomic to the universal, from the most gross to the most divine. And when you are tuned in perfectly, you will receive holy frequencies clearly and merge and emerge at one with the source of all and live happily ever after.

Many meditation teachers suggest that it is necessary to understand every intellectual aspect of the meaning of the mantra that is being practiced, but just as many others feel that the intellect may tend to confuse and hold back spiritual progress. What both types of teachers agree on is that mantras have the potential to take practitioners to the level of consciousness that transcends the limitations of the mind by a billion-fold. There is an ancient tale that very well shows that true devotion and complete absorption are the key:

Once upon a time in a land far away lived a poor uneducated, mentally challenged man who tended a herd of cows for his master. He happened upon a meditation teacher and was very taken with his calm, loving, gentle and happy nature. He decided he wanted to know that experience first hand. And so he went to the teacher and begged him to teach him a way to achieve the inner peace that radiated so obviously from the teacher. The teacher accepted him as his student but quickly found that the man couldn’t understand any of the philosophical points he was making and as a matter of fact couldn’t even remember the mantra Om when he tried to teach it to him. The teacher lovingly said, "My oh my, you don’t seem to know anything at all, can’t be taught, and can’t remember anything. You are devoted and sincere in your desire to gain happiness though, so I will try to help you. My son, what do you know?" The man said, "Oh great teacher, the only thing I know is cows. All my life I’ve spent caring for cows, making sure they graze, are milked, and are kept clean. Yes, for me, everything is cows." "Well, that’s alright," said the teacher, "then you know what sound the cows make." "Oh yes," said the man, "they say moo." "Very well then," said the teacher, "for you, moo will be your mantra. All you have to do is say moo continually and you will reach freedom from suffering and know real bliss." So the man chanted moo, moo, moo when he took the cows out to graze and he chanted moo, moo, moo when he milked them, and he chanted moo, moo, moo when he cleaned them. He chanted moo all the time and very soon merged with that vibration, which is Om backward, and reached the highest heights of joyous understanding and lived happily ever after.

From this story, we learn that it is virtually impossible to chant Om "wrong". It is, after all, an insentient sound. But the giver of this sound to the universe knows the intention and devotion of the practitioner and that is by what we will be rewarded. It is said that one minute of sincere chanting is superior to a thousand hours of mere sounding of the words. A parrot can be taught to recite a mantra but this will be just mere vibrations in the air. It is the love and worship behind the sound that counts. Technically though, there is a "correct" way to chant Om. It is made up of three letters: A, U, M. These contain all the sounds there are. The A is guttural and comes from the throat. It is pronounced without any part of the tongue or palate in contact. The U sound comes from the middle of the sounding board, the palate. In Sanskrit, the A and U join together to become O. The O sound is vibrated from the navel/ solar plexus area and sent up to the sternum to the voice region, the lips, where the M sound is prolonged and vibrated up to the crown of the head. This vibrating M is felt in every cell of the body and is beamed out lovingly, soothingly, powerfully, to everything, everyone, everywhere. Intellectually and metaphysically, A stands for the physical world perceptible to the senses, the material world. U represents the astral and dream planes, heaven and hell. M is the unknown, deep sleep, and that which is unfathomable to the intellect. Thus Om contains the entire spectrum of sound, words, worlds, and concepts. Om represents the source of all light, love, and wisdom.

There are three ways to do mantras - aloud, silently but while mouthing or humming the mantra, and completely silently within oneself. When done aloud and particularly when done with others, the sound of Om is energizing, calming, and healing. Although it is often encouraged to do your mantra all the time, it would certainly be questionable to consider chanting Om aloud in the middle of a board meeting. Similarly, it may be preferable to do Om silently just by moving your lips if you are in a movie theater. Chanting Om completely silently is considered the most potent method because it is not dependent on having a human voice box, or lips, or facial muscles, all of which are temporary manifestations compared to the billions of years you will be fully at one with Om. It is advantageous to spiritual development to consider the theological, philosophical and mystical aspects of Om while chanting with your physical eyes closed, looking through the third eye, and paying attention to your breath. This may seem complex and complicated, but once in synch, it happens naturally as Om reveals itself, your Real Self, to you.

'this too shall change'
:iagree:

I was amazed at how long I could hold the sound but I found it is more potent to think it silently on my daily walk, it makes me feel lighter, like almost stoned.

[Shatov]

Many people try to conect or link between the determinism and free will ..infact mostly philosophers do that.
But i think that they don't meet ..
The existence of free will has always been there .... and human being is responsible for his acts .. Determinism can not be versus to the free will
But the actual opposite to free will is the fatalism , here the will is uneffectual.

It looks like we're on the same page here. =)

[hoope]

It looks like we're on the same page here. =)

No one said we weren't !

[Shatov]

No one said we weren't !

No one said we were!

[BienvenuJDC]

I was amazed at how long I could hold the sound but I found it is more potent to think it silently on my daily walk, it makes me feel lighter, like almost stoned.

I read a portion of your quote....

:icon_bs:

[dizzydoll]

I read a portion of your quote....

each to their own cuz, how would you know if you havent tried it yet? :rolleyes5: :idea:

[breathtest]

freedom is internal, i think. For some people it exists, and for others it doesn't

[mayneverhave]

freedom is internal, i think. For some people it exists, and for others it doesn't

Elaborate on this?

[Katy North]

freedom is internal, i think. For some people it exists, and for others it doesn't

That is an interesting perspective, and I would like to hear more.

[BienvenuJDC]

each to their own cuz, how would you know if you havent tried it yet? :rolleyes5: :idea:

I don't have to try drugs to know that they will destroy my body. One can reason through things in order to know....experimentation is not always necessary.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't have to try drugs to know that they will destroy my body. One can reason through things in order to know....experimentation is not always necessary.

That's because most of us have been given information on drugs. What information do you have about other religions in order to just completely disregard them?

As far as free will goes: I'm willing to take a linguistic approach to this matter and state that most of our philosophical concepts of the Western tradition, including the concept of free will, are constructs of our language. This can be seen in Eastern cultures and religions like Buddhism in which neither there is no conception of either free will or determinism. In the case of determinism, take the Chinese language which possesses no tenses and is only able to imply temporality through the use of temporal adverbs. As a result, one of the prime distinctions between Chinese and Western thought was their senses of causality.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's because most of us have been given information on drugs. What information do you have about other religions in order to just completely disregard them?

As far as free will goes: I'm willing to take a linguistic approach to this matter and state that most of our philosophical concepts of the Western tradition, including the concept of free will, are constructs of our language. This can be seen in Eastern cultures and religions like Buddhism in which neither there is no conception of either free will or determinism. In the case of determinism, take the Chinese language which possesses no tenses and is only able to imply temporality through the use of temporal adverbs. As a result, one of the prime distinctions between Chinese and Western thought was their senses of causality.

You assume too much about my knowledge of other religions. For being so young, you assume that I know nothing?

[DanielBenoit]

You assume too much about my knowledge of other religions. For being so young, you assume that I know nothing?

I never said that you know nothing about other religions. That said, I would like to see your objections to what dizzydoll said which led you to calling it "bs".

I don't mind your objections to it, but to outright call it "bs" seems a bit wanting of explanation, especially coming from someone who does not like others insulting his religion (an understandable sentiment).

[BienvenuJDC]

I never said that you know nothing about other religions. That said, I would like to see your objections to what dizzydoll said which led you to calling it "bs".

I don't mind your objections to it, but to outright call it "bs" seems a bit wanting of explanation, especially coming from someone who does not like others insulting his religion (an understandable sentiment).

hmm....that is NOT what you just said....


That's because most of us have been given information on drugs. What information do you have about other religions in order to just completely disregard them?

But....until there is some 'religious' substantiation given for it, I cannot really address the foundations which were never presented.

[dizzydoll]

I don't have to try drugs to know that they will destroy my body. One can reason through things in order to know....experimentation is not always necessary.

My post refers to the OM mantra and the effect if brings by doing it every day. You really should try it. :idea:

No need to panic, I believe YOU are not actually this physical body in which you find yourself, YOU are a much larger non-physical body in the form of an old soul.

Back to freedom, most of us prefer to entangle ourselves with someone or something and so we are not truly free. Real freedom comes with the 'feeling' that there is more to us than 'just this'. Does it matter that we dont have proof? No, life is a perception not a reality. We make our own.

[eric.bell]

No, life is a perception not a reality.

And how is this so? Please do explain yourself.

[dizzydoll]

And how is this so? Please do explain yourself.

My post makes more than one point... to which do your refer?

[Darcy88]

There are no free wills. Only stong wills and weak wills.

[Michael T]

There are no free wills. Only stong wills and weak wills.

What about 'Free Willy'?


http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3074/freewilly1.jpg

:biggrin5:

[BienvenuJDC]

There are no free wills. Only stong wills and weak wills.

...and it's true just because you say it?

What made you say that....since you have no free will?

[Michael T]

...and it's true just because you say it?

What made you say that....since you have no free will?

But surely if you believe in Free Will, then you dismiss Determinism (cause and effect) and that means there is no justification for requiring a God for the creation of the universe. (Something from Nothing or First Cause) Thus Free Will = No God.

Excellent ...you've disproved the main arguement for the existance of God! I always thought we athiests were on the right track! :hurray:

[blazeofglory]

Free will is a sheer biblical product and I do not think it has any substance. Our course of living, thinking, initiatives all spring from circumstances and all we do is respond to the stimuli. Free will is somewhat likened to conscience and what we call conscience is a sheer mental product and what we call bad maybe good in another circumstance. Theft is bad for the one who loses it and the one who gets thinks it is good. When a man brings in more money through bribery feels jubilant for with this he brings happiness on his family and the one who loses the money becomes sad in fact.

So what we say conscience is also rather a dubious notion. So is the idea of Free Will

[mayneverhave]

There are no free wills. Only stong wills and weak wills.

As far as aphorisms go, this is meh. The second statement contradicts the first. The existence of either strong wills or weak wills would demonstrate that there are free wills.

[BienvenuJDC]

But surely if you believe in Free Will, then you dismiss Determinism (cause and effect) and that means there is no justification for requiring a God for the creation of the universe. (Something from Nothing or First Cause) Thus Free Will = No God.

Excellent ...you've disproved the main arguement for the existance of God! I always thought we athiests were on the right track! :hurray:

Your conclusion is absurd...at best! To entertain the concept of "Something from nothing" is to present oneself without any logic whatsoever. No discussion is even warranted.

Why must we always haggle back and forth about God? I believe, you do not! Stop trying to disprove something that logically is impossible to disprove.

[Michael T]

Why must we always haggle back and forth about God?

Sorry Bien ...just being mischievous! :p

[hoope]

But surely if you believe in Free Will, then you dismiss Determinism (cause and effect) and that means there is no justification for requiring a God for the creation of the universe. (Something from Nothing or First Cause) Thus Free Will = No God.

Excellent ...you've disproved the main arguement for the existance of God! I always thought we athiests were on the right track! :hurray:


I disagree with FREE WILL = NO GOD
Why don't you say that free will exists as well as God ..
Why don't you look at it from the point that God is testing us.. He gave us the choice to choose what we want & which way to follow.. Or else then all of us would go to heaven .. People are being testing .. in earth . and so free will exists .

[snowdrop17]

I disagree with FREE WILL = NO GOD
Why don't you say that free will exists as well as God ..
Why don't you look at it from the point that God is testing us.. He gave us the choice to choose what we want & which way to follow.. Or else then all of us would go to heaven .. People are being testing .. in earth . and so free will exists .

:iagree:Right hoope.
Why are people always trying to prove that free will and existance of God are opposite to each other. If you look it at the way hoope suggests it is quite logical. Otherwise there is no sense in being good to others and to practice restraint.

[Michael T]

I disagree with FREE WILL = NO GOD
Why don't you say that free will exists as well as God ..
Why don't you look at it from the point that God is testing us..


:coolgleamA:More to the point - Wouldn't it be more logical for you to look at it from the point of view that there is nothing in this universe and nothing logical in human history that actually points to the existence of some form of Supreme Being and so therefore we should all start from the premise that there isn’t one? At least until one decides to manifest itself to us all and shoot me down in flames!:p:out:


:iagree:Right hoope.
Why are people always trying to prove that free will and existance of God are opposite to each other. If you look it at the way hoope suggests it is quite logical. Otherwise there is no sense in being good to others and to practice restraint.




Oh... I'm sorry; I thought it was people trying to ram the existence of God down our throats with the First Cause argument! They can't have it both ways! Are you perhaps suggesting that without the knowledge of the existence of a God to keep you in order you see ''no sense in being good to others and practicing restraint''? If so - perhaps people should avoid you, because I do those things without recourse to a supreme being!

(Although you wouldn't think so listening to me rant!) :p

[BienvenuJDC]

Wouldn't it be more logical for you to look at it from the point of view that there is nothing in this universe and nothing logical in human history that actually points to the existence of some form of Supreme Being and so therefore we should all start from the premise that there isn’t one? At least until one decides to manifest itself to us all and shoot me down in flames!:p:out:

No...no, it wouldn't be more logical...

:nonod:

[Michael T]

No...no, it wouldn't be more logical...

:nonod:

Yes Bien... yes, it would be more logical... Less spiritual perhaps - but more logical.

:D

Anyway... enough of the God stuff or we'll end up getting told off by Scher!

Free Will …a nice thought – but it ends there.

[NikolaiI]

It's not logical to deduce that there may be an intelligence behind all the laws of nature, such as the laws of physics governing particles and bodies? That's your perspective. Understand that it's a relative type of thing. I used to have your perspective, or one similar to yours stated here, and now I do not. That's because paradigms are, like all things, governed by the law of change. But actually Michael, all opposites are yang and yin, and they form a whole. Every pair - self, other; light, dark; life, death. Well and you may say that you think what I've said is illogical or what not, that is your right, but I'm not here really to argue just to type a little.

Many things have been proven scientifically.. the value of hope, (in laboratory experiments on rats this has been proven...) of faith (in one's ability to heal oneself, etc...), the positive effects of so many things such as kindness and love (three things: viewing, performing, and receiving acts of kindness all give an increase to our immune system. One might deduce that there's a good connection between health and kindness...). There are these and other examples and if you'll search you'll find more, and if you study and meditate you can find many of these things to be true... As Lao Tzu said, "How do I know these to be true? I look within and find them to be."

As for Freedom... I think there are different levels of awareness and that that has a lot to do with it. Of course, one's environment has a part to play here. A person who is kept as a slave has a very different life than one who lives as a citizen in a nation where the rights of the individual are valued and protected... Metaphysically or ontologically, freedom does exist... but we have to make it and keep it...

Of the different levels of awareness I think the poster of this thread may be referring to one of them... Like in Plato, the allegory of the cave... People are chained in the cave and watching shadows on the cave wall is their life. There is another world they're unaware of, many dimensions they do not know.

Many people have been set free by art! And by love. Love is really the only way we can get to steady levels of awareness I would say.

But what is the difference between Plato's cave-dwellers and someone who has broken free of their shackles? Are we one of the shackled, or are we outside of that cave? How would we know? Well, we can tell by reflection.

But the great thing is that anyone can break free of their prejudices, anyone can reach higher states of awareness and consciousness.

[hoope]

Many people have been set free by art! And by love. Love is really the only way we can get to steady levels of awareness I would say.

But what is the difference between Plato's cave-dwellers and someone who has broken free of their shackles? Are we one of the shackled, or are we outside of that cave? How would we know? Well, we can tell by reflection.

But the great thing is that anyone can break free of their prejudices, anyone can reach higher states of awareness and consciousness.

That is true Nikolai.. Love is only way that we can change...As they always say ALL WORKS OF LOVE


and Micheal as much as i think that Nikolai's post was quiet enough . Yet ! and trust me freedom is there .. and free will exist no matter how people try to deny it .. everything around proves that ..

[blazeofglory]

That is true Nikolai.. Love is only way that we can change...As they always say ALL WORKS OF LOVE


and Micheal as much as i think that Nikolai's post was quiet enough . Yet ! and trust me freedom is there .. and free will exist no matter how people try to deny it .. everything around proves that ..

Yes, Hoope, freedom exists and that has enabled us to transact with one another on this forum or else how could you share the feelings private to ourselves

[Michael T]

We enjoy feelings of freedom certainly. As for 'free will' Perhaps we feel we have that in the way a seed (if it were to think) could imagine to itself that it is free to grow in any direction it chooses - and decides for itself to grow upwards, feeling pleased with itself because it imagines it has 'free will'! Hmmm...


I wonder if any amount of arguing would convince that seed that it didn't have free will?

[NikolaiI]

We enjoy feelings of freedom certainly. As for 'free will' Perhaps we feel we have that in the way a seed (if it were to think) could imagine to itself that it is free to grow in any direction it chooses - and decides for itself to grow upwards, feeling pleased with itself because it imagines it has 'free will'! Hmmm...

I wonder if any amount of arguing would convince that seed that it didn't have free will?

Yes but in human life there is not just one thing, going upwards. There are infinite degrees of variation in quality of life.

[Michael T]

Yes but in human life there is not just one thing, going upwards. There are infinite degrees of variation in quality of life.


There certainly are NikolaiI - but no Free-Will! :wink5:

[NikolaiI]

Well we have to start over then because you distracted us by your analogy!

It's just a question of opinion... if there's not free will, then it's so convincing that we may choose one action or another that it isn't really a promising line, that is, in the results (practical or otherwise) that such pondering will produce..

I'm all for pondering abstract questions, and I do understand the basics of this one, but it doesn't interest me as much as others. And freedom I do see as existing because it is a relative thing. Actually it quite exists - just like everything we can possibly imagine does exist, somewhere under the sun, even if it is in our dreams while we while away the time in sleep in that sun...


There is freedom.. and bondage.. and freedom in bondage.. and bondage in freedom.. and an unlimited number of other combinations.. or so I have it.

[dizzydoll]

Speaking as a woman, we certainly have more freedom than say my great grandmother for example who was not allowed to inherit her fathers estate, or own a bank account in her name, or allowed any property in her name. Today we are free to choose if we wish to marry or not, 50 years ago this was generally not the case. From the beginning of time women were property themselves until very recently. So I am free, and grateful for it.

In some countries the people are freer than others, sad but true.

[NikolaiI]

That's a terrific point, and a strong one, bringing practicality to the issue rather than leaving it in the abstract.

[blazeofglory]

You are right. Of course we are much freer than our predecessors, ancestors, and we can take decisions, do things of our choice. We can defy the institution our grandfathers were forced to abide by; we are freer than our grandmas to elope with our next door boy for honeymooning for a few days and break. We can openly and easily kiss, hug in schools, and walk on the street in see through clothes. Sunbathing on a shore with our private open is not tabooed now.

Of course freedom is there and an excess of it and yet loneliness and estrangement have swathed us more and of course our hearts are palpitating more now when our sweethearts betray us.

Yet I love freedom at these costs. Because I am intoxicated with it.

[blazeofglory]

Doctor Faustus' freedom too engages me in reflection. He wanted freedom, the freedom to see the beauty of Helen, the freedom enjoy the things that were allowed for gods on high, the freedom to see the things no mortals could not see. But the condition was too much taxing

[IceM]

But surely if you believe in Free Will, then you dismiss Determinism (cause and effect) and that means there is no justification for requiring a God for the creation of the universe. (Something from Nothing or First Cause) Thus Free Will = No God.

Excellent ...you've disproved the main arguement for the existance of God! I always thought we athiests were on the right track! :hurray:

Explain to me how someone who believes in free will cannot by nature believe in cause an effect.

Courtesy of google. Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. If we make decisions unconstrained by external agencies (i.e. biases influencing the decision) then we have free will. If an effect stems from a free choice, can't the decision be the cause and the result the effect? Free will gives us the ability to make our own decisions: cause and effect summarizes what results when we make our decision.


:coolgleamA:More to the point - Wouldn't it be more logical for you to look at it from the point of view that there is nothing in this universe and nothing logical in human history that actually points to the existence of some form of Supreme Being and so therefore we should all start from the premise that there isn’t one? At least until one decides to manifest itself to us all and shoot me down in flames!:p:out:






God, according to the Bible, is beyond our dimensions. As such, our actions would have no ability to hint to His existence or not, as His existence is not affected by our realm of possibilities. This does not necessarily validate the contrary, however. Don't limit your judgment to assuming that humans affect a God's existence.

If nothing logical exists in human history, tell me how history itself began (i.e. how we came to be). Did the materials necessary for the Big Bang just *magically* appear? Did the atom, proton, neutron, nucleus, element(s) just magically create themselves?

[MUMUKSHA]

I cannot resist saying this- Bien and Daniel:argue: are absolutely entertaining.:smilielol5:
I read the entire discussion beginning from the first thread. I found myself agreeing with some, not agreeing as much with some and completely disagreeing with others. But, I am not sure whether to trust my understanding of whatever I read.:confused5:
You see, the problem is that even after so many things having been said, there is hardly anything to be deduced. It's almost like people conversing in languages that have identical sounds to signify different meanings. Even the word 'free will' is being used by everyone in varying sense. But so is the case with other key words like 'freedom', 'liberty' or even 'we'.
There are so many different perspectives through which the question at hand is being discussed but no common language to communicate effectively:brickwall.

[Il Dante]

Two points on determinism vs. free will.

My observation about human beings is as follows. First, Arthur Schopenhauer said that as a person goes through life they inevitably think that all their actions are free; but when they look back on their life they find, to their astonishment, that there was a cause, of some sort, for everything they did. They went to Starbucks BECAUSE their tummy told them they wanted a vanilla latte. They took out a loan BECAUSE they were running out of money. They went to college BECAUSE they wanted to get a good job...

HOWEVER: in my view, if we actually consider all of these events we notice that there was a choice involved. For instance, the subject went to Starbucks, but had the choice of saving that money (and thus being able to use it for something else and have financial peace of mind) or spend it on coffee and thereby get some liquid happiness. The subject weighs each option and then comes down on one side or the other. EITHER WAY the action was caused (either by the desire for peace of mind or a craving for caffeine); but choice was still involved.

In other words, we choose what will cause us. So, in a sense our actions are determined. But in another sense, there is choice.

As rational beings we cannot but do things without a cause, without a reason. Only a madman does things for no reason. But this brings me to my second point. It is as follows:

Rationality requires human free-will. This is because reason involves making a choice between possible answers to a question, a choice based upon inductive or deductive logic. Determinism means that, regardless of the evidence, you will always choose X and never Y. Thus if I am determined to think, for example, that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, it will not matter how much evidence against this idea is presented to me, for I am predestined to believe it. Thus if there is determinism, there is no reason. If there is no reason, there is no philosophic project. In a deterministic universe any reasoned decision is an illusion, because it was predetermined. Reason presupposes that one can reject the false and choose the true.

The psyche is like a law court; the mind is a group of lawyers; and the will is the judge. The mind considers its options, weighs the evidence; often there will be two or more "cases" in the mind, two or more options which put forth their best arguments. The will chooses the strongest case. A person who is "reasonable" is one who is open to allowing his will to be swayed by evidence in the court of the mind.

Thus, irrespective of whether determinism is true or not, it is fatal to philosophy.

[blazeofglory]

Freedom is a relative term. What should I call freedom. When I love somebody I will have to give in to her some of my freedom

Some people say when you are alone you can be completely free. But this is wrong. For we will be still be the slave of loneliness or loneliness will reign over us

Freedom is a myth and we are never free in the real sense

[Il Dante]

I correct myself: in my previous post I said that "rationality requires free-will." I stand by the thought, but would like to emphasize that I do not mean "free will" in an absolute sense.

If, by freedom, you mean "not caused," than I do not believe we have freedom, nor is such a thing to be desired. Everything we do has a reason. But there is choice.

Thus, when I said "free will" in the above post, I meant a limited free will. Or, more accurately, a will free to choose within a causal framework.

[Dodo25]

As usual, threads about 'free will' end up in a huge mess. I can't resist, I gotta add a brief summary of my own views.

Up until recently, I was sure that determinism is flawed because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that position and velocity of a particle / wave cannot be measured both at the same time. And the principle is fundamental, meaning not even with the best methods imaginable could anyone do so.

However, it has been pointed out to me that determinism might still apply, because even if it is impossible to predict quantum effects, they might be determined, hence non-random.

Anyway, the point is, it doesn't really matter. Except, which I highly doubt, if Roger Penrose's theory about consciousness is true (brain uses quantum uncertainty to make free decisions, see 'The Emperor's New Mind'), then quantum effects don't matter for free will because they're random and can't represent 'what we want'.


Many people try to conect or link between the determinism and free will ..infact mostly philosophers do that.
But i think that they don't meet ..
The existence of free will has always been there .... and human being is responsible for his acts .. Determinism can not be versus to the free will
But the actual opposite to free will is the fatalism , here the will is uneffectual.

I'm not sure whether Hoope said this for the same reasons I would, but I must say this is exactly how I see it. The important question is not whether actions are undetermined, other whether in fixed circumstances various different results may be possible (of course neither is true). What matters is 'whether human beings are responsible for their actions'.

I think the answer is 'yes', because by holding people responsible for what they do, one creates a deterrent. A criminal thinks twice about committing a crime if he knows he's expected, by society, to follow the law, and if he gets caught, he'll get prison. So holding people responsible for their actions changes their actions for the greater good of society, and that is all that matters from a purely result-oriented point of view.

There are some restrictions, i.e. if addictions, drugs, or 'false' brain wiring (psychopaths) prevent the individual from 'following one's own interests rationally' then 'free will' (using the definition of 'being responsible') is severely restricted or non-existent.

[paperleaves]

I am in complete agreement with billyjack's statement. From an objective standpoint, I know that appearances are reality. No matter how much it is debated, you can deny reality until you're blue in the face, but you cannot deny the repercussions of reality. Therefore, in your beginning statement, when you state that, "The experience of free will is no more than an appearance", the base of your argument is not dealing in realistic terms.

I am eager to hear your response to this. Thank you!

Sincerely,
Kate

[eric.bell]

From an objective standpoint, I know that appearances are reality.

Though I agree with most everything I have read of you, Kate, I must disagree with you here. Appearances are but a reflection - or shadow type of reality, if you will. True: appearances often enough prove to be the whole reality, but they are quite often misrepresentation, half-truths, facades, et cetera, et cetera...and I am not even speaking of the human appearance; when one starts into that terrain, the individual's argument is built upon shaky ground to say the least.

[swampthing]

Is white america not freedom? Break your back for 60 years then get screwed out of your pension. Thats real modern freedom. Only real freedom comes in a noose or a snog with a gun.

[N.W.Alexander]

God is good

[blazeofglory]

Ignorance is bliss ... believe it

Obviously your correct in that freedom in its definition does not exist but to live your pointless life burdened with this so called knowledge is foolishness. One thing that does exist is happiness in its definition the feeling of joy exists. So pursue that. If you want to think about something stupid , Picture the Earth then the moon and earth together the sun now add all the planets you know about then go to the milky way now ask yourself if you really exist then understand that we are not the only solar system but their could be an infinity of solar systems and you have no clue and no way to prove how you came to be or how the entire universe began

Liberty is set up so that it is as free as humans can be . period . humans cant be perfect neither in thought or in action so they can never be free

It has nothing to do with conditioning it has to do with intuition
Perfection can not be attained; for perfection is a process, a movement, progression, an evolutionary idea. Man has been perfecting since his unicellular stage and now man is a complex creature and his evolution through his primal stage, maybe from his animate and inanimate unicellular form to a multi-cellular form today and perfection goes on increasing

[Dodo25]

Perfection can not be attained; for perfection is a process, a movement, progression, an evolutionary idea. Man has been perfecting since his unicellular stage and now man is a complex creature and his evolution through his primal stage, maybe from his animate and inanimate unicellular form to a multi-cellular form today and perfection goes on increasing

Evolution doesn't strive towards perfection (and man is not the goal of evolution). It's all about adaptation and which genes get pass on the most.

[Lote-Tree]

We don't want freedom. We want love. Glorious love...Triuamphant love...and little bit...

[blazeofglory]

We don't want freedom. We want love. Glorious love...Triuamphant love...and little bit...

Yes you are right, and love is not a complete state of freedom and there is a series of compromises too in love and we cannot totally enjoy freedom or a sense of individuality when we are stung by love. There is a matter of renunciation, a union in love which cannot synchronize with freedom

[BasDirks]

I recommend you consult the literature, your whole argument makes no sense so it is hard to counter it.

[IceM]

Updating my comments here to say that freedom from material needs will probably never be found, but freedom from sin can be found in Christ Jesus.