cacian
09-11-2012, 03:15 AM
I imagined free will to be a reaction to an action therefore free has nothing to do with it.
A bit like a rash. The skin condition is because of anoutside agent. The skin's reaction is because of the unknown ie the skin does not recognise the chemical.
This leads to the conclusion that everything we do is as a result of what we know or don't know.
The question here is this:
If we take free will as a parameter then one must back it up free speech to show that a free willed does speak freely and without constraint. How effective is free speech when the receptors of such speech do not comprehend or agree or recognise what is being said?
Here is an experiment
Take an adult and a child and let them watch a programm that both are interested in let say a comic like Shrek because it appeals to both ages.
Then ask them to give a list of the buzz words they remember from the programm.
a) What would the outcome be?
Conclusive or different?
b)Who is more likely to be less free willed a child or an adult and how?
A bit like a rash. The skin condition is because of anoutside agent. The skin's reaction is because of the unknown ie the skin does not recognise the chemical.
This leads to the conclusion that everything we do is as a result of what we know or don't know.
The question here is this:
If we take free will as a parameter then one must back it up free speech to show that a free willed does speak freely and without constraint. How effective is free speech when the receptors of such speech do not comprehend or agree or recognise what is being said?
Here is an experiment
Take an adult and a child and let them watch a programm that both are interested in let say a comic like Shrek because it appeals to both ages.
Then ask them to give a list of the buzz words they remember from the programm.
a) What would the outcome be?
Conclusive or different?
b)Who is more likely to be less free willed a child or an adult and how?