Free will and hunger

[Mark Question]

many days has gone. many places and situations. many things has happened. many people and drinking games. i am afraid i was very drunk.

Mark Q: is there any reason why they do?
I can't speak for everyone, but I see that they do it so as to know. They reason that to be the ultimate human, king of the animals, via tools, that were invented because of what we have come to know, knowledge is the key element, that makes us more capable, successful, and thus live longer, the most desired attribute of all life, to stay death for even a second longer. At least I see this as the crux of the matter. And of course to know in truth, what it is, in being human, at our fullest potential, which requires knowledge of everything, that it is, in being a human, born of this universe.

knowledge is also the reason? knowledge also determines our choices?:

Mark Q: that is the question. am i free to seek knowledge, or is there always reasons and causes causing me to do so?
You make distinctions, where I see there are none, you and your reason are one in the same thing, and causes, if you are referring to those internal to the being, are again, the same as you, to reiterate, ones relative level of knowledge, yields their relative level of reason, internal conflict, thus these internal causes, all of which are you, that only you have the ability to reconcile, by expanding your knowledge of self, which encompasses the entire universe, of which you're born.

do you see one causal universe, determined changes in one entire living being? everything affects everything if they are the same one?

Mark Q: and this new knowledge is coherent with scientific knowledge?
I see that science is the most accurate implementation of the seeking of knowledge, that mankind has ever used before, and was, of course, a product of our knowledge. Of course I see that science is ever changing, keeping up with our current state of knowledge, thus one of the main reasons why it is the best, yet, method, that man has, to work at understanding himself fully.

free will is coherent with scientific knowledge? or more coherent than determined will?

Mark Q: and that philosophy is coherent with scientific knowledge?
As far as I'm concerned, yes, as philosophy is the father of all science, again, as scientific inquiry is the most pure (accurate) method we have ever used to understand the universal truth of things. Remember that science is ever evolving, in pace with current human abilities (evolving). The only time a specific bit of it remains fixed, is when we have decided that it is in fact unwavering knowledge, or while we are presently incapable of furthering it's evolution, or lastly, if no one is actively pushing it's boundaries.

and philosophy of free will is more coherent with scientific knowledge than philosophy of determined will?
are philosophical and scientific theories logically determined or logic-free theories?
is model of will always logically determined model of will? is will always determined in our models?

[SpheresOfBalance]

many days has gone. many places and situations. many things has happened. many people and drinking games. i am afraid i was very drunk.

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed yourself.

Mark Q: is there any reason why they do?
I can't speak for everyone, but I see that they do it so as to know. They reason that to be the ultimate human, king of the animals, via tools, that were invented because of what we have come to know, knowledge is the key element, that makes us more capable, successful, and thus live longer, the most desired attribute of all life, to stay death for even a second longer. At least I see this as the crux of the matter. And of course to know in truth, what it is, in being human, at our fullest potential, which requires knowledge of everything, that it is, in being a human, born of this universe.

knowledge is also the reason? knowledge also determines our choices?:
I see that ones' knowledge determines everything, about them, yet knowledge is a choice, such that the self ultimately determines, hence free will. Free will is just the ability to rummage through all the, so called, knowledge that there is, and find what is correct/accurate for any given human's self.

Mark Q: that is the question. am i free to seek knowledge, or is there always reasons and causes causing me to do so?
You make distinctions, where I see there are none, you and your reason are one in the same thing, and causes, if you are referring to those internal to the being, are again, the same as you, to reiterate, ones relative level of knowledge, yields their relative level of reason, internal conflict, thus these internal causes, all of which are you, that only you have the ability to reconcile, by expanding your knowledge of self, which encompasses the entire universe, of which you're born.

do you see one causal universe, determined changes in one entire living being? everything affects everything if they are the same one?
Yes, but the sequence, intensity, and longevity of individual experience is the varying factor between us all, hence the need for each to rummage through the wreckage (knowledge)(beliefs)(experience of random sequence) to reconcile misconceptions that are negating free will, so as to become clear, as free of will as humanly possible.

Mark Q: and this new knowledge is coherent with scientific knowledge?
I see that science is the most accurate implementation of the seeking of knowledge, that mankind has ever used before, and was, of course, a product of our knowledge. Of course I see that science is ever changing, keeping up with our current state of knowledge, thus one of the main reasons why it is the best, yet, method, that man has, to work at understanding himself fully.

free will is coherent with scientific knowledge? or more coherent than determined will?
I see that of all discourse, that of a scientific nature, has the most pure motivation. I see free will as a means for one to be free of the human oppression that is found in the dictation of the personal perspectives of those that only see that their ways are right. Largely, ones will is more determined, when they are young, and have no knowledge. But as one seeks and finds the truth of the universe, of which they are truly born, their free will is ever so proportionately increased, but of course, only to the extent, of what it is, in being human.

Mark Q: and that philosophy is coherent with scientific knowledge?
As far as I'm concerned, yes, as philosophy is the father of all science, again, as scientific inquiry is the most pure (accurate) method we have ever used to understand the universal truth of things. Remember that science is ever evolving, in pace with current human abilities (evolving). The only time a specific bit of it remains fixed, is when we have decided that it is in fact unwavering knowledge, or while we are presently incapable of furthering it's evolution, or lastly, if no one is actively pushing it's boundaries.

and philosophy of free will is more coherent with scientific knowledge than philosophy of determined will?
I see that both are coherent as both have places in human development. Free will is that which allows for mankind to pursue scientific knowledge, so as he can learn of that which determines the constraints of what it is in being human.

are philosophical and scientific theories logically determined or logic-free theories?
Of course that would depend on the theory in question, but I would hope that they are logically determined via a logically free will.

is model of will always logically determined model of will? is will always determined in our models?
A model is a representation of something real and as such can have errors that are not present in reality, but as I said before, I would hope that any models be determined logically, by a logically free will.

[Mark Question]

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed yourself.

all night i heard people singing they are champignons and they will rock me. then i met a serial killer in hotels breakfast room. she had a waste of time and came from liverpool. seeking waterloo. later some police wanted to twist and shout with me. then i had to freeze. which was nice.

knowledge is also the reason? knowledge also determines our choices?:
I see that ones' knowledge determines everything, about them, yet knowledge is a choice, such that the self ultimately determines, hence free will. Free will is just the ability to rummage through all the, so called, knowledge that there is, and find what is correct/accurate for any given human's self.

knowledge determines everything? knowledge determines also what is will, what are choices and what to choose?

do you see one causal universe, determined changes in one entire living being? everything affects everything if they are the same one?
Yes, but the sequence, intensity, and longevity of individual experience is the varying factor between us all, hence the need for each to rummage through the wreckage (knowledge)(beliefs)(experience of random sequence) to reconcile misconceptions that are negating free will, so as to become clear, as free of will as humanly possible.

as free as possible from one causal universe, world?

free will is coherent with scientific knowledge? or more coherent than determined will?
I see that of all discourse, that of a scientific nature, has the most pure motivation. I see free will as a means for one to be free of the human oppression that is found in the dictation of the personal perspectives of those that only see that their ways are right. Largely, ones will is more determined, when they are young, and have no knowledge. But as one seeks and finds the truth of the universe, of which they are truly born, their free will is ever so proportionately increased, but of course, only to the extent, of what it is, in being human.

do you see free will as a means for one to be free of the dictation of the scientific knowledge?
free will is more free from the truths of the causal universe?

and philosophy of free will is more coherent with scientific knowledge than philosophy of determined will?
I see that both are coherent as both have places in human development. Free will is that which allows for mankind to pursue scientific knowledge, so as he can learn of that which determines the constraints of what it is in being human.

are philosophical and scientific theories logically determined or logic-free theories?
Of course that would depend on the theory in question, but I would hope that they are logically determined via a logically free will.

is model of will always logically determined model of will? is will always determined in our models?
A model is a representation of something real and as such can have errors that are not present in reality, but as I said before, I would hope that any models be determined logically, by a logically free will.

how philosophy of free will can pursue determined logical models of scientific knowledge more coherent than philosophy of determined will?

what is "logically free"? an oxymoron?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed yourself.

all night i heard people singing they are champignons and they will rock me. then i met a serial killer in hotels breakfast room. she had a waste of time and came from liverpool. seeking waterloo. later some police wanted to twist and shout with me. then i had to freeze. which was nice.
This sounds like either a crazy night or one filled with presumption.

knowledge is also the reason? knowledge also determines our choices?:
I see that ones' knowledge determines everything, about them, yet knowledge is a choice, such that the self ultimately determines, hence free will. Free will is just the ability to rummage through all the, so called, knowledge that there is, and find what is correct/accurate for any given human's self.

knowledge determines everything? knowledge determines also what is will, what are choices and what to choose?

do you see one causal universe, determined changes in one entire living being? everything affects everything if they are the same one?
Yes, but the sequence, intensity, and longevity of individual experience is the varying factor between us all, hence the need for each to rummage through the wreckage (knowledge)(beliefs)(experience of random sequence) to reconcile misconceptions that are negating free will, so as to become clear, as free of will as humanly possible.

as free as possible from one causal universe, world?

free will is coherent with scientific knowledge? or more coherent than determined will?
I see that of all discourse, that of a scientific nature, has the most pure motivation. I see free will as a means for one to be free of the human oppression that is found in the dictation of the personal perspectives of those that only see that their ways are right. Largely, ones will is more determined, when they are young, and have no knowledge. But as one seeks and finds the truth of the universe, of which they are truly born, their free will is ever so proportionately increased, but of course, only to the extent, of what it is, in being human.

do you see free will as a means for one to be free of the dictation of the scientific knowledge?
free will is more free from the truths of the causal universe?

and philosophy of free will is more coherent with scientific knowledge than philosophy of determined will?
I see that both are coherent as both have places in human development. Free will is that which allows for mankind to pursue scientific knowledge, so as he can learn of that which determines the constraints of what it is in being human.

are philosophical and scientific theories logically determined or logic-free theories?
Of course that would depend on the theory in question, but I would hope that they are logically determined via a logically free will.

is model of will always logically determined model of will? is will always determined in our models?
A model is a representation of something real and as such can have errors that are not present in reality, but as I said before, I would hope that any models be determined logically, by a logically free will.

how philosophy of free will can pursue determined logical models of scientific knowledge more coherent than philosophy of determined will?

what is "logically free"? an oxymoron?

I see that you think that 'mans truth' is necessarily static, but I see that any particular, so called, truth, is not necessarily actually true; it is not static!

Socrates: 'I only know that, I know nothing.'

The trick is to find truth that is static. One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, is that of universality. If one finds a truth that is seen universally, then one can be relatively confident, that it is in fact true knowledge; that which is in fact static. A combination of many man-made concepts may be employed to arrive at such a thing, but the true test is that of universality, as the universe is in fact the true arena, of which, everything has been born. I see, that it is the number one truth bearer.

[Mark Question]

I see that you think that 'mans truth' is necessarily static, but I see that any particular, so called, truth, is not necessarily actually true; it is not static!

Socrates: 'I only know that, I know nothing.'

The trick is to find truth that is static. One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, is that of universality. If one finds a truth that is seen universally, then one can be relatively confident, that it is in fact true knowledge; that which is in fact static. A combination of many man-made concepts may be employed to arrive at such a thing, but the true test is that of universality, as the universe is in fact the true arena, of which, everything has been born. I see, that it is the number one truth bearer.

i only ask what to think and what to see in this free will. maybe logical is what i seek in answers, not static.

if people see universally that earth is not moving and spinning under they feet?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see that you think that 'mans truth' is necessarily static, but I see that any particular, so called, truth, is not necessarily actually true; it is not static!

Socrates: 'I only know that, I know nothing.'

The trick is to find truth that is static. One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, is that of universality. If one finds a truth that is seen universally, then one can be relatively confident, that it is in fact true knowledge; that which is in fact static. A combination of many man-made concepts may be employed to arrive at such a thing, but the true test is that of universality, as the universe is in fact the true arena, of which, everything has been born. I see, that it is the number one truth bearer.

i only ask what to think and what to see in this free will. maybe logical is what i seek in answers, not static.
I see that all real truth is static.
I'm saying that not all, so called, logic, is necessarily sound.

if people see universally that earth is not moving and spinning under they feet?
I seem to be incapable of finding the point contained within these words, care to elaborate.

[james1951]

How can we have free will and experience hunger?

All living things are coerced into doing things by hunger, hunger is painful and cannot be ignored. Even the most intelligent human will, when hungry, think only of acquiring food. Our actions are governed by hunger, thirst, tiredness, the need for sex etc. These are fundamental 'needs', such as those in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. All of these needs cause discomfort when not addressed. How can anyone experience these needs and still maintain that we have free will?

Humans are capable of resisting these needs, such as resisting hunger when dieting. However this resistance is caused by a greater need, perhaps the need to be accepted or find a mate.

I conclude that all human actions are caused by human needs. Therefore we have no free will, we are simply machines waiting for our need for 'x' to reach a certain level at which point we must address it.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

what about that great quote "Give me liberty or give me death."?
What about those who have starved to death for freedom's sake?

our needs are our CHOICE we can choose to not have a mate and give our lives to a greater service to humanity.
we can CHOOSE to have many mates and give our lives to go forth and multiply.

we do NOT have to address our needs at all. that is our choice.
suicide is a human choice.
their may be animals with a lemming urge, probably purely instinctual but how many animals actually get to CHOOSE whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to arms against them and make our quietus with a bare bodkin?

[james1951]

How can we have free will and experience hunger?

All living things are coerced into doing things by hunger, hunger is painful and cannot be ignored. Even the most intelligent human will, when hungry, think only of acquiring food. Our actions are governed by hunger, thirst, tiredness, the need for sex etc. These are fundamental 'needs', such as those in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. All of these needs cause discomfort when not addressed. How can anyone experience these needs and still maintain that we have free will?

Humans are capable of resisting these needs, such as resisting hunger when dieting. However this resistance is caused by a greater need, perhaps the need to be accepted or find a mate.

I conclude that all human actions are caused by human needs. Therefore we have no free will, we are simply machines waiting for our need for 'x' to reach a certain level at which point we must address it.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

We are human, as such we have human free will. An animal that flies has the free will to fly, one that swims has the free will to swim. I would like to spread my arms, and fly around the cosmos, but I do not consider, that I do not have free will, just because humans can't fly. Obviously, free will can only be found within the constraints of the entity in question.

The real area of consideration, as to any humans ability/inability to experience true human free will, rests with knowledge, and oppression.

as I glance over this response my eyes read "The real area of constipation"

hunger and constipation and free will .. aye there's the rub

[SpheresOfBalance]

How can we have free will and experience hunger?

All living things are coerced into doing things by hunger, hunger is painful and cannot be ignored. Even the most intelligent human will, when hungry, think only of acquiring food. Our actions are governed by hunger, thirst, tiredness, the need for sex etc. These are fundamental 'needs', such as those in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. All of these needs cause discomfort when not addressed. How can anyone experience these needs and still maintain that we have free will?

Humans are capable of resisting these needs, such as resisting hunger when dieting. However this resistance is caused by a greater need, perhaps the need to be accepted or find a mate.

I conclude that all human actions are caused by human needs. Therefore we have no free will, we are simply machines waiting for our need for 'x' to reach a certain level at which point we must address it.

What are your thoughts on this theory?

We are human, as such we have human free will. An animal that flies has the free will to fly, one that swims has the free will to swim. I would like to spread my arms, and fly around the cosmos, but I do not consider, that I do not have free will, just because humans can't fly. Obviously, free will can only be found within the constraints of the entity in question.

The real area of consideration, as to any humans ability/inability to experience true human free will, rests with knowledge, and oppression.

as I glance over this response my eyes read "The real area of constipation"

hunger and constipation and free will .. aye there's the rub

Maybe you need to see an optometrist, or psychologist, maybe... What do you think is the object of your inability?

[Mark Question]

I see that all real truth is static.
I'm saying that not all, so called, logic, is necessarily sound.

if people see universally that earth is not moving and spinning under they feet?
I seem to be incapable of finding the point contained within these words, care to elaborate.

without logic you have what?

One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, was that of universality of flat earth? another universality was static earth, not 107 000 km/h earth?

[Mark Question]

what about that great quote "Give me liberty or give me death."?
What about those who have starved to death for freedom's sake?

our needs are our CHOICE we can choose to not have a mate and give our lives to a greater service to humanity.
we can CHOOSE to have many mates and give our lives to go forth and multiply.

we do NOT have to address our needs at all. that is our choice.
suicide is a human choice.
their may be animals with a lemming urge, probably purely instinctual but how many animals actually get to CHOOSE whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to arms against them and make our quietus with a bare bodkin?

what about that great quote "in god we trust"?
did slaves in the americas history knew that great quote too?
what about those martyrs of god or allah, for gods sake?

can we choose or do we have to choose? does "we can" mean "we dont have to" or "we are able"? if we dont have to choose, then we have to choose or not to choose, that is the question? or are we not conscious agents, aware of what we are doing, dont we know what we are doing, are we animals with a lemming urge? If you p**** us with a pin, don’t we choose to bleed? If you tickle us, don’t we choose to laugh? If you poison us, don’t we choose to die?please, explain what you mean by "we can choose"?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see that all real truth is static.
I'm saying that not all, so called, logic, is necessarily sound.

if people see universally that earth is not moving and spinning under they feet?
I seem to be incapable of finding the point contained within these words, care to elaborate.

without logic you have what?
I'm just saying that logic can be in error, or more exactly, that the user of logic can be in error, but may believe that his solution is sound, because he believes he used logic effectively.
One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, was that of universality of flat earth? another universality was static earth, not 107 000 km/h earth?
When I use the word static I mean a truth/knowledge that can never be seen otherwise, I used it the same as I would actual, or absolute. The reason I make that distinction, is because of your example, of a flat earth, man once saw that as truth/knowledge, when in fact it wasn't. It was merely believed to be truth/knowledge. In fact, that so called, truth/knowledge, was not actual/absolute/static, in the end it turned out to be only a belief, that many bought into, which is also my point with logic.

[Mark Question]

without logic you have what?
I'm just saying that logic can be in error, or more exactly, that the user of logic can be in error, but may believe that his solution is sound, because he believes he used logic effectively.

why you are saying that? what is the point saying that? human thinking, logic has limits? so what? is there better way?

One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, was that of universality of flat earth? another universality was static earth, not 107 000 km/h earth?
When I use the word static I mean a truth/knowledge that can never be seen otherwise, I used it the same as I would actual, or absolute. The reason I make that distinction, is because of your example, of a flat earth, man once saw that as truth/knowledge, when in fact it wasn't. It was merely believed to be truth/knowledge. In fact, that so called, truth/knowledge, was not actual/absolute/static, in the end it turned out to be only a belief, that many bought into, which is also my point with logic.

If one finds a truth that is seen universally, then one can be relatively confident, that it is in fact true knowledge; that which is in fact static? did people saw universally flat and static earth bs. before science? is there any universally seen truths today?
a truth/knowledge that can never be seen otherwise is tautological truth, without semantics and interpretations?
how can limited human thinking see actual/absolute truths?

[SpheresOfBalance]

without logic you have what?
I'm just saying that logic can be in error, or more exactly, that the user of logic can be in error, but may believe that his solution is sound, because he believes he used logic effectively.

why you are saying that? what is the point saying that? human thinking, logic has limits? so what? is there better way?
Because I think it's important to note.

One truth bearer, ensuring one understands that which is static, was that of universality of flat earth? another universality was static earth, not 107 000 km/h earth?
When I use the word static I mean a truth/knowledge that can never be seen otherwise, I used it the same as I would actual, or absolute. The reason I make that distinction, is because of your example, of a flat earth, man once saw that as truth/knowledge, when in fact it wasn't. It was merely believed to be truth/knowledge. In fact, that so called, truth/knowledge, was not actual/absolute/static, in the end it turned out to be only a belief, that many bought into, which is also my point with logic.

If one finds a truth that is seen universally, then one can be relatively confident, that it is in fact true knowledge; that which is in fact static?
Of that particular time; stage of human development.

Did people saw universally flat and static earth bs. before science?
Yes they had that belief.

Is there any universally seen truths today?
Yes, of course.

A truth/knowledge that can never be seen otherwise is tautological truth, without semantics and interpretations?
My point is that all, so called, truth/knowledge, is not necessarily so.

How can limited human thinking see actual/absolute truths?
Trial and error, over time.

[james1951]

[quote="james1951.

as I glance over this response my eyes read "The real area of constipation"

hunger and constipation and free will .. aye there's the rub[/quote]
Maybe you need to see an optometrist, or psychologist, maybe... What do you think is the object of your inability?[/quote]

maybe it was something I ate... perhaps a dietitian or nutritionist could be called for.