Free will and hunger

[SpheresOfBalance]

[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

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.[/quote]
No, it's definitely self fellation.

[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?
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.

what people see tomorrow universally as a truth? maybe tomorrow there is no more free will or flat earth, only deterministic scientific models of will and earth? and deterministic logical thinking, or is there better way? unlogical, illogical thinking?

[SpheresOfBalance]

MQ: without logic you have what?
SoB: 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.
MQ: why you are saying that? what is the point saying that? human thinking, logic has limits? so what? is there better way?
SoB: Because I think it's important to note.

MQ: 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?
SoB: 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.
MQ: 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?
SoB: Of that particular time; stage of human development.
MQ: Did people saw universally flat and static earth bs. before science?
SoB: Yes they had that belief.
MQ: Is there any universally seen truths today?
SoB: Yes, of course.
MQ: A truth/knowledge that can never be seen otherwise is tautological truth, without semantics and interpretations?
SoB: My point is that all, so called, truth/knowledge, is not necessarily so.
MQ: How can limited human thinking see actual/absolute truths?
SoB: Trial and error, over time.

MQ: what people see tomorrow universally as a truth? maybe tomorrow there is no more free will or flat earth, only deterministic scientific models of will and earth? and deterministic logical thinking, or is there better way? unlogical, illogical thinking?
OK first, I see that one can use the word, "Universally," to either indicate data that is common amongst all the people, or data that is in concordance with the natural universe. And no doubt, I, like most, probably neglect to specify of which I'm referring, assuming that it is understood, within the particular context, in which it's used.

For instance, I see that the, once believed truth, that the earth was flat, was in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe. At this point some have said that roundness is a human concept and therefor cannot be in concordance with the universe, as the universe is not sentient, and cannot make this distinction. But this way of thinking is false, as it assumes we are the only sentient beings in this universe, and that the universe could not possibly be sentient. While this may seem the case, it cannot be stated with certainty, as our current state of knowledge is not informed enough, so as to make that call. I believe that in addition, people get lost in language, making language first, and that which it refers to second, This is also false, as the thing that language attempts to label, often has preexisted human language, so it's not possible that language comes first. In these cases of non man made things, our language often only approximates their concordance with the universe, only to the extent that our current level of understanding permits, hence flat earths. They believed it was flat, and believed this to be truth, and this, so called,truth was universal in terms of peoples belief, but it was not universal in the sense of being in concordance with the universe, i.e., the laws/physics of the universe.

So when I speak of universal truth, I'm usually speaking of that which actually is in concordance with the universe, despite the state of mankind's current approximation; that which he believes to be true. Unlike some fools belief, that I've encountered, I never speak of any specific universal truth, as if I necessarily know of it, while others don't, I'm always merely speaking of the understanding that I've outlined above, indicating that within the specific topic in question, I see the potential of us not knowing universally (in concordance with the universe).

For instance I see that the truth of: "the earth is spheroid" as being universal, (in concordance with the universe). Remember not to get lost in language, to this I often respond: "A rose by any other name..." assuming that those that know of that saying will understand my point, which is that, the name or concept used by humans to approximate non man made things, has no bearing on the truth of the thing in and of itself. If human kind was instantly vaporized from existence, there would be no labeling in any language, nor conceptualization, but the earth would still be here as it is, despite any particular human distinction. And if you think not, I refer you to fossils and carbon dating as proof of my words.

So yes, I see that logic, 'sound logic,' is one of many tools that humans can use in the quest of finally understanding that which is universal, (in concordance with the universe), truth, thus negating, so called, truth, that is actually only universal belief, held by humans.

This, that I have outlined, is in fact that which has given way to our current state of knowledge, whatever that state may be, universally speaking.

I'm reminded of Socrates: 'I only know that I know nothing'

[Mark Question]

For instance, I see that the, once believed truth, that the earth was flat, was in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe.

free will is universal in terms of the peoples belief, and scientific models of will are more in concordance with the truth of the universe?

[SpheresOfBalance]

For instance, I see that the, once believed truth, that the earth was flat, was in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe.

free will is universal in terms of the peoples belief, and scientific models of will are more in concordance with the truth of the universe?

I disagree. This is probably because I have a different definition of free will than you do.

[Mark Question]

For instance, I see that the, once believed truth, that the earth was flat, was in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe.

free will is universal in terms of the peoples belief, and scientific models of will are more in concordance with the truth of the universe?

I disagree. This is probably because I have a different definition of free will than you do.

or maybe i do not understand how you can make distinction or split what is in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe?
your definition of free will is in concordance with the truth of the universe? do you use science to tell the difference? is your definition of free will how scientific? (i do not have any definition of free will.)

[SpheresOfBalance]

For instance, I see that the, once believed truth, that the earth was flat, was in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe.

free will is universal in terms of the peoples belief, and scientific models of will are more in concordance with the truth of the universe?

I disagree. This is probably because I have a different definition of free will than you do.

or maybe i do not understand how you can make distinction or split what is in fact universal in terms of the peoples belief, but was not in concordance with the truth of the universe?
your definition of free will is in concordance with the truth of the universe? do you use science to tell the difference? is your definition of free will how scientific? (i do not have any definition of free will.)

If one has no definition of what something is, then they cannot speak of it in any meaningful way.
I shall think of a way to make my meaning, as to the term, universal, and how it can be applied, more clear, as it shall take some thought, because I'm surprised that what I've already said thus far, has not made it clear.

[Mark Question]

how do you tell the difference in "universal in terms of the peoples belief" and "in concordance with the truth of the universe"?

"flat earth" is no more universal in terms of the peoples belief today?
what about "round earth" in the future? can we know the future?

i am still seeking good definition for "free will". does it have to be in concordance with the science today? is yours?

what is your definition for "god"?

[SpheresOfBalance]

how do you tell the difference in "universal in terms of the peoples belief" and "in concordance with the truth of the universe"?
Time! As with time comes increased capability/knowledge. When you were 1 year old, did you understand the truth of how birds fly? How old are you now? If now, you read how it's done, would you not understand? Does man not understand, now that he is older, how birds fly? He builds airplanes to fly like birds. He must now know.

When man was 1 years old (cave man) he did not know how to build airplanes, he did not know how birds could fly. Maybe 1 year old man thought it was magic for birds to fly, much like 2 year old man thought earth was flat, now much older, man knows earth is spherical and how birds fly.

When man was younger (less time) he believed that earth was flat and flying bird was magic, these things he believed, were in concordance with the universe, as everyone believed the same thing. But he did not, and could not, at that time, know, that it was only universal, in terms of peoples belief, of that time.

Man is older (more time) He now knows that earth is spherical and that the fact that birds can fly is not magic, because he's sailed around the earth in ships of water, and because he learned that birds can fly, because of low and high pressure below and above their wings, such that he understood how to build ships of space so that he could see the earth was spherical, from above it. Such that now he knows that what he once believed, that earth was flat and that flying birds was magic, was not in concordance with the universe, but was in fact only universal in terms of mans belief, when he was younger. There can be no further knowledge on the horizon for these two things, as the knowledge of them is now definitely universal, i.e., in concordance with the universe.

"flat earth" is no more universal in terms of the peoples belief today?
what about "round earth" in the future? can we know the future?
See Above Text.


i am still seeking good definition for "free will". does it have to be in concordance with the science today? is yours?
As to Free Will, I have said:

So in essence I see that it is false to see this problem in terms of an either/or dichotomy, and that in fact, both being free and being determined is continuously variable, and inversely proportional.

With respect to time/knowledge. Such that when young our will is pretty much determined, but as we grow older and increase our knowledge, it becomes freer, and less determined.

what is your definition for "god"?
First understand that I am agnostic, as I believe that it is currently impossible, for any man to know, with certainty, if there is, or is not, a creator. I hate god, or rather that title, because I see that mankind has cheapened it. So to me the possibility of a 'creator,' is some force that is the casual for all that one could possibly understand, or not understand.

[Mark Question]

how do you tell the difference in "universal in terms of the peoples belief" and "in concordance with the truth of the universe"?
Time! As with time comes increased capability/knowledge. When you were 1 year old, did you understand the truth of how birds fly? How old are you now? If now, you read how it's done, would you not understand? Does man not understand, now that he is older, how birds fly? He builds airplanes to fly like birds. He must now know.

When man was 1 years old (cave man) he did not know how to build airplanes, he did not know how birds could fly. Maybe 1 year old man thought it was magic for birds to fly, much like 2 year old man thought earth was flat, now much older, man knows earth is spherical and how birds fly.

When man was younger (less time) he believed that earth was flat and flying bird was magic, these things he believed, were in concordance with the universe, as everyone believed the same thing. But he did not, and could not, at that time, know, that it was only universal, in terms of peoples belief, of that time.

Man is older (more time) He now knows that earth is spherical and that the fact that birds can fly is not magic, because he's sailed around the earth in ships of water, and because he learned that birds can fly, because of low and high pressure below and above their wings, such that he understood how to build ships of space so that he could see the earth was spherical, from above it. Such that now he knows that what he once believed, that earth was flat and that flying birds was magic, was not in concordance with the universe, but was in fact only universal in terms of mans belief, when he was younger. There can be no further knowledge on the horizon for these two things, as the knowledge of them is now definitely universal, i.e., in concordance with the universe.

"flat earth" is no more universal in terms of the peoples belief today?
what about "round earth" in the future? can we know the future?
See Above Text.


i am still seeking good definition for "free will". does it have to be in concordance with the science today? is yours?
As to Free Will, I have said:

So in essence I see that it is false to see this problem in terms of an either/or dichotomy, and that in fact, both being free and being determined is continuously variable, and inversely proportional.

With respect to time/knowledge. Such that when young our will is pretty much determined, but as we grow older and increase our knowledge, it becomes freer, and less determined.

what is your definition for "god"?
First understand that I am agnostic, as I believe that it is currently impossible, for any man to know, with certainty, if there is, or is not, a creator. I hate god, or rather that title, because I see that mankind has cheapened it. So to me the possibility of a 'creator,' is some force that is the casual for all that one could possibly understand, or not understand.

do you see your dichotomy: peoples belief/universal truth?
Such that when young(cave man) our will is pretty much determined by peoples belief and universal truth, but as we grow older(more time) and increase our knowledge, it becomes more determined by universal truth and less by peoples belief?

what you say here: "Such that when young our will is pretty much determined, but as we grow older and increase our knowledge, it becomes freer, and less determined"?
it becomes freer and less determined from universal truth, universal laws, rational and logical thinking and more accurate knowledge?

your definition for "god" can be some others definition for "free will" too?

[SpheresOfBalance]

how do you tell the difference in "universal in terms of the peoples belief" and "in concordance with the truth of the universe"?

Time! As with time comes increased capability/knowledge. When you were 1 year old, did you understand the truth of how birds fly? How old are you now? If now, you read how it's done, would you not understand? Does man not understand, now that he is older, how birds fly? He builds airplanes to fly like birds. He must now know.

When man was 1 years old (cave man) he did not know how to build airplanes, he did not know how birds could fly. Maybe 1 year old man thought it was magic for birds to fly, much like 2 year old man thought earth was flat, now much older, man knows earth is spherical and how birds fly.

When man was younger (less time) he believed that earth was flat and flying bird was magic, these things he believed, were in concordance with the universe, as everyone believed the same thing. But he did not, and could not, at that time, know, that it was only universal, in terms of peoples belief, of that time.

Man is older (more time) He now knows that earth is spherical and that the fact that birds can fly is not magic, because he's sailed around the earth in ships of water, and because he learned that birds can fly, because of low and high pressure below and above their wings, such that he understood how to build ships of space so that he could see the earth was spherical, from above it. Such that now he knows that what he once believed, that earth was flat and that flying birds was magic, was not in concordance with the universe, but was in fact only universal in terms of mans belief, when he was younger. There can be no further knowledge on the horizon for these two things, as the knowledge of them is now definitely universal, i.e., in concordance with the universe.

"flat earth" is no more universal in terms of the peoples belief today?
what about "round earth" in the future? can we know the future?

See Above Text.

i am still seeking good definition for "free will". does it have to be in concordance with the science today? is yours?

As to Free Will, I have said:
"So in essence I see that it is false to see this problem in terms of an either/or dichotomy, and that in fact, both being free and being determined is continuously variable, and inversely proportional."
With respect to time/knowledge. Such that when young our will is pretty much determined, but as we grow older and increase our knowledge, it becomes freer, and less determined.

what is your definition for "god"?
First understand that I am agnostic, as I believe that it is currently impossible, for any man to know, with certainty, if there is, or is not, a creator. I hate god, or rather that title, because I see that mankind has cheapened it. So to me the possibility of a 'creator,' is some force that is the casual for all that one could possibly understand, or not understand.

do you see your dichotomy: peoples belief/universal truth?
Such that when young(cave man) our will is pretty much determined by peoples belief and universal truth, but as we grow older(more time) and increase our knowledge, it becomes more determined by universal truth and less by peoples belief?
I said it was not an either/or dichotomy. I see that our free will is continuously variable, from a determined, to a freer state, but the laws of physic's shall always determine that of the universe, unless it's physics changes as well. Your vision of freedom seems to be unreal, that of a superman, not in concordance with the universe. It is bound by what it is, in being physically human, at any given point in time. You seemingly want it 'all' NOW! You cannot have it 'all' now. But think how lucky you are as to free will, that you weren't born hundreds of thousands of years ago, then, you'd relatively have none.

what you say here: "Such that when young our will is pretty much determined, but as we grow older and increase our knowledge, it becomes freer, and less determined"?
it becomes freer and less determined from universal truth, universal laws, rational and logical thinking and more accurate knowledge?
I see that it's ridiculous to see universal truth/laws (those that are of concordance with the whole of the universe) as deterministic. Of course they are, but it's unlikely that humans shall be anything more than what the universe allows, in the "NOW." Maybe sometime in the distant future, the universe shall change, and us along with it. Then anything, though different to the current 'now' of the universe, would be bound by the physics of that new 'now.' So I see that through rational and logical thinking, (trial and error), we increase in a more accurate knowledge, that is coming into concordance with the universal truth/laws, which frees us from the determinism of mans beliefs, that are not in concordance with the universal truth/laws.

I do not fear the determinism of the universe, as it's as it should be, I only fear the determinism of mans belief's, as they usually are of selfish agenda, and just plain wrong.

I can see that some peoples vision of free will, leaves them nothing, as this is what one gets, when nothing is determined.

your definition for "god" can be some others definition for "free will" too?
I'll take your word for it, because largely I see the Universe as the creator, one way or the other, i.e., we either came into being via the universe, intelligently, or not. Something does not have to be 'created,' necessarily of intent.

[Mark Question]

I do not fear the determinism of the universe, as it's as it should be, I only fear the determinism of mans belief's, as they usually are of selfish agenda, and just plain wrong.

golden cage is better cage for the free bird? modern prison is now the best prison for free people?
what is freedom under determinism of the universe? are autonomous robots free? is lottery machine free?
schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills"?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I do not fear the determinism of the universe, as it's as it should be, I only fear the determinism of mans belief's, as they usually are of selfish agenda, and just plain wrong.

golden cage is better cage for the free bird? modern prison is now the best prison for free people?
what is freedom under determinism of the universe? are autonomous robots free? is lottery machine free?
schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills"?

I don't think you understand me, I say again:

I can see that some peoples vision of free will, leaves them nothing, as this is what one gets, when nothing is determined.

Also:

the laws of physic's shall always determine that of the universe.

You see, the way I see it, those that try and say we don't have free will, because it's determined by the universe, are foolish dreamers, that see freedom as something super, beyond imagination. They would seem to believe that just because they can't live in a thought, as pure energy, that somehow their freedom is an illusion, but they are wrong. To physically be at all is determined by the universe, but as to mind...

Take your pick from the following:
will2 [wil] noun, verb, willed, will·ing.
noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.
8. Law.
a. a legal declaration of a person's wishes as to the disposition of his or her property or estate after death, usually written and signed by the testator and attested by witnesses.
b. the document containing such a declaration.
verb (used with object)
9. to decide, bring about, or attempt to effect or bring about by an act of the will: He can walk if he wills it.
10. to purpose, determine on, or elect, by an act of will: If he wills success, he can find it.
11. to give or dispose of (property) by a will or testament; bequeath or devise.
12. to influence by exerting will power: She was willed to walk the tightrope by the hypnotist.
verb (used without object)
13. to exercise the will: To will is not enough, one must do.
14. to decide or determine: Others debate, but the king wills.
Idioms
15. at will,
a. at one's discretion or pleasure; as one desires: to wander at will through the countryside.
b. at one's disposal or command.

I see free will as def 1 above. So in this case I think Schopenhauer had his head up his ass, as I see that understanding and having knowledge of the mind allows it.

[Mark Question]

I can see that some peoples vision of free will, leaves them nothing, as this is what one gets, when nothing is determined.

the laws of physic's shall always determine that of the universe.

To physically be at all is determined by the universe, but as to mind...

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.

if the universe is everything and the universe is determined, everything is determined?

what is human mind if not from physical world? where is the mind without brain, society, language, surviving,..? are zombies free minded?

how you control your mind, if not using brains, food and survived human languages?
are you not part of the universe?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I can see that some peoples vision of free will, leaves them nothing, as this is what one gets, when nothing is determined.

the laws of physic's shall always determine that of the universe.

To physically be at all is determined by the universe, but as to mind...

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.

if the universe is everything and the universe is determined, everything is determined?

what is human mind if not from physical world? where is the mind without brain, society, language, surviving,..? are zombies free minded?

how you control your mind, if not using brains, food and survived human languages?
are you not part of the universe?

The point being, that to see the definition of freedom, as it pertains to free will, as anything beyond, the deterministic nature of the universe, is absurd, ridiculous, childish, uneducated. You and others, look to the impossible to see free will, which then makes a mockery of your vision.

I see that free will, as it pertains to man, is the freedom of will WITHIN and BOUND by the constraints of what it is in PHYSICALLY being a human. Which means that as to the mind, within these physical constraints, lies the TRUE sense of freedom of will. Anything else is the nonsense of children or the crazy.

Within this freedom of will that I have outlined, one can use knowledge to change ones will to suit their own needs, such that anything that's physically possible, any man can will himself to do, understand, acknowledge, etc. He has that freedom. It just takes a little time, as it's not as instantaneous as he might prefer.