How could we be free when we are chained to bodies?

[RCSaunders]

We are embodied. There are no chains.
The only freedom from our bodies is death.

That's right. The only freedom that matters is the freedom to use our bodies as we choose. Our life exists as the attribute of our bodies as living organisms, and our conscious minds exist as attributes of our life, so without the body, there is nothing, no life, no mind, no freedom.

So you believe that you are free given the fact that your body acts based on laws of nature? How do you know that there is life after death? Have you ever been dead? Have you ever talked with the dead?

NO! I know I'm free because I consciously choose what I do with my body. Except of the autonomic nervous system, endocrine system, reflexes and strictly biological functions, my body does nothing unless I consciously choose to act.

Perhaps you are not conscious or your behavior is determined by something other than you own conscious choice, but mine isn't. If that's not your experience I'm sorry for you, but you'll just have to take my word for it that it is my experience.

[Sculptor]

What do you mean?


Of course, there are. Don't you believe in the laws of nature?


So you are a robot. Can't you choose what you don't like?

Nothing you say makes sense.

They will make sense.

Robots are not alive, so cannot die.

I mean robot in the sense that you are not free.

please demonstrate the chains, and how you think you can lose them.

Do you believe in the laws of nature? If yes, then it means that your material body function according to the laws of nature. The laws of nature however are deterministic meaning that given one state of affair you always get a unique state of affair afterward. These laws make a one-to-one correspondence between one state of affairs and another one. In the real world, there are however cases in which we face options. That is when the system cannot evolve any further and a decision is required to be made, in other words, the system halts. Why? Because there are at least two options available in such a situation and laws of nature are determined meaning the system can only evolve according to laws of nature when there is a chain of causality, the chain of causality being, a set of states of affairs which one state uniquely defines another state of affair. Of course, it must be clear that a system that follows the laws of nature cannot evolve further when there are options available. In real life, we can overcome halt problem by making a decision. The decision however cannot be due to the body since the body act according to the laws of nature. That is when the free mind intervenes and resolves the conflict of interest in the options so we can choose one option and move along.

Without your body you are free to do nothing.
Without your body you are dead.
I've no need to believe in the laws of nature; I accept what can be known about the universe I never resort to "belief".
Belief is thinking a thing is so, but not having anything to back it up.
So what are these chains?
You still have said nothing about them

[bahman]

Thank you, for your response.

A general outlook, on history, is satisfaction through inversion. Inversion, is meeting the end without having to go through the means. Now, assuming that throughout history, living matter has not been able to accommodate the origins of creation, meaning that the make-up of biological life's framework was too funny to be accepted, it's a rational exposure of history that living matter conducted an impossible trade of identities, in order to stop the environment from explaining the origin of creation.

Ten years ago, around 2011 and 2012, I was heading out to my local woodland, near 4 Woodhall Road; the image, of the sun that defined my view was just over the fence, of houses that bordered the woodland.

Sometimes, performing the hand raise was terrifying, others it was second nature.

Let's deconstruct that last statement:
the macro projection, of attribute onto the experience is the benefit of reflection.

The macro projection: its meaning, is that the trade of identities framework which underpins all nature is able to have an audience.

I said previously, that sunlight had sent physics and philosophy to me. They've come in the form of deity identities. And I spend each day performing a new brave act - analysing the murder of myself.

It may be a false interpretation, of what has happened. Maybe sunlight had nothing to do with the sending, though the sending has definitely happened.
It does make sense, however. At least in the context of biological creation's inability to be accounted for being the meaning of the environment's battle with living matter.

Speaking of battle, I have a friend, Alex Cross.
In general, I believe that I have a relay magic system, within my interior. For a time, I would listen to music, and constantly relay Alex Cross's press conference stare at Kate McTiernan, from Kiss the Girls (to Shelia Mite's wonder).
Perhaps, the trade of identities impossibility, if stabilized through the certification, of the hand raise gesture to the sun, can mean that Morgan Freeman's ghost version of Alex Cross can be a real entity from before the ages of the universe.

It seems to me that you had a spiritual experience which is kinda weird to me. I however don't understand the relation between your experience and the topic under discussion. It would be nice of you to elaborate.

First, I want to say that your first sentence is nice. The addition of weird to me is a fast addition.

My disposition, right now in the universe, is that I am under the influence. By demonic forces. The reason, why I say demonic forces, is because of the principle of the level playing field not being used by the forces in question. But then, what is the level playing field?

We are all under the possession of spiritual beings. They are mostly silent so most people are not aware of them. What is the level playing field?

The LPF, is entailing the same consequence, from the identical trade. The forces that govern me, are able to understand my inspiration, yet they don't have to entail the same consequence.

Yes, they can read your mind but you cannot read theirs.

After May 28th, of this year, the universe will have undergone a radical shift; again, I need you to take a leap of faith with me.

How do you know? Did they tell you?

After May 28th, it is my hope, that metaphor intelligence becomes accessible.

I was told that they know everything. Perhaps they open up and tell us the truth.

From the previous publication, of my discourse with you, I have spoken to the forces that govern me. I addressed the past, the history between myself and them. In particular, I addressed The House of Bley. Is it a fictional house?

What is the House of Bley?

Irrespective, of whether it's a fictional house, the issue and theme of the house stands. Which is the issue of body creation.

So you believe that the House of Bley is a body of a person?

In today's reality, of Earth, people have the science of body but not the philosophy of body. Granted, a general diagnosis, but a logical follow-up to the context of the House of Bley.

You asked, about the topic of hand. Being chained to bodies.
It's the fact of history, of both the universe's history and pre-universe history that body creation matters. And not because of evolution.
In general, it's my disposition, in the universe, that the forces that govern me are interested in the outcome of the body creation debate.

I myself am interested, in the symmetry framework of mysteries. The mystery of words, of technology and living matter. Now, whether that was how I was able to routinely put my hand up to the sun, is a mystery.

The forces, that govern me are ostensibly interested in the who owns materialism debate? Which makes sense. Materialism is to be used by living matter, but it is non-living matter. Ergo the debate-system.

My general philosophy, about humanity in the modern era, is that people are supposed to be assembly-owners. And by assembly, I mean the framework of mysteries.

People are supposed to be owners, of the macro data puzzle, to give one example, which is an assembly-construct in which any final frame of data is indecipherable.

What is it, the construct of me asking you to take a leap of faith with me?

Does this construct have a voice? Does it have a visual? Can it itself raise its hand to the sun?

For Samantha Worzeil.

Ok. Who is Sanabtha Worzeil?

[bahman]

That's right. The only freedom that matters is the freedom to use our bodies as we choose. Our life exists as the attribute of our bodies as living organisms, and our conscious minds exist as attributes of our life, so without the body, there is nothing, no life, no mind, no freedom.

So you believe that you are free given the fact that your body acts based on laws of nature? How do you know that there is life after death? Have you ever been dead? Have you ever talked with the dead?

NO! I know I'm free because I consciously choose what I do with my body. Except of the autonomic nervous system, endocrine system, reflexes and strictly biological functions, my body does nothing unless I consciously choose to act.

Perhaps you are not conscious or your behavior is determined by something other than you own conscious choice, but mine isn't. If that's not your experience I'm sorry for you, but you'll just have to take my word for it that it is my experience.

I am a conscious person. My question is how you could be free when your body follows the laws of nature?

[bahman]

Nothing you say makes sense.

They will make sense.

Robots are not alive, so cannot die.

I mean robot in the sense that you are not free.

please demonstrate the chains, and how you think you can lose them.

Do you believe in the laws of nature? If yes, then it means that your material body function according to the laws of nature. The laws of nature however are deterministic meaning that given one state of affair you always get a unique state of affair afterward. These laws make a one-to-one correspondence between one state of affairs and another one. In the real world, there are however cases in which we face options. That is when the system cannot evolve any further and a decision is required to be made, in other words, the system halts. Why? Because there are at least two options available in such a situation and laws of nature are determined meaning the system can only evolve according to laws of nature when there is a chain of causality, the chain of causality being, a set of states of affairs which one state uniquely defines another state of affair. Of course, it must be clear that a system that follows the laws of nature cannot evolve further when there are options available. In real life, we can overcome halt problem by making a decision. The decision however cannot be due to the body since the body act according to the laws of nature. That is when the free mind intervenes and resolves the conflict of interest in the options so we can choose one option and move along.

Without your body you are free to do nothing.
Without your body you are dead.

Death is not the subject of the discussion.

I've no need to believe in the laws of nature; I accept what can be known about the universe I never resort to "belief".
Belief is thinking a thing is so, but not having anything to back it up.

But science backs up the laws of nature.

So what are these chains?
You still have said nothing about them

Can you fly? No. That means whatever you are (in my opinion conscious mind) you are chained to your body.

[RCSaunders]

So you believe that you are free given the fact that your body acts based on laws of nature? How do you know that there is life after death? Have you ever been dead? Have you ever talked with the dead?

NO! I know I'm free because I consciously choose what I do with my body. Except of the autonomic nervous system, endocrine system, reflexes and strictly biological functions, my body does nothing unless I consciously choose to act.

Perhaps you are not conscious or your behavior is determined by something other than you own conscious choice, but mine isn't. If that's not your experience I'm sorry for you, but you'll just have to take my word for it that it is my experience.

I am a conscious person. My question is how you could be free when your body follows the laws of nature?

What, "laws of nature?" Scientific principles that describe the nature of the physical universe are sometimes called, "laws", but they are not laws in the sense of mandates or rules the universe is obliged to obey. They are only a description of the nature of existence and how it behaves, which nature makes possible all that physically exists, (all physical entities), life (all organisms), consciousness (all conscious organisms) and, volitionally/rationally/intellectually conscious organism (all human beings). In other words, it is the, "laws of nature," that make it possible and necessary for human beings to consciously choose their behavior and the physical body obey human conscious choices. If there is a law of nature involved, it is the law that says the behavior of the body of a human being must be determined by the conscious choice of that human being. That is the law of nature.

[RCSaunders]

They will make sense.


I mean robot in the sense that you are not free.


Do you believe in the laws of nature? If yes, then it means that your material body function according to the laws of nature. The laws of nature however are deterministic meaning that given one state of affair you always get a unique state of affair afterward. These laws make a one-to-one correspondence between one state of affairs and another one. In the real world, there are however cases in which we face options. That is when the system cannot evolve any further and a decision is required to be made, in other words, the system halts. Why? Because there are at least two options available in such a situation and laws of nature are determined meaning the system can only evolve according to laws of nature when there is a chain of causality, the chain of causality being, a set of states of affairs which one state uniquely defines another state of affair. Of course, it must be clear that a system that follows the laws of nature cannot evolve further when there are options available. In real life, we can overcome halt problem by making a decision. The decision however cannot be due to the body since the body act according to the laws of nature. That is when the free mind intervenes and resolves the conflict of interest in the options so we can choose one option and move along.

Without your body you are free to do nothing.
Without your body you are dead.

Death is not the subject of the discussion.

I've no need to believe in the laws of nature; I accept what can be known about the universe I never resort to "belief".
Belief is thinking a thing is so, but not having anything to back it up.

But science backs up the laws of nature.

So what are these chains?
You still have said nothing about them

Can you fly? No. ...

What planet do you live on? On this planet heavier-than-air human flight has been a reality for over 118 years.

I think you need to learn a little science and a little history before meddling in philosophy.

[bahman]

NO! I know I'm free because I consciously choose what I do with my body. Except of the autonomic nervous system, endocrine system, reflexes and strictly biological functions, my body does nothing unless I consciously choose to act.

Perhaps you are not conscious or your behavior is determined by something other than you own conscious choice, but mine isn't. If that's not your experience I'm sorry for you, but you'll just have to take my word for it that it is my experience.

I am a conscious person. My question is how you could be free when your body follows the laws of nature?

What, "laws of nature?" Scientific principles that describe the nature of the physical universe are sometimes called, "laws", but they are not laws in the sense of mandates or rules the universe is obliged to obey. They are only a description of the nature of existence and how it behaves, which nature makes possible all that physically exists, (all physical entities), life (all organisms), consciousness (all conscious organisms) and, volitionally/rationally/intellectually conscious organism (all human beings). In other words, it is the, "laws of nature," that make it possible and necessary for human beings to consciously choose their behavior and the physical body obey human conscious choices. If there is a law of nature involved, it is the law that says the behavior of the body of a human being must be determined by the conscious choice of that human being. That is the law of nature.

But there is no room left for conscious choice since the laws of nature determines the behavior of the system whether it is falling stone or human.

[bahman]

Without your body you are free to do nothing.
Without your body you are dead.

Death is not the subject of the discussion.

I've no need to believe in the laws of nature; I accept what can be known about the universe I never resort to "belief".
Belief is thinking a thing is so, but not having anything to back it up.

But science backs up the laws of nature.

So what are these chains?
You still have said nothing about them

Can you fly? No. ...

What planet do you live on? On this planet heavier-than-air human flight has been a reality for over 118 years.

I think you need to learn a little science and a little history before meddling in philosophy.

I meant to fly without using anything else.

[RCSaunders]

I am a conscious person. My question is how you could be free when your body follows the laws of nature?

What, "laws of nature?" Scientific principles that describe the nature of the physical universe are sometimes called, "laws", but they are not laws in the sense of mandates or rules the universe is obliged to obey. They are only a description of the nature of existence and how it behaves, which nature makes possible all that physically exists, (all physical entities), life (all organisms), consciousness (all conscious organisms) and, volitionally/rationally/intellectually conscious organism (all human beings). In other words, it is the, "laws of nature," that make it possible and necessary for human beings to consciously choose their behavior and the physical body obey human conscious choices. If there is a law of nature involved, it is the law that says the behavior of the body of a human being must be determined by the conscious choice of that human being. That is the law of nature.

But there is no room left for conscious choice since the laws of nature determines the behavior of the system whether it is falling stone or human.

Look, I don't care what you believe but there is no such thing as a, "law of nature," that determines anything. If you think so, you just do not understand science. The so-called scientific laws are only descriptive, and, not prescriptive. At the physical level (excluding that perfectly natural attributes of life and consciousness) it is the nature of entities, their attributes and characteristics, themselves that determines their behavior, not some external, "laws of nature," impressed on them. You just have no idea what you are talking about.

[RCSaunders]

Death is not the subject of the discussion.


But science backs up the laws of nature.


Can you fly? No. ...

What planet do you live on? On this planet heavier-than-air human flight has been a reality for over 118 years.

I think you need to learn a little science and a little history before meddling in philosophy.

I meant to fly without using anything else.

Nothing can be done, "without using anything else." Everything a human being chooses and does uses something else. To breath, air must be used; to eat, food must be used; to drink, some liquid must be used; to walk, some ground or solid surface must be used. You really don't understand that?

[bahman]

What, "laws of nature?" Scientific principles that describe the nature of the physical universe are sometimes called, "laws", but they are not laws in the sense of mandates or rules the universe is obliged to obey. They are only a description of the nature of existence and how it behaves, which nature makes possible all that physically exists, (all physical entities), life (all organisms), consciousness (all conscious organisms) and, volitionally/rationally/intellectually conscious organism (all human beings). In other words, it is the, "laws of nature," that make it possible and necessary for human beings to consciously choose their behavior and the physical body obey human conscious choices. If there is a law of nature involved, it is the law that says the behavior of the body of a human being must be determined by the conscious choice of that human being. That is the law of nature.

But there is no room left for conscious choice since the laws of nature determines the behavior of the system whether it is falling stone or human.

Look, I don't care what you believe but there is no such thing as a, "law of nature," that determines anything. If you think so, you just do not understand science. The so-called scientific laws are only descriptive, and, not prescriptive. At the physical level (excluding that perfectly natural attributes of life and consciousness) it is the nature of entities, their attributes and characteristics, themselves that determines their behavior, not some external, "laws of nature," impressed on them. You just have no idea what you are talking about.

You have no idea what you are talking about. What is consciousness?

[bahman]

What planet do you live on? On this planet heavier-than-air human flight has been a reality for over 118 years.

I think you need to learn a little science and a little history before meddling in philosophy.

I meant to fly without using anything else.

Nothing can be done, "without using anything else." Everything a human being chooses and does uses something else. To breath, air must be used; to eat, food must be used; to drink, some liquid must be used; to walk, some ground or solid surface must be used. You really don't understand that?

Yes, I understand that. You however don't understand my point.

[Sculptor]

They will make sense.


I mean robot in the sense that you are not free.


Do you believe in the laws of nature? If yes, then it means that your material body function according to the laws of nature. The laws of nature however are deterministic meaning that given one state of affair you always get a unique state of affair afterward. These laws make a one-to-one correspondence between one state of affairs and another one. In the real world, there are however cases in which we face options. That is when the system cannot evolve any further and a decision is required to be made, in other words, the system halts. Why? Because there are at least two options available in such a situation and laws of nature are determined meaning the system can only evolve according to laws of nature when there is a chain of causality, the chain of causality being, a set of states of affairs which one state uniquely defines another state of affair. Of course, it must be clear that a system that follows the laws of nature cannot evolve further when there are options available. In real life, we can overcome halt problem by making a decision. The decision however cannot be due to the body since the body act according to the laws of nature. That is when the free mind intervenes and resolves the conflict of interest in the options so we can choose one option and move along.

Without your body you are free to do nothing.
Without your body you are dead.

Death is not the subject of the discussion.

Yes it is.

I've no need to believe in the laws of nature; I accept what can be known about the universe I never resort to "belief".
Belief is thinking a thing is so, but not having anything to back it up.

But science backs up the laws of nature.

So what are these chains?
You still have said nothing about them

Can you fly? No. That means whatever you are (in my opinion conscious mind) you are chained to your body.

Yes I can fly. I've been all over the world. And I can only do that in my body.
I am my body. I'm not chained to it.

[bahman]

Without your body you are free to do nothing.
Without your body you are dead.

Death is not the subject of the discussion.

Yes it is.

I've no need to believe in the laws of nature; I accept what can be known about the universe I never resort to "belief".
Belief is thinking a thing is so, but not having anything to back it up.

But science backs up the laws of nature.

So what are these chains?
You still have said nothing about them

Can you fly? No. That means whatever you are (in my opinion conscious mind) you are chained to your body.

Yes I can fly. I've been all over the world. And I can only do that in my body.
I am my body. I'm not chained to it.

If you are your body then please explain how could you possibly freely decide when your body governs the laws of physics, is not free?