Freedom (and Will?)

[promethean75]

Alright, I've got a new freewill theory for you guys to try out. It's Spinozean but goes further than Spinz. Or rather, it explains what he means.

Okay. Freewill does exist, and we exercise it only in saying 'no'. When Spinz says something like 'freewill is having the knowledge of causes', he's being cryptic and hinting at the mind transcending the body by not engaging... by not becoming an effect... or rather, by not being moved by an external cause and becoming its own causa sui therefore. This is in direct contrast to his thesis that improvement comes from increased capacities to act, to engage the body.

Freewill is then the active striving for one's annihilation by disengaging the material world of cause and effect and refusing to be moved. Another way to say it is that freewill happens when movement stops or is reduced by degrees. Conversly, if you are moved, you are affected by a cause and therefore not free.

Could this be what Choong Su Lin meant when he laughed at his pupil and said "how can you be free? You are walking around the garden!"

Now, all you first grade freewillists aren't gonna follow this one. You'll need to let your ranking metaphysicians deal with this one because it's rather complicated.

[popeye1945]

An interesting aspect of biology concerning free will would be the topic of epigenetics. Google it! It is very damaging to the belief in free will.

[promethean75]

Here's how imperative commands in language don't necessitate freewill in the language users.

Now you'd think for the phrase "you're going to the beach!" to be meaningful and make any sense, the language user needs to know what that is like... going to the beach. A child, for example, can't know what that means unless he's dunnit or seen a depiction of it happening.

But one need not insert the doer for such a statement to be meaningful and true for you could tell a robot that it's going to the beach (or else) and going to the beach would be meaningful to it. A command involving an executive goal, as it were.

So a language user doesn't need to think it has freewill to understand its compulsory actions as meaningful things. It doesn't have to picture itself - the him in the "you're" - as making a series a choices in order to go to the beach. His body just goes to the beach, and he ain't driving.

Ya'll saw that slick Wittgensteinian insight in there, right? Me and bro think alike. We got unique angles on things you know.

[Tiego]

That makes a lot of sense. I agree that intellect opens up the range of choices available, but also consider that you would not have any choices available to you without memory, which must play an important part of an individuals free will. Therefore, memory is the key component to having free will, and intellect opens up a wider range of options giving free will more breadth. This also helps to explain why inanimate objects without any form of memory have free will.
Of course free will can never be proven, but that becomes an epistomologial question. Free will remains the most likely outcome of being able to use your brain to make choices based on information you can remember from previous moments in time. We can see the results of our choices, which is strong evidence for free will and we can understand the parameters of the range of choices availabel to use, based on our personal knowledge, which indicate free will has its limitations.

[Wizard22]

You seem to actually believe that you are free to make a judgment, even though you cannot render the definition of that very same thing. So can you explain, how it is, that the only power a mind has is also its correlatives, illiterate and literate, that you imagine that your response was one made freely?
Your argument could be simplified. Inanimate objects have no defined job. Every form of life has a job to maintaining and promoting that life.
So, will is the method of doing one's own work, and freedom means the ability to do it.
Now, if our job is information processing, can any illiterate person claim to be be free? If one cannot process information, are they free? Absolutely not. So, the inability to define one's terms, means one cannot actually process information, from the start because, what may be predicated of any thing is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.
It is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of fact.

Having no job to perform is not different from being unable to do a job. Or as Aristotle said, if you cannot apply assertion and denial, you can think no better than a vegetable.

The problem is more "making a Choice" rather than defining a Choice.

Making a choice is an abstract and very complex brain operation. Defining a choice, proceeds from the former. Animals can make choices. They automatically "take responsibility" for negative consequences, often immediately through pain or death. Humans are different and much more "detached" from negative responsibility. In humans, making a "wrong choice" can result in other people being punished. This displacement of negative result, creates many problems throughout human psychology and sociology.

[Phil8659]

Making a choice is an abstract and very complex brain operation. Defining a choice, proceeds from the former. Animals can make choices. They automatically "take responsibility" for negative consequences, often immediately through pain or death. Humans are different and much more "detached" from negative responsibility. In humans, making a "wrong choice" can result in other people being punished. This displacement of negative result, creates many problems throughout human psychology and sociology.

f****** gibberish. I see you have never taken anything complex and wrote its equations step by step and arrived at a final definition.
A definition is a standard of measure by which judgments are made, it is not a heap of words complimentary of a child.
Basic logic, even Aristotle, binary recursion can only produce a binary result. You have two parts of speech, and when you cannot arrive at an answer, it is because you either have not, nor cannot parse the information correctly, as you do a figure.

[Wizard22]

f****** gibberish. I see you have never taken anything complex and wrote its equations step by step and arrived at a final definition.
A definition is a standard of measure by which judgments are made, it is not a heap of words complimentary of a child.
Basic logic, even Aristotle, binary recursion can only produce a binary result. You have two parts of speech, and when you cannot arrive at an answer, it is because you either have not, nor cannot parse the information correctly, as you do a figure.

I'll simplify it for you...

Who has the Authority to Define God? Just anybody? God can mean anything, to anybody? God is Santa Clause? God is "Love"? God is Goodness? Or, as most of humanity agree, Theologians and the highest Priests, are specifically the ones that are "allowed to", permitted to, Define God. Same with scientific concepts--Scientific "Experts" are the Authorities. Or with Politics, the Law, and Judges, and Presidents, are the Authorities. The normal person, the plebian, do NOT have Authority, and therefore, cannot define their terms.

This is the difference between controllers of indoctrination, versus the indoctrinated. Therefore, most people do not have the authority to define anything at all, even in simple parlance and debate.

This is observed daily, post to post, in Philosophy. It's easy to decipher immediately when a User cannot define his or her own arguments.

[Phil8659]

f****** gibberish. I see you have never taken anything complex and wrote its equations step by step and arrived at a final definition.
A definition is a standard of measure by which judgments are made, it is not a heap of words complimentary of a child.
Basic logic, even Aristotle, binary recursion can only produce a binary result. You have two parts of speech, and when you cannot arrive at an answer, it is because you either have not, nor cannot parse the information correctly, as you do a figure.

I'll simplify it for you...

Who has the Authority to Define God? Just anybody? God can mean anything, to anybody? God is Santa Clause? God is "Love"? God is Goodness? Or, as most of humanity agree, Theologians and the highest Priests, are specifically the ones that are "allowed to", permitted to, Define God. Same with scientific concepts--Scientific "Experts" are the Authorities. Or with Politics, the Law, and Judges, and Presidents, are the Authorities. The normal person, the plebian, do NOT have Authority, and therefore, cannot define their terms.

This is the difference between controllers of indoctrination, versus the indoctrinated. Therefore, most people do not have the authority to define anything at all, even in simple parlance and debate.

This is observed daily, post to post, in Philosophy. It's easy to decipher immediately when a User cannot define his or her own arguments.

LMAO, not that is the pure, and undefiled idiot for you.
The foundation of grammar is a convention of names, and you ask, who is smart enough to do what they are biologically defined to do.

So, you think it is a valid argument to say, well, it is not me who has to regulate my own behavior, but someone else, and who in the fuck is that?

Well genius, exactly who is it that is suppose to regulate the behavior of the body within which you reside? Which mythological pooka will satisfy you?
Give it your best shot, tell the world you are not responsible for engaging in the first thing that makes grammar possible.

And you actually believe, that your incredibly stupid words and reasoning, makes you smart?

Go away asshole, fools are cheaper than water.

Another court fool looking for a job that he does not have to do.

[Wizard22]

So Phil can't even respond to basic questions. How sad. You will be easy to ignore from this point forward.

[Phil8659]

So Phil can't even respond to basic questions. How sad. You will be easy to ignore from this point forward.

Maybe you should find a community college that tries to teach basic reading comprehension. No man on earth can make a fool understand simple sentences.

[Wizard22]

Yawn