my thinking on free will and choice is that if my will is in opposition to someone else's then all bets are off, cause i am not gonna be able to exercise my free will to get what it is i am seeking because the other person is exercising their free will, which negates mine.
free will works only if all the factors are under your control and life just isnt like that.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
who cares live for the day...vedder solo album should be the talk of the town...jesus is the man that it plain and simple ....thats all folks............ hard sun is great
my thinking on free will and choice is that if my will is in opposition to someone else's then all bets are off, cause i am not gonna be able to exercise my free will to get what it is i am seeking because the other person is exercising their free will, which negates mine.
free will works only if all the factors are under your control and life just isnt like that.
For me, I have no desire to talk about free-will, because spiritual/religious people apparently have a different conception for it than non-believers, and therefore much needless misunderstanding happens in such discussions.
As for free choice, even if my choices conflict with others, I still make them, freely, whether unconsciously or consciously. To me, freedom is not related to lack to resistance or conflict. If everything were easy and there were no problems or conflict to rise above, the word "freedom" would have no meaning.
To me, freedom has nothing to do with controlling external or life factors. It's the exact opposite. It's about fully surrendering to one's life. It is only by accepting all aspects of one's life unconditionally, including conflicts and resistance, and including others that one chooses to interact with, that one can find the way to rise above such conflicts. By doing so, the drop of water can also experience being the ocean. The cell can also be the body. It's the short-sighted cancer cell that tries to overtake the cell next to it at the expense of the whole system.
There is nothing to be gained by fighting/denying/separating from one's very own life--unless one seeks separation, pain and struggle.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Freedom to determine what you "will" independently of physical or divine determinants.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Look, anyone here with a biology degree can tell us that any living thing is basically clockwork. What constitutes a "Living" thing is what we determine to accept as living. We don't think the clouds are alive, though they move. If you break down the components of a single cell, mitochondria, microtubules, etc... what you have is a bunch of non-living gears and pulleys, so to speak. We are "alive" in the sense of a clock powered by solar panels.
It's not that science says "there is no vital life force (Elan Vital)" it simply says "We don't need it to explain life." Science gets by explaining these things without any skyhooks, without souls and other mysteriam.
Anyone of you that wants to put a soul or free-will or the like into the equations is doing it solely for selfish reasons. They are non sequiturs. They beg the question and they offer no further explanation or understanding. The concepts are simply out-of-date off-the-shelf rhetoric.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Look, anyone here with a biology degree can tell us that any living thing is basically clockwork. What constitutes a "Living" thing is what we determine to accept as living. We don't think the clouds are alive, though they move. If you break down the components of a single cell, mitochondria, microtubules, etc... what you have is a bunch of non-living gears and pulleys, so to speak. We are "alive" in the sense of a clock powered by solar panels.
It's not that science says "there is no vital life force (Elan Vital)" it simply says "We don't need it to explain life." Science gets by explaining these things without any skyhooks, without souls and other mysteriam.
Anyone of you that wants to put a soul or free-will or the like into the equations is doing it solely for selfish reasons. They are non sequiturs. They beg the question and they offer no further explanation or understanding. The concepts are simply out-of-date off-the-shelf rhetoric.
so that's it? we're just basic routing functions in this system we call life?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
so that's it? we're just basic routing functions in this system we call life?
The most poetic description of what we are, I heard from a scientifically minded pick-up artist. "We are patterns in nature. Like a song."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What I find depressing is that this goes under the radar. People by enlarge subscribe to the belief in free-will and souls. The consequences are war and hatred and so on.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"I dare be positive no one will ever endeavour to refute these reasonings
otherwise than by altering my definitions, and assigning a different
meaning to the terms of cause, and effect, and necessity, and liberty,
and chance. According to my definitions, necessity makes an essential
part of causation; and consequently liberty, by removing necessity,
removes also causes, and is the very same thing with chance. As chance is
commonly thought to imply a contradiction, and is at least directly
contrary to experience, there are always the same arguments against
liberty or free-will. If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend
to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms.
"
A Treatise of Human Nature - Hume, David, 1711-1776
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What I find depressing is that this goes under the radar. People by enlarge subscribe to the belief in free-will and souls. The consequences are war and hatred and so on.
i think the reason goes further than our simple belief in free-will. are you telling me that if we all understood we didn't "have a choice" we would never fight, never argue, never disagree, never have wars?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i think the reason goes further than our simple belief in free-will. are you telling me that if we all understood we didn't "have a choice" we would never fight, never argue, never disagree, never have wars?
If we all had the capacity, and all learned to properly attribute cause and effect, then we should have no war. Though it's as far removed from us as alpha centauri, every individual who reasons well, saves the suffering of their potential victims.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The most poetic description of what we are, I heard from a scientifically minded pick-up artist. "We are patterns in nature. Like a song."
this is essentially what i believe. but who/what is the composer? music doesn't write itself. who/what wrote the laws of science? why do protons and electrons attract instead of repel?
If we all had the capacity, and all learned to properly attribute cause and effect, then we should have no war. Though it's as far removed from us as alpha centauri, every individual who reasons well, saves the suffering of their potential victims.
please excuse me for saying what i am about to say but...... this is just another promise like heaven. a utopia.... for atheists.
judging by your arguments... that we do not have "free-will" then wouldn't it mean that the way the world is... right now.... with wars... then that's the way the "laws of the universe" would want it?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
this is essentially what i believe. but who/what is the composer? music doesn't write itself. who/what wrote the laws of science? why do protons and electrons attract instead of repel?
But we are also saying that the composer does not compose himself.
It's the paradox of infinite regression. We simply don't have any logical conclusions to draw about the origin of everything. We can say the inititial configuration was chosen by laws of science, but what put the universe in motion. Similarly if we suggest God, we beg the questions, "What is God?", "What put God in motion?".
I think that's a question that any rational agent should set aside until sufficient information is available.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
please excuse me for saying what i am about to say but...... this is just another promise like heaven. a utopia.... for atheists.
judging by your arguments... that we do not have "free-will" then wouldn't it mean that the way the world is... right now.... with wars... then that's the way the "laws of the universe" would want it?
It is another utopia, with a reasonable chain of causation leading up to it. I by no means see it actually happening, because many brains are destined to reason poorly. Sadly, the emphasis is on the individual brain to use this information to improve their attributions of cause and effect. Concering probability, we might make it to alpha centauri before such a utopia becomes reality.
Should I not make the individual effort anyway?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But we are also saying that the composer does not compose himself.
It's the paradox of infinite regression. We simply don't have any logical conclusions to draw about the origin of everything. We can say the inititial configuration was chosen by laws of science, but what put the universe in motion. Similarly if we suggest God, we beg the questions, "What is God?", "What put God in motion?".
I think that's a question that any rational agent should set aside until sufficient information is available.
well... then i guess we're limiting our perceptions of a so-called Godly entity. if there is a god.... there are no laws to it.... infinite regression, or otherwise.
in other words, there is no beginning to this "God" and there are also no endings to it either. afterall, if we're talking about a God, we're talking about a "spirit". logic doesn't apply here.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
It is another utopia, with a reasonable chain of causation leading up to it. I by no means see it actually happening, because many brains are destined to reason poorly. Sadly, the emphasis is on the individual brain to use this information to improve their attributions of cause and effect. Concering probability, we might make it to alpha centauri before such a utopia becomes reality.
Should I not make the individual effort anyway?
yeah, sure go ahead. make the effort.
i see a pattern though.... to christian theology.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
But we are also saying that the composer does not compose himself.
It's the paradox of infinite regression. We simply don't have any logical conclusions to draw about the origin of everything. We can say the inititial configuration was chosen by laws of science, but what put the universe in motion. Similarly if we suggest God, we beg the questions, "What is God?", "What put God in motion?".
I think that's a question that any rational agent should set aside until sufficient information is available.
didn't einstein subscribe to something like that? and that is the point... god to me is just an abstract concept, a way of talking about that incomprehensible source. it's like pi. pi is just a symbol for a number we will never get to the bottom of, but can obtain a certain level of understanding and function from.
and deadnothing has a point... you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception. there is no improving the human condition becos we cannot improve ourselves, we have no choice in the matter.
well... then i guess we're limiting our perceptions of a so-called Godly entity. if there is a god.... there are no laws to it.... infinite regression, or otherwise.
in other words, there is no beginning to this "God" and there are also no endings to it either. afterall, if we're talking about a God, we're talking about a "spirit".
And while that is a logical possibility, it does not follow from it, that it is also a real possibility. We have thus far not observed such entities or contra-causal events in nature. So at this stage of the game, it doesn't not appear to be plausible. Only further investigation of reality will provide us with the knowledge and tools to make that determination.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
not only sounds like it angelica. i KNOW tis not.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
what's differently?
my thinking on free will and choice is that if my will is in opposition to someone else's then all bets are off, cause i am not gonna be able to exercise my free will to get what it is i am seeking because the other person is exercising their free will, which negates mine.
free will works only if all the factors are under your control and life just isnt like that.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
can i ask why you think jesus doesnt exist? do you think he ever did?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
As for free choice, even if my choices conflict with others, I still make them, freely, whether unconsciously or consciously. To me, freedom is not related to lack to resistance or conflict. If everything were easy and there were no problems or conflict to rise above, the word "freedom" would have no meaning.
To me, freedom has nothing to do with controlling external or life factors. It's the exact opposite. It's about fully surrendering to one's life. It is only by accepting all aspects of one's life unconditionally, including conflicts and resistance, and including others that one chooses to interact with, that one can find the way to rise above such conflicts. By doing so, the drop of water can also experience being the ocean. The cell can also be the body. It's the short-sighted cancer cell that tries to overtake the cell next to it at the expense of the whole system.
There is nothing to be gained by fighting/denying/separating from one's very own life--unless one seeks separation, pain and struggle.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is only one philosophical definition.
Freedom to determine what you "will" independently of physical or divine determinants.
It's not that science says "there is no vital life force (Elan Vital)" it simply says "We don't need it to explain life." Science gets by explaining these things without any skyhooks, without souls and other mysteriam.
Anyone of you that wants to put a soul or free-will or the like into the equations is doing it solely for selfish reasons. They are non sequiturs. They beg the question and they offer no further explanation or understanding. The concepts are simply out-of-date off-the-shelf rhetoric.
The most poetic description of what we are, I heard from a scientifically minded pick-up artist. "We are patterns in nature. Like a song."
Not really.
otherwise than by altering my definitions, and assigning a different
meaning to the terms of cause, and effect, and necessity, and liberty,
and chance. According to my definitions, necessity makes an essential
part of causation; and consequently liberty, by removing necessity,
removes also causes, and is the very same thing with chance. As chance is
commonly thought to imply a contradiction, and is at least directly
contrary to experience, there are always the same arguments against
liberty or free-will. If any one alters the definitions, I cannot pretend
to argue with him, until I know the meaning he assigns to these terms.
"
A Treatise of Human Nature - Hume, David, 1711-1776
Full Text
If we all had the capacity, and all learned to properly attribute cause and effect, then we should have no war. Though it's as far removed from us as alpha centauri, every individual who reasons well, saves the suffering of their potential victims.
this is essentially what i believe. but who/what is the composer? music doesn't write itself. who/what wrote the laws of science? why do protons and electrons attract instead of repel?
judging by your arguments... that we do not have "free-will" then wouldn't it mean that the way the world is... right now.... with wars... then that's the way the "laws of the universe" would want it?
But we are also saying that the composer does not compose himself.
It's the paradox of infinite regression. We simply don't have any logical conclusions to draw about the origin of everything. We can say the inititial configuration was chosen by laws of science, but what put the universe in motion. Similarly if we suggest God, we beg the questions, "What is God?", "What put God in motion?".
I think that's a question that any rational agent should set aside until sufficient information is available.
It is another utopia, with a reasonable chain of causation leading up to it. I by no means see it actually happening, because many brains are destined to reason poorly. Sadly, the emphasis is on the individual brain to use this information to improve their attributions of cause and effect. Concering probability, we might make it to alpha centauri before such a utopia becomes reality.
Should I not make the individual effort anyway?
in other words, there is no beginning to this "God" and there are also no endings to it either. afterall, if we're talking about a God, we're talking about a "spirit". logic doesn't apply here.
i see a pattern though.... to christian theology.
didn't einstein subscribe to something like that? and that is the point... god to me is just an abstract concept, a way of talking about that incomprehensible source. it's like pi. pi is just a symbol for a number we will never get to the bottom of, but can obtain a certain level of understanding and function from.
and deadnothing has a point... you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception. there is no improving the human condition becos we cannot improve ourselves, we have no choice in the matter.
And while that is a logical possibility, it does not follow from it, that it is also a real possibility. We have thus far not observed such entities or contra-causal events in nature. So at this stage of the game, it doesn't not appear to be plausible. Only further investigation of reality will provide us with the knowledge and tools to make that determination.