Freedom Vs. The Perception of Freedom

[volchok]

Yet there IS something else.
.

What are you proposing that something else is and what evidence do you have to back it up ?

[volchok]

I'm arguing against the reductionist view being accurate enough to be in any way useful. We're "just" quarks. So are trees and comets and everything we've ever experienced.

.

Indeed, but it IS useful. Magic, the supernatural, free will and many other things become, at the very least, highly unlikely.

[volchok]

It is informed by that, yet the qualia of love is a mental experience.

lol. And what do you think a mental experience is ?

[James S Saint]

Yet there IS something else.
.

What are you proposing that something else is and what evidence do you have to back it up ?

If you can't read the post, there isn't much point in arguing about it online.

[Amorphos]

volchok

lol. And what do you think a mental experience is ?

Something which cannot be found in the physical.

As like; information [non collocative], sound, colour, love, etc

If you can define them in the physical then please enlighten us.

e.g.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179323

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179456

The most advanced theory imho is the holographic principle, which places the physical in the holographic, and as a projection of information background.

Perhaps then also ask what you meant by ‘physical’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hologr ... c_Universe

Perhaps we should be considering the will [and mind generally] more in terms of an interface, it collects the myriad of mapped informations into one, but is kinda floating of the surface of all that.

.

[Fixed Cross]

"A chemical reaction" is is a chemical reaction. But a different one when 'Chok or when I pronounce it. This is such a bullshit observation. Something is (a word). Really?
That is what you call thinking? That is really stupid. To actually believe that "(insert word) is (insert word)" in any configuration causes a limit to how any of what the inserted terms refer to can be understood.

[Drusus]

Der OP it seems that you havn't studied our contempoary dictatorial regimes in the world, nor any mad dictator/tyrant in history, how they limited the populus's freedom, even less the thought about slavery.

Compared to what horrors the world has vitnessed we have lots of freedom in our world.

[Abstract]

Freedom as the term is used seems as though it should be defined as a relative lack of resistance to one own will. relative to what is possible given our bodily and social restrictions.

[Only_Humean]

I'm arguing against the reductionist view being accurate enough to be in any way useful. We're "just" quarks. So are trees and comets and everything we've ever experienced.

Indeed, but it IS useful. Magic, the supernatural, free will and many other things become, at the very least, highly unlikely.

There's no magic in cars, but they're more than a pile of metal and plastic. I may not believe in extraterrestrial human civilisations, but that doesn't mean my address is nothing more than "the earth".

Reductionism isn't The Truth, it's an analytical tool. Tools are a help when they're useful, and a hindrance when they're not.

[volchok]

If you can't read the post, there isn't much point in arguing about it online.

If I can't read the post ? I did read the post and I'm asking what it is that you are proposing and what evidence you have to back it up.
Seems like a reasonable question to me.

[volchok]

There's no magic in cars, but they're more than a pile of metal and plastic..

You're just playing with words.

Cars are in fact, nothing more, then a pile of metal and plastic and whatever else they're made off. When those constituents are arranged in a specific way, we call it a car. Sounds pretty simple to me. Humans are also arrangements of matter. There's nothing more to humans then matter, and by saying that, I'm not denying complexity or the fact that you're a unique little snowflake.

Tools are a help when they're useful, and a hindrance when they're not.

Nice platitude.

[phyllo]

Matter is arranged beautifully today. This bag of chemicals is going to enjoy itself.

[volchok]

Matter is arranged beautifully today. This bag of chemicals is going to enjoy itself.

I guess humor really is a coping mechanism.

[iambiguous]

Cars are in fact, nothing more, then a pile of metal and plastic and whatever else they're made off. When those constituents are arranged in a specific way, we call it a car.

And, of course, it is the human mind that arranges these constituents.

And when John chooses to get drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car that kills a pedestrian crossing the street, nature arranges these constituents.

It's exactly the same thing in that in both cases matter is matter is matter. Matter may choose and matter may not but what unfolds is only what must unfold per immutable laws. Same with our conflicting reactions to things. The conflict is only an illusion in the sense that we can not not react any other way but the way we do.

But when those who suggest that mind as matter may well be matter of a different sort you insist it's all the same stuff. And when some point out that science is barely in its infancy in exploring matter as mind able to discuss and debate these things [sometimes heatedly] you merely dismiss this. Why? Because it is not in accordance with what you believe.

And from this we can extrapolate arguments relating to freedom vs. the perception of freedom. Bottom line: It's all the same to nature.

[volchok]

you insist it's all the same stuff.

No, I don't insist. It's what the evidence shows.
Also, can you, once in your life, stick to the damn subject instead of hijacking other people's threads?
I think a warning is more than in order.

[Moreno]

deleted

[innolan]

"You are nothing but a bag of chemicals.
Love is just a chemical reaction.
No one loves you.
You have no free-will.
Freedom is a fantasy.
In the cosmos, you are insignificant.
All good things must end.
Don't worry, everyone dies.
Your Self is a fantasy.
Nothing will become of you when you die.
Nothing is certain.
Truth doesn't exist.
There is no God.
You are wrong in every thought.
Your vote is irrelevant.
Anything you say might offend someone.
Anything you do might harm someone.
You might harm yourself.
You are an insignificant piece of nothing surrounded by criminals, terrorists, and diseases.

There are too many of you.
Women are better than you.
Blacks are bigger than you.
Jews are wiser than you."

Psychologically, where do you think that leads?

"We have elite expertise and technology.
You can't survive without our protection.
Bow while we still allow you to exist."

The Perception of the Lack of Freedom (and worth).

As the slave thinks to himself..."Oh but it is all true... technically"

I think this is well stated...though everyone could add to the list.
To say there's something missing is human. To bring the missing piece(peace) is divine.

[TruthSeeker1020]

James,

Forgive me... I had to attend to some things so I couldn't respond as soon as I would like. I was reading some of you postings and was very interested in some of the things you had to say. Well here we go.

First I want to point out another very common misconception that needs to be talked about; age vs wisdom. It is assumed that just because one is old or older, they are wiser. I have no doubt that you are probably older than I am, however wisdom comes from experience and understanding. Age does not grant one wisdom, all it means is that you have had more time to experience life, if you have taken advantage of that time. If you haven't gone through many experiences and you don't learn from the experiences that you've had, it's very easy to lack wisdom, even if you are old. You seem very educated and wise, so I truly hope that you don't really believe that just because you are older, you are wiser. I have been through quite a lot in my life.

James S Saint wrote:
Which would you choose;
A) A government that proclaimed that freedom is just a fantasy and that you are to do exactly as you are told.
B) A government that proclaimed that specific rules are to be obeyed, but beyond those few, you are free.

I will start by saying, this is a small portion of the overall topic of freedom. For the sake of answering your question as a person born and raised in a "free country", I would choose the second; I've only been given two options. It is how our country is run now. It would make no sense for a government to admit to their people that they don't have freedom because it's an idea that governments usually push. It's not logical to tell someone who believes they are free, that they are not. You don't know what their reaction will be. Now keep in mind that I've been arguing that we shouldn't call opportunities freedoms.

Suppose that people all of a sudden, people came to the realization that they are not free. What then? If their quality of life is good, many won't complain or think twice of this notion again. If you read my postings and understand what I have been saying, then you would know that I've made it very clear that I understand what freedom is others, and for the most part it is relative. A person who was raised in a communist country may not feel as free as an American or European. This is where the basis of my argument lies and where you still have not answered my question. Go back and read my second post. If freedom is having choices, opportunities, and/or options, how do you measure freedom? By quantity or quality? Secondly, if freedom does actually exist in degrees, what if someone, who is undoubtedly enslaved, has more options than a free person? Are they considered to be more free? Answer these questions and I will better understand of where you are coming from.

Just because a person doesn't see the reality in freedom doesn't mean that they think life lacks quality.I don't find it negative that people, potentially aren't free. I find it interesting that so many people really believe that they are. There are many masters in life that, at any point in time, can control you, internally and externally.

We simply can agree to disagree. Or do we actually disagree to agree (hmmm)?

[iambiguous]

you insist it's all the same stuff.

No, I don't insist. It's what the evidence shows.
Also, can you, once in your life, stick to the damn subject instead of hijacking other people's threads?
I think a warning is more than in order.

It's what the evidence seems to show given what science is able to determine the evidence is at this point -- the very beginning -- of its investigation.

And I will leave it to others following this exchange to judge for themselves to extent to which your request for a "warning" says more about you than it does about me.

[James S Saint]

James,

Forgive me... I had to attend to some things so I couldn't respond as soon as I would like. I was reading some of you postings and was very interested in some of the things you had to say. Well here we go.

No prob...
And let me say that I can't help but note and welcome your atypical, civil and logic based manner.

First I want to point out another very common misconception that needs to be talked about; age vs wisdom. It is assumed that just because one is old or older, they are wiser.

Oh.. don't believe that one. Back in the 50-60's such a thought was valid, but just about all children are hypnotized these days into quite the opposite. Today it is "we of the newer, Science generation are SO far beyond you old fogies, that you can't even see how silly you are". The point in age isn't wisdom, but experience which might or might not yield wisdom. The aged understand that point.

I have no doubt that you are probably older than I am, however wisdom comes from experience and understanding. Age does not grant one wisdom, all it means is that you have had more time to experience life, if you have taken advantage of that time. If you haven't gone through many experiences and you don't learn from the experiences that you've had, it's very easy to lack wisdom, even if you are old. You seem very educated and wise, so I truly hope that you don't really believe that just because you are older, you are wiser. I have been through quite a lot in my life.

Granted as stated above. But realize that someone twice your age has seen probably 10 times what you have seen and can more easily discern which of those things is more relevant. That issue has been raised here on this thread concerning "technical freedom" versus "a government persuading people to give up on such an idea by getting young people to focus on and over emphasize the technical nuances that lead them into insisting that freedom is a 'silly old man' concept". You seem to be revealing that exact profile, which is why I asked that question.

James S Saint wrote:
Which would you choose;
A) A government that proclaimed that freedom is just a fantasy and that you are to do exactly as you are told.
B) A government that proclaimed that specific rules are to be obeyed, but beyond those few, you are free.

I will start by saying, this is a small portion of the overall topic of freedom.

"Small" in number perhaps, but the most significant concern you will ever encounter.

It's not logical to tell someone who believes they are free, that they are not. You don't know what their reaction will be. Now keep in mind that I've been arguing that we shouldn't call opportunities freedoms.

It is not "rational".. until you use the young and naive to persuade the general population into believing that the very concept of freedom is non-sense. After which, you no longer have to hide your intent behind pleasant sounding words and feigned good intentions.

Suppose that people all of a sudden, people came to the realization that they are not free. What then? If their quality of life is good, many won't complain or think twice of this notion again. If you read my postings and understand what I have been saying, then you would know that I've made it very clear that I understand what freedom is others, and for the most part it is relative. A person who was raised in a communist country may not feel as free as an American or European. This is where the basis of my argument lies and where you still have not answered my question. Go back and read my second post. If freedom is having choices, opportunities, and/or options, how do you measure freedom? By quantity or quality? Secondly, if freedom does actually exist in degrees, what if someone, who is undoubtedly enslaved, has more options than a free person? Are they considered to be more free? Answer these questions and I will better understand of where you are coming from.

Well it seems that you missed the point of my first post wherein I gave an alternate definition of freedom more exactly related to the issue and concern;

Freedom for the living means the ability to make choices or decisions toward your advantage.

I don't find it negative that people, potentially aren't free.

That is the very serious problem and indication of inexperience.

It is virtually impossible for any government to regulate what is best for every individual, thus so as to maintain power, they make generalized rules, use subtle fears, and present false flags so as to persuade people into doing as they dictate. But every individual, as you noted, is in a slightly different situation and thus those generalized rules are very crude and often strip the person of so many details that he cannot guide his life into anything other than mere blind fumbling along with the crowd until he eventually gets the popular disease of the day and dies.

It is strategically an issue of distributed intelligence. Socialist dictators cannot write enough conditionalized rules such as to be able to responsibly ensure the safety or prosperity of every individual under their reign. They don't really even try because all they can see is the need to ensure obedience and maintain their authority. The easiest way to do that is through subterfuge and deceit. Part of that paradigm is to use the inexperienced people to go out and promote the silliness of the very idea of freedom or self worth.

There are many masters in life that, at any point in time, can control you, internally and externally.

So what is the point in thinking that a government is protecting anyone from such people when they are those very people themselves? Without the very notion of freedom, they are even MORE enslaved by merely thinking that they had no choice anyway.

We simply can agree to disagree. Or do we actually disagree to agree (hmmm)?

Another point from experience...
The very phrase "agree to disagree" was a part of a means to cause change from the Constitutional government of the US to its current closeted Socialist/Fascist government. Change in a society is better arranged by creating conflict and confusion among the people, ie. "let's agree TO disagree" (same as the military does against an enemy) so as to emphasize their disparate need for your new proposed paradigm of no freedom at all. Being blinded by so much conflict, the people become helpless to do anything for themselves. The more correct phrase is, "we can agree THAT we disagree"... allowing for harmony rather than inviting contention.

Now as far as your particular color of argument against freedom, I can't understand how you are really distinguishing a "choice" (that we are to not have) versus an "option" (that we are apparently supposed to be allowed).

One cannot have choices without options and it seems to me that one could not have options if he had no choices...??

How are you distinguishing them?

[innolan]

James,


The very phrase "agree to disagree" was a part of a means to cause change from the Constitutional government of the US to its current closeted Socialist/Fascist government. Change in a society is better arranged by creating conflict and confusion among the people, ie. "let's agree TO disagree" (same as the military does against an enemy) so as to emphasize their disparate need for your new proposed paradigm of no freedom at all. Being blinded by so much conflict, the people become helpless to do anything for themselves. The more correct phrase is, "we can agree THAT we disagree"... allowing for harmony rather than inviting contention.

Now as far as your particular color of argument against freedom, I can't understand how you are really distinguishing a "choice" (that we are to not have) versus an "option" (that we are apparently supposed to be allowed).

One cannot have choices without options and it seems to me that one could not have options if he had no choices...??

How are you distinguishing them?

Physical Bondageby Nathan N. Hatcher aka innolan
While in the infinite freedom of an enclosed cell
I contemplated circumstances that had me held
in physical bondage at the county jail
but finding spiritual freedom cause I couldn't make bail.
Physically bound but spiritually free
from all the earthly pleasures that shackle me
like the netting worn by the cavalier knight
when I'm supposed to be free, I can't move right.
Heavy burdened, weighed down by all the pressure around
although I'm treading troubled water, somehow I'm spiritually drowned.
Got to keep my head up lest my nose go under water
My spirit is submerged cause my soul is out of order.
Who ever prayed for the hangman's noose?
I was drowning , it pulled me up and I still want to get loose
so I struggle and fight to my own demise.
You know if makes perfect sense by it's not very wise
so they chained me and locked me in an enclosed cell
as the doors closed I was sure that this must be hell.
Then reality set in. I know they won't let me go,
so while I'm physically depressed, it's time to spiritually grow.


freedom is a point of perception> we are physical,spiritual,emotional beings. we can experience freedom in any realm but not necessarily in all. the only way we can experience total freedom is if all men are free

[James S Saint]

The inexperienced make their mistakes most often by thinking that they are more free than they really are. It is a question of degree and type. One of the most serious mistakes they make is to downplay the very notion of needing freedom.

When a person MUST take this vaccine, and
must pay this tax, and
must serve society, and
must..and,
must..and,
must..and,
must..and,
must..and,
must..

They he must be merely a slave, not to nature or reality, but to Man.

[innolan]

The inexperienced make their mistakes most often by thinking that they are more free than they really are. It is a question of degree and type. One of the most serious mistakes they make is to downplay the very notion of needing freedom.

When a person MUST take this vaccine, and
must pay this tax, and
must serve society, and
must..and,
must..and,
must..and,
must..and,
must..and,
must..

They he must be merely a slave, not to nature or reality, but to Man.

This is absolutely true from my perspective. This is why many Americans live by the seat of their pants, from hand to mouth,from pillar to post, between a rock and a hard place. Understanding your needs will be met and having the confidence to loose all you have and pick up thy cross to prove that God is real and He love you. Who has the faith to drop everything and be dependent on HIM is free for whom the Father sets free is free indeed. that's why it's impossible to achieve; because no one believes.

[Only_Humean]

Cars are in fact, nothing more, then a pile of metal and plastic and whatever else they're made off.

Ah, the old debating tactic of repeating yourself but adding "in fact". Well, if it's a fact, there's no argument possible, is there? Way to ignore all the points made against you.

I tell you what, I'll give you a bag of chemicals and a pile of metal and plastics, and you can sort me out with a chauffeur-driven car, OK? I don't need any magic from you, or fairy dust.

Tools are a help when they're useful, and a hindrance when they're not.

Nice platitude.

Fight fire with fire, I say, since you seem to think that reduction to fundamental physical description is a significant truth.

[Only_Humean]

And I will leave it to others following this exchange to judge for themselves to extent to which your request for a "warning" says more about you than it does about me.

I judge that if you keep following volchok around and trying to pervert every discussion he's involved in to a free will debate, you will receive warnings in abundance.

That only says something about me and my view of your behaviour, but I hope you find it meaningful.