Then we need to detirmine what is meant by free huh.
All things are subject to their natures and so it is true that all things are somewhat fettered, and hence not truely free. Yet this makes a mockery of the word free, to such an extent that we may as well not use the word. yet we do, and we contiune to do so. Are we then mistaken calling any things free? Is the bird not free to fly the skies? Yes of course the bird is free to fly, but what, I hear you ask, about flying above the atmosphere of the planet? The bird is certianly not free to do that; so can we say that the bird is not free to fly?
Of course not, that would be absured. So free then must mean free within the constraints of it's enviroument or it's nature.
When a man reaches a desiscion, yes it is true that such a descions can only ever be made within the constraints of the mans nature or enviroment or indeed the many veriables effecting such choice, but the question must be, is it a choice freely made or somehow forced upon the man?
Yes indeed if we are to belive that our wills are not free then we must answer by what power are our choices forced upon us?
On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 10:09:12 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
The will to change ourselves is innate and a part- function of the
brain , which being physical is bound by various factors.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdouglas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Malcymo,
>
> The deterministic argument against freewill has just never done it for me.
> It seems to me rather like faith based beliefe, and of course those of you
> here that know me would know that I have nothing against such belife and
> personaly find it prevalant all round us, heh escpeasily in those who
> profess to be without it!
>
> The argument goes something like this.
>
> You agree that nothing exists without a cause, then each of our choices must
> be predetermined upon a cause of which we have little or no knowledge of.
>
> It's a huge leap of faith, I mean to declare determinism true without first
> pinning down all of these causes. For if we can find just one counter
> example then the whole deal just blows away on the wind.
>
> As to where the brain gets it's data, well all around, everything that we
> encounter colours our perceptions and our ideas about the world around us,
> about how we do, and how we ought to deal with each other, in other words
> the building of the 'The Self'. 'Common Sense' shows us that we can in some
> ways mold our Selves, in effect act consiously upon the brain to effect
> changes inthe brain. This sure seems akin to freewill to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:25:40 UTC+1, malcymo wrote:
>>
>> Hello each,
>>
>> I shall be within reach of modern technology again for the next 6
>> months when the jungle will call again.
>>
>> Have read the new posts on this thread with interest and am sensing a
>> belief that because the brain makes our choices then they must be
>> free.
>> But to understand whether our choices are free or not do we not have
>> to establish from whence the brain derives the data on which it bases
>> its choices??? Is not our behavior largely based on evolutionary
>> successful actions which have proved successful in the past
>> (sometimes irrational and instinctive) and only slightly modified by
>> rational thought on which you all know my view.
>>
>> It seems a worry to me that most evolutionary apt behaviours are now
>> not adapting quickly enough to be relevant in our present world.
>>
>> Nice to be back and see the site active.
>>
>> Malc
>>
>> On May 18, 9:13 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You are blessed, Allan, I feel... in having a rather uncomplicated
>> > view. Most people are yet to discover that !
>> >
>> > Seriously... the complexities they speak of is more about themselves
>> > than of what they speak of. But, peace, dear ones !
>> >
>> > On May 18, 12:01 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Strange Vam , I have always seen more choices, now I also see the
>> > > effect
>> > > of the choices .. which leaves only basic first path. I do have
>> > > absolute
>> > > free will to leave that path any time I chose.. to date I have seen no
>> > > one
>> > > offer a better path.
>> > > On May 18, 2012 7:46 AM, "Vam" <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > " Life is a combination of free will & destiny. More you go deep in
>> > > > meditation & align with laws of nature, your free will increases -
>> > > > Sri
>> > > > Sri "
>> >
>> > > > Just read this quote on Twitter.
>> >
>> > > > On May 10, 2:19 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Ohhh Molly there is always choice, and we are faced with countless
>> > > > > everyday. Perhaps though the biggest choice is simply " To be"
>> > > > > Or
>> > > > indeed
>> > > > > to, not be.
>> >
>> > > > > On Monday, 9 January 2012 23:20:58 UTC, Molly wrote:
>> > > > > > Perhaps, gabby. But at this point in my life, for me, there is
>> > > > > > no
>> > > > > > other choice. So is it really a choice?
>> >
>> > > > > > On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in,
>> > > > > > > too! I
>> > > > > > > believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment,
>> > > > > > > feeling
>> > > > > > > alive!
>> >
>> > > > > > > On Jan 9, 11:34 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to
>> > > > > > > > do the
>> > > > > > > > same. Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
>> > > > > > > > extraordinary amount of love and care. At some point,
>> > > > > > > > choice, like
>> > > > > > > > goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away. And
>> > > > > > > > here we
>> > > > are.
>> > > > > > > > Relating to those we love. Feeling the life we've been
>> > > > > > > > given. Ten
>> > > > > > > > years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today. I
>> > > > > > > > am
>> > > > here
>> > > > > > > > because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best
>> > > > > > > > I can
>> > > > "do"
>> > > > > > > > is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize
>> > > > > > > > the same
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > > > others, whatever the circumstance. Given that, life
>> > > > > > > > unfolds.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 3:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by
>> > > > > > > > > observing
>> > > > what's
>> > > > > > > > > around us. Teenagers are a minefield of such information.
>> > > > > > > > > My
>> > > > > > > > > grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having
>> > > > > > > > > enough
>> > > > > > baths
>> > > > > > > > > and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'.
>> > > > > > > > > Empirically he
>> > > > > > stinks.
>> > > > > > > > > He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him.
>> > > > > > > > > He can't
>> > > > > > keep
>> > > > > > > > > his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care
>> > > > > > > > > not to
>> > > > > > break
>> > > > > > > > > the charger lead (etc.). It has barely dawned on him that
>> > > > > > > > > I was
>> > > > > > once
>> > > > > > > > > his age and that he has never been my age. He's a good
>> > > > > > > > > enough
>> > > > lad
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > this is all that really matters to me. He was like an
>> > > > > > > > > Irishman
>> > > > put
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add
>> > > > > > > > > Pole,
>> > > > > > > > > Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice). I gave him a power
>> > > > > > > > > lead
>> > > > > > straight
>> > > > > > > > > from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the
>> > > > > > > > > socket
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > the insulation packaging left on. I guess he won't next
>> > > > > > > > > time,
>> > > > > > though
>> > > > > > > > > I proved a slower learner on some such stuff. It would be
>> > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > enough
>> > > > > > > > > to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly
>> > > > > > > > > nitwit.
>> > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > idea is we don't. How do we know?
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > I agree with RP that we are looking at complex
>> > > > > > > > > > relations. Lots
>> > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\
>> > > > > > > > > > example:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > "The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century
>> > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the
>> > > > pragmatists.
>> > > > > > > > > > Human beings, as the products of evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > > development, are
>> > > > > > natural
>> > > > > > > > > > beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are
>> > > > > > > > > > also the
>> > > > > > > > > > products of a natural evolutionary development. As such,
>> > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity,
>> > > > > > > > > > could
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible
>> > > > > > > > > > with its
>> > > > > > status,
>> > > > > > > > > > i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view,
>> > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > sharp division of labor between science and
>> > > > > > > > > > epistemology. In
>> > > > > > > > > > particular, the results of particular sciences such as
>> > > > > > evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > > biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant
>> > > > > > > > > > to the
>> > > > > > > > > > solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches,
>> > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > general,
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are
>> > > > > > > > > > directly
>> > > > > > > > > > motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those
>> > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and
>> > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > argue
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution
>> > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > biology
>> > > > > > > > > > are called "evolutionary epistemologies."
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address
>> > > > > > > > > > questions
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view.
>> > > > > > Evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > > epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and
>> > > > > > > > > > metaphors
>> > > > > > drawn
>> > > > > > > > > > from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > resolve
>> > > > > > > > > > issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As
>> > > > > > disciplines
>> > > > > > > > > > co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus,
>> > > > > > > > > > evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > > epistemology also involves attempts to understand how
>> > > > biological
>> > > > > > > > > > evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models
>> > > > > > > > > > drawn from
>> > > > > > our
>> > > > > > > > > > understanding of conceptual change and the development
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > theories.
>> > > > > > > > > > The term "evolutionary epistemology" was coined by
>> > > > > > > > > > Donald
>> > > > Campbell
>> > > > > > > > > > (1974)."
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply
>> > > > > > > > > > science
>> > > > > > methods' to
>> > > > > > > > > > look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Here is a thought.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful
>> > > > > > evolutionary
>> > > > > > > > > > > developement of the biological brain then that is all
>> > > > > > > > > > > it is.
>> > > > > > Certainly
>> > > > > > > > > > > rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a
>> > > > > > > > > > > fungus
>> > > > in a
>> > > > > > cave
>> > > > > > > > > > > for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill
>> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > nothing
>> > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > than an apt evolutionary development.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > those are just excuses, yes my back ground and
>> > > > experiences
>> > > > > > are what I use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for making decision --- that does not bind me, i
>> > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > the choice to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > respond as i like
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Allan
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <123...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are bound by very subtle ties and our
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ostensible
>> > > > freedom
>> > > > > > is wrapped
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and if
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > don't we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that
>> > > > without,
>> > > > > > binds us.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <
>> > > > nwte...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > us are
>> > > > > > early-tuned to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > religious ones. I suspect that the idea of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > social
>> > > > science
>> > > > > > is one of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > topic in
>> > > > 1960
>> > > > > > - I'd guess
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mythologise
>> > > > > > many secular
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > elements of society - democracy is one,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > leadership
>> > > > > > another. Science
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all
>> > > > questions
>> > > > > > or (as in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have no
>> > > > free
>> > > > > > will we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should stop locking up criminals. The question
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on free
>> > > > > > will is what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > life would entail without it and consequent
>> > > > > > responsibilities denied.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > make oursleves
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > works of art.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <allanh1...@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I totally agree with you Molly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <mollyb...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > and
>> > > > > > effect. Many of us
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > just prefer it there.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > <allanh1...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Free will is a reality.. the problem comes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > once
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > made your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > choice and
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment