Free will or not free will that is the question?????

1. 58

   Knight6posted 5 years ago

   I recently read one of the post here from a woman who ask for help in trying to understand why god let people who abuse kids have kids and those who wanted kids not have them. As i read her piece and read through the comments from other users the term free will kept on coming up. So i ask the community this........
   Do we the human race deserve free will? We have not done anything to show we compassionate towards one another.God gave us the freedom to chose, was that the wrong thing for him to do? could we compare it to giving a child a loaded gun without the safety on?
   Even if you remove the god factor, i think what i am trying to say or ask is Are we to childish to be left to our devices and if so what are the solutions  if any??????

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Knight6posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you all for your insight and hopefully continued insight. I think the questions i asked may have been put a little to simply and the debate about free will and whether or not we have it is a lot more complex then just faith biology or social and mental situation. The two things we have no free will over are being born and dying neither of which we have control over and my view is that is the point. We live our lives in what we believe is free will but for humans need to be treated like children allow them a child to learn and grow from experience but keep some control over them to prevent them from doing harm to themselves,we function as humans because of free will and no free will the conscious and unconscious mind one doing whatever it wants the other reigning in control that is why we don't all kill our boss we just talk about it. This could be called self control or maybe it is control over our free will. Now please don't point out the fact that people can take their own lives thus freewill, i decide i want to die so i die. I understand that seems like free will but speaking as some one who thought about it and nearly did believe me free will was no where near it. The free will to want to die was the illusion it was false control, taking the child analogy it was a tantrum which almost cost me my life but control from unconscious parts of my mind stop it. There are people out there who have this in reverse but i believe it is still the same idea. I might be wrong but who knows...........

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Stephanie Billonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         This is my belief that I have formed from the knowledge I have gained throughput my years...
         God gave us free will because he wanted us to love him and choose him by choice, not because we are forced to.  It would be great for him if he wanted us not to have free will because we all would love him unconditionally and everything would run smoothly according o God's will. When you think about this, honestly, would you seriously choose to magically cast a spell on the man you fell in love with or would you want him to love you by his own choice? God does not want our love and respect to be forced; this is why he gave us free will

         replyreport
         1. 59

            BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            We don't have free will, what we have is an illusion of free will.
            Just see how many gods are there (as per different people born in different parts of the world), as they have different information. If there were any free will there would only be a choice between yes or no.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               BuddiN sense this reply does not make any …
               
               "We don't have free will, what we have is an illusion of free will."  How so?
               
               
               "Just see how many gods are there (as per different people born in different parts of the world), as they have different information." Huh?
               
               Do you have an example of these differing gods and religious philosophies? If you look closely most religions, no matter where they are in the world, say the same things. What do these religious philosophies have to do with free will? They all agree on the precept of doing unto others as you would have others do unto you.
               
               While we have free will, everyone would agree, we must wisely guide our free will to avoid hurting others and steer clear of bad consequences for ourselves.
               
               For example, many foreigners come to America assuming America is literally the land of the FREE!  WHEE…! Young men buy new cars on credit, drive them too fast, get tons of speeding tickets they can't pay and rack up credit card and student loan bills. Older women from other countries, once they become citizens, finally get free/divorced from the SOB they felt stuck with in their own country and, although they were happy to get divorced, now they must work themselves to the bone with no family support, whoops. Even some young adults, who grew up in this country, get married with no job, make babies and are stuck in the negative until they are bankrupt. I have seen all these scenarios first hand. Were these people using their free wills? Yes. Were they guiding them appropriately? No. Who's fault is it when they get into so much debt, they don't know what to do? God's?
               
               
               
               
               
               "If there were any free will there would only be a choice between yes or no." Yes or no to what?

               replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand why people still define God as someone or something who unleases mass murders, gang rapes and other horrific human behaviors.
      
      There is no such God. If there is, then such a God is not worth devotion.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Knight6posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Remove God from the human race, any God or belief, and the truth is the only thing left to blame for all the horrors in the world is humans, who use a belief system to pass the blame. religion is an insurance policy for when we die. The real problem with the world is us.

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         God as an essence is worth devotion if you wish to free yourself from appearances.

         replyreport
2. 77

   Oztinatoposted 5 years ago

   Deep analysis might show that our so called free will is limited to deciding to do the right thing or not.
   Many other human actions are governed by instincts and social pressures or such things as hormonal imbalances, psychological quirks etc.
   Really we are usually at the mercy of biological and social forces beyond our control.
   We are not in control of the most basic things such as breathing and heart rate.
   There is an illusion of free will except paradoxically for the ever present free will to choose "right or wrong". That is also another huge debate as well. However the "battle between right and wrong" or between "good and evil" is paramount to what makes a human an actual human as opposed to an inhumane creature.
   This drama is inbuilt in the entire evolution of man's culture, sentience, art, and really in every aspect of real humanity.
   It is itself powerful self evident proof of a higher spiritual calling for humanity. It suggests tests and future rewards.
   The very poor state of people's world at this point in history may be irrelevant to the central drama being played out. In other words for an individual to adhere to "right" in such a sewer is itself a passing of the test.
   What is right: compassion, selflessness, empathy or what is reduced symbolically to the one hippy word Love.

   replyreport
3. 73

   ptosisposted 5 years ago

   In order to have 'Free Will' then have to believe in an soul.
   If a soul does exist, where does it exist?
   It used to be thought the soul was in the heart, now most people think it resides in the brain.
   
   Which brain? The big one or the little one?
   
   There are about 100 million neurons in your gut - the same size as a cat's brain that controls you appetite. This brain cannot speak but perhaps it influences decisions other than eating that we may not aware of. Sociopathic serial killers know how to tap into this and marketers try to by selling an idea and not a product. Think of those commercials where you have no idea what they are trying to sell." - http://hub.me/adTsn
   
   "In the book “Who's in Charge?”, author Michael Gazzaniga says that our brain's parallel processing is like a committee, there is no head honcho. Unlike in the movie “The Matrix”, there is no Architect - only the Interpreter. Our brains are a convention of contending delegates from which our self identity emerges greater that the sum of individual parts. - https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/ChaosFreeWill
   
   First thing have to do is un-program ourselves of Descartes  dualism which created the the Mind-Body Problem. The mind–body problem is the question of how the human mind and body can causally interact. Descartes' philosophy requires a gateway between the free will and the determined body. So he picks the Pineal Gland.
   
   So first step is forget dualism  which is going to be hard since it has been drummed into us since childhood. Don't go for the "no free will" neither - that would be very depressing. Determinism is SO depressing.
   
   Self-determination theory, for example, holds that volitional functioning—intentional, freely chosen behavior—is a basic human need (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
   
   
   
   ["German scientists Hans Helmut Kornhuber and Lüder Deecke discovered a phenomenon they dubbed "bereitschaftspotential" (BP) — a term that translates to "readiness potential." Their discovery, that the brain enters into a special state immediately prior to conscious awareness, set off an entirely new subfield.
   
   Libet concluded that we have no free will as far as the initiation of our movements are concerned, but that we had a kind of cognitive "veto" to prevent the movement at the last moment; we can't start it, but we can stop it." - http://io9.gizmodo.com/5975778/scientif … -free-will

   replyreport
4. 74

   cheaptrickposted 5 years ago

   "We cant start it,but we can stop it"...I like that;I'm going to be thinking about that for some time,thanks.
   Free will is a logical absurdity...Given the definitions and parameters touted by religionists these days,some violation of those would have to occur for free will to exist...The limited amount of scientific investigation available seems to side with the post above.(again,thanks).
   The problem with determinism is...if it's true...how can we execute a serial killer...or imprison a pedophile...or anyone else for that matter?Determinism,in essence,is a 'get out of jail free' card...even if it's true...

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The answer lies in determinism itself.  We can do such things because we have no choice in the matter: fear, self interest, disgust, etc. require that we execute such people.  We don't have a choice, any more than the serial killer did.
      
      Not something I would agree with, and rather sad to think that nature evolved us to such a state, but there it is.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Good answer W

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Crummy answer, w.

         replyreport
      3. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         According to online dictonary, determinism is: "the doctrine that human action, is ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
         
         Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will
         
         and (therefore) cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."
         
         
         That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
         
         "In the book “Who's in Charge?”, author Michael Gazzaniga says that our brain's parallel processing is like a committee, there is no head honcho."
         
         Oh, Brother!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So?  Read your first sentence again: human action is determined by causes external to will.  Thus free will does not exist because factors outside that will are what determines actions.
            
            Still don't agree with it, but that's what determinism is all about.  No free will, as defined in your first sentence.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Actually w is right IF you adhere to 19th century philos and you will get depessed or angry.  Read the newer stuff. Learned more about brain in last 10 years than last 10k.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, I'm seeing more on the side of determinism than free will; we are constructed in such a way as to make nearly every choice outside of will.  Choices are made based on desire, yes, but even more so on past experiences coupled with current sensory and neural input (those M neurons in the gut, for instance.
                  
                  All while physics says random events happen (free will!) and that everything is interconnected and dependent on each other (determinism).  So when push comes to shove I come down on the side of free will because determinism is so damnably depressing, just as you say.

                  replyreport
            2. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               No. The inner consciousness of a person determines how he or she will react to external stimuli.
               ( stimuli: "stimulant, encouragement, impetus, boost, prompt, prod, incentive, inducement, inspiration; motivation, impulse" ).
               
               Internal reactions to the outer world have been pre-programmed into the psyche, mostly during the first six years of life, but an adult decides whether or not to act according to unconscious, subconscious or conscious reactions to outer stimuli. For instance, my friend is serving chocolate ice cream at her child's birthday party. My immediate reaction is to want some because I enjoyed it as a child. Nevertheless, as an adult, I know its not healthy for me, so I don't have any. In this case, I consciously guided my free will based on my knowledge that the high sugar and fat content of ice cream is not good for me. Those who do end up eating ice cream at this birthday party probably did not:
               1. know ice cream is detrimental to their health.
               2. care about their health.
               3. have a reason to exercise "won't power."

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  But this only works if you stop before reaching the end of the exercise.
                  
                  You don't take ice cream because past history tells you it is unhealthy.  You have a fixation on your health - the neurons of your brain are built and connected that way.  And between the two, you have no choice but to turn down the ice cream; your internal fixation won't allow you to do things known detrimental to your health.  Other people without that fixation may have ice cream, but you don't have a choice.

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  And the inner consciousness is entirely determined by the genes and environment.
                  Or, only Genes, in the sense you meant, the influences once you discount the environment.

                  replyreport
         2. 73

            ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You were compelled to reply with a post.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Lol. I decided to reply.
               
               decide:
               "resolve, determine, make up one's mind, make a decision; elect, choose, opt, plan, aim, have the intention, have in mind."
               
               
               choose verb
               "1 select, pick (out), opt for, settle on, decide on, fix on, take; appoint, name, nominate, vote for, elect.
               2 wish, want, desire, feel/be inclined, please, like, see fit."

               replyreport
         3. 59

            BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Morality is determined by the community. It's a set of rules its members should follow. People are NOT responsible for their actions because, yes, it is determined by factors not on their control. But in practice society can work only by holding people responsible for their actions because, the rules and its implementation are also part of the externalities that constrains.
            You probably have heard of the McNaughten's rule. People are not responsible for their actions if insane. But what degree of insanity is insane? It is a continuum. At some point we have to draw the line. Yes, it's arbitrary, but that is what makes the society functions and allow it to change and adapt.

            replyreport
      4. 77

         Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness
         The Reverend Donald wants to send innocent child refugees back into war zones where they will be raped and killed etc.
         Thoughts?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            home is a war zone? Maybe these people who got a good education can go back and try to change things for the better. They can also choose to become citizens and come back.

            replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You need to take them into the refuge you have constructed on your personal island.  You must protect everyone from the evil Reverend.  Hope your fortune is large.
            
            And your mind has become so twisted with hatred for the President of the United States you cannot stray from thinking of him for more than a few minutes.  It's called "determinism"; your neural construction bars you from living a life of cheer and kindness, but will remain locked into hatred for at least 4 years.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I am highly determined to return to Hubpages to hate on 'Ol Bone Spurs like a freaking drug addict.  What should I do?  Oh I know ... Just 'stop it'
               
               If you hate Bob Newhart then don't click on https://youtu.be/Ow0lr63y4Mw

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm sure you are, and I'm sure it is cathartic to you - releasing hatred in a long, if senseless, diatribe usually is.
                  
                  It just doesn't do much for readers; I fear your propensity for using opinion as fact coupled with massive exaggeration and even outright lies has rather ruined any credibility you might have had.

                  replyreport
            2. 77

               Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Wilderness
               Please refrain from personal attacks. Otherwise...........you know.

               replyreport
            3. 77

               Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I note you haven't responded to my observations about the glaring hypocritical dichotomy between "hubbers" who criticise fundamentalist views while in the same  breath supporting a fundamentalist political leader. 
               See, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
               If someone insists all believers in God are ready to kill and they also follow a fundamentalist who tries to send refugee children to their deaths: ergo they are supporting the same thing they allegedly criticized with Alzheimer reasoning.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Probably because there is nothing to reply to.  Your quaint tirades against the President, whether meant that way or not, show nothing but irrational hatred and lies.
                  
                  The empty claim of sending children to die is a case in point - the President hasn't sent refugee children anywhere, let alone to their death.  Or the claim that the President is a fundamentalist Christian - he isn't and no one putting any effort into truth and reality would not make such a claim. 
                  
                  But you're certainly correct in that we can't have cake and eat it too.  When one simply spouts nonsense day after day, without any effort towards truth (think of calling Trump a "reverend" here ), well, no one is much interested in replying.  Come back to reality, get off the soap box and I'll listen.  If you just want replies to lies, insinuations of evil and other ridiculous claims you'll have to go elsewhere.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     So its only you who thinks poor Donald doesn't support fundamentalists and even Nazis.
                     Your arguments cake is that you vigourously defend atheism but you eat supporting religious fundamentalists great white hope the Reverend Donald.
                     I note your argument unsuccessfully tries desperately to separate the two opposing views.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't see any information as to where children were sent from or where they were sent to, to die.  Have you given up on that wild, silly claim and turned to some other irrelevant and false allegation now?

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           The claim is that you both defend and despise religious fundamentalism.
                           Donald is one of those fundamentalists. He's been desperately trying to ban refugees since his Russian backed campaign. It's been relentless.
                           I'm glad you are trying to act as if this hasn't been happening so all the readers can witness the bizarre double standards and fruitless denials.
                           These bizarre denials would actually be funny except for the dangerous plight of refugees and their innocent children..

                           replyreport
                           1. 73

                              ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Donald is a fundamentalist what exactly?  He has no religion. Other than adoring himself that is.

                              replyreport
                              1. 77

                                 Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 In some ways I agree with that!
                                 Donald pretends to be a fundamentalist because he wants votes. He covertly supports Nazis because he definitely wants to cause violence when he finally gets thrown out of office. He's a sore loser.
                                 He wants to defend backwoods fundamentalism but he also has stables full of female sex workers.
                                 Donald's a nut.
                                 The nuttiness gets worse as he tries to please every fundamentalist nut jobs fetish to build a base.
                                 Sad.
                                 

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 73

                                    ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    I don't think that he supports Nazis, he just a white racist, plain and simple. The guy has no ideology neither. Guy is like a cup or glass and you can fill it up with anything. That's why so scary that he listens to that extremist Bannon with all his kooky ideas.
                                    
                                    His aim is to please no one but himself. Loyal to no one. A simple man with simple needs - make other people feel like shit is one or his pleasures.  We now have at least 2 people who said in public that when the JOTUS nutted up on them in front of staff that it was the most humiliating episode  in their professional career.
                                    
                                    John Kelly is one, do you know who the other person is?

                                    replyreport
                           2. 95

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              If your claim is that I  both defend and despise religious fundamentalism then it is up to you to support that statement - it is never up to me to provide evidence for your wild and silly claims.  But I will agree that I support their right to speak as they wish...just as I support yours even as I consistently and constantly request that you support your lies with facts.
                              
                              You keep saying Trumps campaign was back by Russia, but have yet to provide any evidence of such a ridiculous claim.  Perhaps it's time to quit making it, in an effort towards being truthful?
                              
                              Sure enough, Trump has tried to ban refugees (and all other travelers) from a handful of countries known to be strongholds of terrorism.  Is that what you're using to support the ridiculous claim that he sent children to their death?

                              replyreport
                              1. 73

                                 ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Let's use W's tactics just for fun.
                                 "it is up to you to support that statement - it is never up to me to provide evidence for your wild and silly claims. "
                                 &
                                 "I consistently and constantly request that you support your lies with facts."
                                 
                                 Well W, it is up to you then to prove that the other's post are even lies according to your own logic, isn't it?
                                 
                                 W's uses  catch-22 system. Besides facts supporting lies is illogical - unless you are going for 'alt-facts' for the 'alt-right', [I.E. extremist radical right]
                                 
                                 Saudi Arabia is a stronghold of terrorism and was behind 911 - so why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? , Nevermind, I'll answer my own question, because Cheney etal wanted to since 1998 that's why.
                                 
                                 "

                                 replyreport
                              2. 77

                                 Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 I won't be red herringed.
                                 Hubbers who've spent years denigrating all religions can't claim to have any semblance of logic by supporting Donald. Wilderness you have vigourously stood up for Donald.
                                 It's got nil to do with accepting people's "rights to speak as they wish". Zero. Ethics and law is clear that such things as Hitler's revolting legacy are not acceptable.
                                 Repeatedly trying to send refugees back to poverty and dangerous environments is just another way of killing families.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    "Wilderness you have vigourously stood up for Donald. "
                                    
                                    Untrue, for while he has done a few things I approve of, for the most part I detest the man.  One the other hand, I will object to lies about him, assumptions of wrong-doing without proof, and intentionally running down the President of our country for no more reason that he isn't a Democrat.
                                    
                                    As far as the Nazi party marching to keep civil war statues, it most certainly does have to do with freedom of speech.  You may not like it, you may hate the group, you may find them objectionable in the extreme, but ethically you must let them speak.  To do anything else is to lower yourself to what you see in them - an almost rabid desire to control others because you don't agree with them.
                                    
                                    And once more; when and where did Trump send refugees from and where did he send them to?  Refusing entry to millions of people is not "sending children to their death".

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 77

                                       Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       The records here decisively prove you have been vigourously supporting Donald to the hilt.
                                       The records also show you have spent literally years denigrating and stereotyping all religions as fundamentalist clap trap.
                                       Now for mere expediency you suddenly claim you "detest" Donald. In other words this is a dishonest evasive way of saying you are wrong.
                                       This sort of behaviour can't be respected at all.
                                       Once again I'm so glad you are now clearly stating that Nazis are merely using free speech in their activities. This is now on record as well.
                                       Finally: just turning a blind eye to the life threatening practice of trying to send refugees back to dangerous environments is ethically appalling. But Donald and his deplorables keep trying.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          "The records also show you have spent literally years denigrating and stereotyping all religions as fundamentalist clap trap. "
                                          
                                          That is (mostly) correct.  I've made no secret that I'm not a believer, and I haven't been backwards at spouting back the same nonsense, in reverse, as some believers do.  Turn about seems fair; you make claims about faith and give your unsupported opinion as factual I feel I have the same right.
                                          
                                          Likewise, I've never made a secret that I don't like Donald Trump, the man.  I don't.  But when you say I support him, you can find a few times I have supported his ideas (the wall, DACA, deportation) but far more often I've simply jumped on false claims without supporting anything but the idea of truth and honesty.  (Claims like Trump sends children to their death, or has a connection with Putin.)  And I've done that with Trump, with police shootings, with about any claim that is made without having proof of truth.  HP forums are not unlike the rest of the internet; people will make the stupidest claims, out of hatred or simple displeasure, and do so without a shred of truth in them.
                                          
                                          Until you have answered that very simple question I've asked over and over (when and where were they sent from and where were they sent to) you may as well quit claiming Trump sends children to their death.  It's not true and it won't suddenly become true no matter how many times you repeat it.  You can also dispense with the notion that I and my neighbors owe a life to refugees that have allowed their own country to become a ruined mess - I don't and America doesn't.  We are not the world's nanny.  We are not responsible for the rest of the world, and a great many of us decline to ruin our own lives in trying to be that nanny.

                                          report
                                          1. 77

                                             Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             You are misrepresenting me.
                                             Donald has TRIED and keeps trying to block refugees and or immigrants who are desperately fleeing from urgent danger and/or extreme poverty. He is committed to this cruelty.
                                             Everyone knows this as all media including  ultra right media groups.
                                             There is less and less opportunities for you to deny or use red herrings as all this is now public knowledge.

                                             report
                                             1. 95

                                                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                Well, at least you're getting a little closer to truth.  Yes, Trump has prevented people from moving into our country, using our accomplishments and what we've worked for, to support themselves.  Which he (and we) have a perfect right to do; our country does not belong to the world, does not belong to anyone that decides they want it.  There is neither ethical nor legal requirement to give it away.
                                                
                                                But that is a far cry from "sending children to their death", which is what you falsely claimed.  The "red herring", then, is the exaggerated, false statement you made, not the fact that we own our country and have a right to use it as we see fit.

                                                report
                                                1. 77

                                                   Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                   The record shows I have repeatedly said Donald has tried to send people back to dangerous life threatening situations.
                                                   Yes we are closer to the truth as we now know you also are ok with sending people back into life threatening situations; and you're ok with Nazis and past slave owners; and you're ok with the hypocrisy of both mocking and supporting fundamentalists etc.
                                                   Yes Wilderness we are a lot closer to the truth.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 95

                                                      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Yes, well, let's let the record show what was actually said:
                                                      
                                                      "Wilderness
                                                      The Reverend Donald wants to send innocent child refugees back into war zones where they will be raped and killed etc.
                                                      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … ost2910533
                                                      
                                                      Which is what I said, now isn't it?
                                                      
                                                      Of course you have steadfastly refused to indicate where they were sent from or where they were sent to...perhaps because there isn't a hint of truth to the statement?  Any more than there is to the rest of the crap in the latest post?
                                                      
                                                      Give it up, Oz; not a person reading this garbage will believe that I'm OK sending children to their death, that I'm OK with Nazis, slave owners or supporting fundamentalists (outside of their constitutional rights, anyway).  Posts like this say something, all right, but not what you think they do.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 77

                                                         Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Gee you certainly sound like you agree with Donald on these bizarre issues. Since the election it's been "Donald Donald Donald" as if he can't do a thing wrong. Suddenly you detest him.
                                                         Yes Donald wants to send families back into war zones. Thats what I said. Only the alt right agrees with that ergo you support extreme right wing views.
                                                         Nazis practicing free speech? That's an utter farce. Nazis practice sick hate speech. But of course you support their right to do that.
                                                         It's as clear as the moustache on your face that all my observations hit their mark. Unless of course an observer is a very very extreme right winger.
                                                         
                                                         
                                                         

                                                         report
                                                         1. 95

                                                            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                            "Yes Donald wants to send families back into war zones. Thats what I said. "
                                                            
                                                            Here - in case you can't read very well, I'll post what you said again:  "The Reverend Donald wants to send innocent child refugees back into war zones where they will be raped and killed etc.".  While an unspecified "war zone" is a step towards defining where they will be sent to, there is still no indication of where Trump wishes to send them from.  Try again, for the 10th time?
                                                            
                                                            I know, I know.  The only speech allowed under the law and concept of "free speech" is that with which you agree.  There is even a word for it: "hypocrisy".  Or perhaps "control", and it is popular among a certain segment of the population that wishes to ignore constitutional rights and limit what others do.  And no, I do not subscribe to the philosophy, and won't no matter how strongly you feel it is right and proper.
                                                            
                                                            Bottom line is that such a stance - that only others that agree with your own philosophy shall be allowed to speak or express themselves - makes you no better than they are.  Add in the lies ("you're ok with Nazis and past slave owners") and even the nazis, supremacists and racists are head and shoulders above what you exhibit.

                                                            report
                                                            1. 77

                                                               Oztinatoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                               Read Castlepalomas post.
                                                               Wilderness we all read the news and watch tv.
                                                               Your beating a dead horse or sporting an austin powers crapoo  moustache or holding a John cleese dead parrot.
                                                               
                                                               

                                                               report
                                                               1. 95

                                                                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                                  Agreed.  I'm beating a dead horse.  There are people that will say things that they cannot show to be true, and there are people that will deny others the rights they they themselves enjoy.  It has been that way for millenia, and while some will recognize what they are doing when it is pointed out and change, others will forever insist they have an innate right to such behavior.

                                                                  report
                                                   2. 91

                                                      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Oh gawddd! The Nazis and slave owners in one declaration. Hmm... 
                                                      
                                                      GA

                                                      report
                                                      1. 95

                                                         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Rather makes one wonder, doesn't it?

                                                         report
                                                   3. 75

                                                      Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Kudos for Oz!!!, I rarely offer to anyone here.
                                                      Killing children is about the worst hell on earth' I can imagine.
                                                      
                                                      65 million refugees each year are wondering the earth looking for a home.
                                                      
                                                      Ordinary Afghans—who are always left out of the calculations of American experts—are the first to suffer and the last to be included in war plans.". American generals don't do body counts and Syria and Afghan it is a war on children. US Bombings kill mostly women and children.
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      US military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.
                                                      
                                                      The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, and Indones.
                                                      
                                                      The Greater Isreal project is going well, the wipe out of serveral Northern African Muslims nations and Middle eastern. Trump plans to attack many more Muslim nations and will follow through. To steal their land and oil and soul converted to christains and sent the rest flying on majic carpets or camel is up to them.
                                                      
                                                      Don't dare to think outside tbe box Americans. Eat your sh×t your Zionist feed you, keep majoring in minor things like all your tec toys they bought you off with. Keep wondering why the America and Isreal are the most hated countries in the world.
                                                      
                                                      Good thing I am not against or hate anyone because either way. What do I care, I live in Bolivia.

                                                      report
   2. 59

      BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      We can execute a serial killer because he is a serial killer... it's determined by his biology(genes and environment). So by executing, we are not reforming him or punishing him but helping people who otherwise might be killed by him, the same way we used to kill the 'man eater' big cats [of course we may keep him in confinement hoping that at some point he might change, but we need the wherewithal]. Then, there is the condition of negative stimulus, the environmental factor. The execution might act as a negative stimulus, a deterrent, for some.

      replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Individual Consciousness is in charge. Humans have the most consciousness and self-awareness. Of course, at every single given second they decide, based on numerous factors, what course of action to take. The problem is, most people do not know how to guide themselves toward their own true happiness. They don't have enough information to go by. Like a sailor adrift in the ocean with no compass. The sailor can wait until night-time to see the stars, but even then, knowledge of the stars needs to have been learned somewhere along the line.

   replyreport
6. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Even if you remove the god factor, i think what i am trying to say or ask is Are we to childish to be left to our devices and if so what are the solutions  if any??????
   
   Even if you remove the God factor, I think what you are trying to ask, are these questions:
   
   1. Are we too childish to be left to our own devices?
   
   2. If so what are the solutions ...  if any??????
   
   
   1. Children are in a state of open-ness to the ways of the world they were born into. If a child is not taught The Golden Rule and is not given the freedom to know himself, he will be like a colt running with no sense of direction: Without his mother he could go running of a cliff. Without his sense of how to keep himself safe, he will plunge to his death.
   
   Children have the potential to learn how to be safe in the world and how to be concerned for the welfare of others. If we are like children and our creator is God, doesn't it make sense that we must find God and learn how to guide our free wills, which of course, yes we have. Otherwise what is the purpose of our existence?
   
   2. The solution is to teach ourselves and our children well. What is "well"?
   Hint: Find God or the source of goodness, joy, happiness within ourselves.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "Otherwise what is the purpose of our existence? "
      
      There IS no "purpose" to our existence, not in the sense you mean it.  While one might say that nature has decreed that our "purpose" is to survive as long as possible as a species, and others might say we all define our own "purpose" in life, neither is what you mean.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         cheaptrickposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I beg to differ W...The design determines the function and the function determines purpose.The purpose of wire is to conduct electricity though it can be used for other things;It's primary purpose is to conduct electricity.I submit that the design of human beings is to function as conductors of consciousness which,hopefully,increases awareness;Why?...I'm afraid at that point it all goes over my head and into deeper water (please see avatar lol)...but I'm fairly certain that we are designed primarily to conduct consciousness and have the capacity to increase or grow that consciousness by various means to yield greater awareness...again,that's where it goes beyond me...A.D.R

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And I submit that the design of humans is to maximize the tenure of the species on the planet.  But, just like Kathryn, your use of the term "design" does not equate with mine, for the dumb forces of nature and evolution cannot truly be said to "design" anything at all.  Not the Grand Canyon, not Angel Falls and not the human body.  It's just the closest thing we have to a designer.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Have you never designed anything? If we do not have free will, we would not design, invent and make things.
               I have designed many a thing. Maybe you don't have free will, but I do!

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I have - a part of my past jobs was design and construction.
                  
                  Now all you have to do is show the link between lack of free will and not being able to design anything.  Do birds have free will?  Ants and termites?  Salmon?  beavers?  All are known for design work, yet it's more than a little difficult for me to assign "free will" to ants or even salmon.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     You forgot spiders.
                     
                     My favorite spider education movie about spider webs is located at
                     https://youtu.be/Dg-r-S0fIkA
                     
                     
                     
                     Please put your drink down before laughing all over your keyboard. (seriously)

                     replyreport
7. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Consciousness is pure at birth. It is diluted after that, but still pure throughout life. Its a matter of perceiving it. Our actions are always according to how we choose to guide them according to the free will of pure to diluted consciousness.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What do you mean by consciousness in the first place?
      What is this purity? That purity or whatever is decided by the genes that the fetus inherited along with the maternal uterine environment.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I think she is being abstract and not based on any empirical evidence. Not saying she is wrong but her statement has nothing to do with fetus or the genes.
         
         But what is consciousness in the first place is a very excellent question!
         
         I personally believe if you are going by the "I think, therefore I am", is wrong because it's based on the believe of an immortal soul that is not physical and doesn't have any way of interacting with the physical.
         
         But that's a lot harder for most people so here is an animation on "I think, therefore I am."
         
         https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/04/1 … es-ted-ed/
         
         
         
         
         

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Consciousness is awareness. We are not aware when we are asleep. The apparatus for conscious awareness is shut down in a resting phase. When we are awake we are aware. When we are awake and aware we choose what we do, think and say throughout the entire active phase. What we choose to think, say and do is based on freedom of individual thought. Everything we direct ourselves to do is not based on genetics, influenced, yes, but not propelled exclusively by genetics. At any point one can choose to say, act, do and even feel contrary to natural inbuilt or absorbed impulses. 
         
         For instance, just because a handsome man is pursuing me and wants to take me to bed on the first date doesn't mean I am going to submit to his flattering advances. Why not? Because no matter how much my ego wants its genetically and culturally induced high, I don't want to get pregnant or catch yucky germs.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Dogs are aware.  Spiders are aware, and flies.  Plants are aware, and react when the sun comes up.
            
            Are you sure you wish to define consciousness as being aware?

            replyreport
            1. 73

               ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               She is using a Victorian definition. Freud initially attempted to subdivide the mind purely in terms of different levels of consciousness.
               
               As we now know today  everything Freud thought was true was wrong.What is Victorian Consciousness?   Freud groped towards an understanding of the mind. But one thing he was certain of was that the unconscious, the deeper levels of the mind speak.
               
               Most of what we do, Freud would consider unconsciousness.
               
               Useless factoid -
               Your finger touches something hot, you pull back, you ask the person,; "Why did you pull back?" They would respond, "Because it was HOT!"
               
               But you explain, your finger and arm pulled back 256ms before the signal reached into your frontal cortex for you to become conscious of the heat. You pulled back before you so-called ego realized what was even happening!
               
               
               "If, then, our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel points out, there would be no basis on which to trust reason itself. To accept the truth of reasoning, Nagel observes, 'I have to be able to believe… that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct – not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so." - http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/ModernTheoryKM.html
               
               Silly Question: Is a zombie self aware?
               
               Elon Musk believes that we are all in a simulation!

               replyreport
         2. 59

            BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, and that part other than genetics is called environment.
            I still don't understand the 'purity of consciousness/awareness'.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               pure consciousness is that part of ourselves which is uninfluenced by genetics or environment. For instance, a baby at birth has perfect and pure consciousness. He is just beginning to relate to his body and his environment. As he grows he becomes increasingly aware of himself in relation to every person and situation he encounters through his senses. Maybe pure consciousness is that which precedes the brain, body and senses.
               I just know that I have it.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  BuddiNsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  So pure consciousness means pure awareness.... the knowledge that one is alive, that is there for everyone, every living thing with a brain.
                  Without body there is no awareness, so your opinion that consciousness is before body is just that, an opinion, for consciousness is the awareness(you said that) of a body of itself.
                  A baby at birth is already influenced by genes and maternal uterine environment. He is not able to distinguish himself from rest because of the underdevelopment of brain. Buddhist who meditate can switch of that part of brain and feel oneness. Some drugs too do that.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow. I didn't kbow that. Could never figure out what was meant by "emptying your mind". Could never shut off internal dialogue. Huh.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        which drugs? LSD?

                        replyreport
                     2. 77

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        it more like focusing on what really exists: the essence of Life, pure ...

                        replyreport
8. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   Free will or not free will. Here's my take on it. Yes. We have free will. However, we don't. I think past, present and future came into existence at the same time although we see it unfolding in a linear manner.
   
   If it all happened at the same time we are stuck in the trajectory laid out. We make our choices but they were already made at the beginning. We are simply not aware of it until it occurs in the linear manner we are aware of.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Honestly, this sounds like double talk - a spin on a fixed time line in order to support the idea of free will while also supporting predestination or predetermination. 
      
      If actions are pre-determined, a fixed timeline that cannot change, then there is no free will.  Saying that we just made the decisions before we existed is not reasonable, and neither is saying that we still make decisions even if they cannot vary from what that fixed timeline has already decreed.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I don't really see it that way. If it all began, was and ended in the same instant we would have free will. the only difference is that, if observed from outside of a timeline, it would be known.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well, that's kind of what I mean.  Understand that the language isn't appropriate for discussing time, but if it has already happened to an outside view, then it has happened.  There is zero chance, zero method, of making any "choice" but the one that was already made before it happened.
            
            Kind of like "choosing" to sit on an A bomb while it goes off and survive unscathed.  The "choice" isn't there, and neither is it there if it cannot be changed.
            
            I liken your "timeline" to Glinda's book, where she can look up and see what will happen.  It is written that I will choose pancakes for breakfast tomorrow - I cannot "choose" to have waffles instead.  Were I to do so, Glinda's book (your timeline) would be false, but if we assume it is not then I have no more "choice" than the person sitting on the bomb.
            
            On a different tack, I've been watching PBS specials about the brain.  It appears that many of what we term "choices" aren't choices at all; the physical makeup of our brain, our past experiences and present circumstances/environment actually make many of the choices for us.  Can't say I like the concept, but it makes too much sense to ignore.
            
            Example: an experiment was shown, where a person was told to give a "thumbs up" sign with their right hand every time a specific item was shown on a TV screen.  The did so...until a magnetic field was applied to a particular part of their brain, whereupon they "chose" the left hand.  Asked why, they (all of them) said they didn't know, they just "decided" to use that hand instead of what they had been asked to do.  The environment changed, and so did their "choice", but without actually giving them a choice at all.  You could see them twitch their right hand, pause and then use the left hand.  The "choice" was being forced by the magnetic field and ended up being no choice at all.  Rather scary, I thought, for without free will to make choices we are nothing.  Just another machine, a computer doing what it is programmed to do.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I think we are looking at apples and oranges and saying they can't both be fruit. You have free will, by every known definition. It simply has 'already' happened when observed from a different angle. If you were to choose left at every opportunity; it was  your choice. If I, observing from an angle of being able to see it your entire life during every moment, see you choose left; know you choose left; have seen you choose left in your past, present and future; did I deny you of free will or am I simply in a position to say you will choose left?
               
               Free will does not equate to predetermination. Not if all that is, has been and will be exists simultaneously. Are we products of the past? For sure. Because the entirety of existence appeared simultaneously in a linear manner; meant to be such and experienced such. Are we tied to the future? Sure we are. Because of our unique position in space and time. 
               
               And, who are we to say that the past, present and future isn't fluid? The time line undulating and changing  with each decision made? Were I an observer outside of it I would still know all.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No, you did not deny me of free will.  The fact that you already knew the choice to be made did, for if I cannot choose right instead of left then I cannot choose anything at all.  You're trying to present (I think) that I have made a choice before I existed or, at best, before I actually chose.  If the entire timeline came into existence at the Big Bang, including the event we call my choice to go left, then when I am born, live and get to that point in the timeline I cannot choose for it was predetermined at the time of the Big Bang.
                  
                  Another example; the timeline is a record - the old time record pressed out of plastic that went on a phonograph.  At some point in the center of the record I went left.  But the I here is the needle playing that record, and when it reaches that point it WILL go left.  No option to go right, for the groove was pressed into place long before the phonograph and needle existed at all.
                  
                  Nope; if the timeline is fluid, changing with every choice, an outside observer cannot know events subsequent to a decision.  That decision determines where the timeline goes, so until it is made - until the needle gets there - the timeline does not exist except, perhaps, as a set of probabilities.  Ever hear of Schrödinger's cat?  Like that - until the box is opened the cat is both alive and dead.  Pathways going both right AND left exist as probabilities, with neither one being real until the decision is made.
                  
                  Another possibility popular in some science fiction; every decision creates a new reality.  My choice to go left creates one; my choice to go right creates one.  Thus the outside observer sees an huge number of realities, all equally real and equally true, a number that grows beyond countable as time proceeds and more choices are made.  That observer may focus on just one of the timelines, declaring it the real one, but every one is true because every decision is made every way possible.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm a fan of the many worlds theory. It explains how the timeline here can be predetermined without losing free will. Splits would all result in the time line here remaining the same because the decision that affects this universe in a manner which would keep the future predetermined would stay in it.
                     
                     But, I simply said left, left left because it was easier to type. My point was that if I were outside of time, being able to observe any point at any time I could see the decisions you make and it would not, in any way, influence the decisions made. Plus, each decision each of us makes does affect everything here on earth so the future would have to be in constant flux. But, that doesn't mean that the future cannot be known.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Not really, for the timeline "here" has no existence until after the decision in question.  And when it comes into existence, so do all the others with a different decision, all equally valid and equally real.  You and I are typing in a million different timelines, and all the messages are different.  This one is missing a period, that one has a typo and in this one over there I lost power and couldn't reply.
                        
                        But here: my timeline is a dot matrix printer, where I control the placement of every dot.  Your timeline is a page printer, where the entire page was controlled and printed by something else, instantaneously, at the moment of the BB.  As I did not exist then, I had no control over the page; when we move down the timeline to the point I exist I can only follow what is already there.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           OK. But, I will say in my timeline I wish I was living in the alternate universe where all of my good decisions through life are working out.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Hah!  On that anyway we can agree.  Would that all my decisions were good and that they all worked as planned.  Life might be dull, but so much more comfortable.

                              replyreport