Freedom (no spam)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 1:29 pm

Freedom is a vague concept, with as many definitions as there are individuals. However, for any word to be meaningful, there must be some core, some common idea that is shared by most people who use the word.

Freedom is a loaded word, just like love, it's a word that has been heavly devaluated. An plain example is to observe how politicans use the word. In Sweden, it is election year, as all parties of course claims to represent freedom of the individual. (Like anyone would claim to be pro unfairness and captivity

)

In political discussion here at SYM, the word freedom also appears frequently, and just like with the Swedish politicans, it's a question of how different people define freedom, and how we think that freedom is best achived.

Tony Blair and Dubbayh seems to be very fond of the expression "we in the free world", when they referr to North West European and North American culture. An interesting question is of course whether we are so free here.

My question for today's debate: How free are we? How free can human being be? Is freedom always a good thing?

How should freedom be achieved? How should be balance freedom in the form of offering opportunites (freedom to, as in the US) and freedom in the form of removing obstacles that restricts people's personal freedom (freedom from, as in the Scandinavian model)? Being able to choose is freedom. Not being too poor to choose an education is also freedom.

And finally: Do humans have a free will?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 1:42 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
And finally: Do humans have a free will?

As individuals i would say we have free will, we may be influenced greatly by a consumer culture however i think most people can rationally decide for themselves.

Free will is an interesting term for me since it suggests that we guide our own destiny, yet for one's formative years one is guided down a set path of education, free will is developed properly once one gets into adult hood however even then one is influenced by one's peers. Does one assume that their actions are free when in fact they are being controlled by societal and peer related changes? For instance you are offered a promotion which you don't necessarily deserve because another person has been sacked (or something similar), you are happy where you are but it is strongly suggested by peer group or spouse that promotion is the good/only way to go, you pretend to yourself you have made a concious choice to move up in the company however it could be argued that the influence of your superiors had more effect on your choice than you did yourself.

I hope that made some sense, i might be a little addled tonight

thantor3 · Post by **thantor3** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:18 pm

I was recently watching an interesting animated feature called "Waking Life", which dealt mainly with the question of whether "reality" as we know it is actually a form of dreaming. In the picture, the question of whether people have free will was touched upon, since it appears within certain scientific models (Newtonian for example) and religious models (take your pick) that the universe is deterministic. I think the whole conundrum of whether free will exists is a bit of a snipe hunt.

Looked at logically, the whole conception of a rigidly deterministic universe is problematic. For one, the old dualistic issue of whether the mind is simply an epiphenomenon the brain would have to be conceded to the reductionists. In other words, the vague and often chaotic dynamic of the mind would need to conform to the rigid structure of a deterministic universe such that every mental event had an antecedent in a neural event. Not only does this potentially lead to impotent series of infinite regressions as one seeks the "ultimate" prime causal factor that galvanizes this unwieldy juggernaut, but there is currently no unequivocal causal scheme that allows a mental event to map directly onto a physical event. On a larger scale, it is not at all clear that any religious or scientific model could survive the logical consequences of embracing such a model. And despite assurances of a future utopia where the technology will emerge proving that the mind and brain are one, at present there is no definitive evidence that such a thing is true nor does it accord with our current understanding of the universe.

Secondly, the most sophisticated exploration of the physical universe to date, quantum physics, supports not a deterministic universe but one that is both non-local and indeterministic. In other words, function cannot be unilaterally explained by structure, nor can macro-level behavior be explained by micro-level elements. Consider the profound differences between the action of hydrogen and oxygen as atoms and hydrogen and oxygen combine at a higher level to form water. Indeed, modeling coming out of non-linear thermodynamics holds that human beings are best viewed as "dissipative structures". A dissipative structure is self-organizing (vs organized completely by physical forces (e.g. gravity, inertia, etc.) like inert matter), far from equilibrium (unlike inert matter, which seeks equilibrium and so is more completely at the effect of physical forces), and is capable of high-order functions that cannot be predicted by the analysis of its micro-level components. This explains in part why medicine has never been and will never be a true science, despite the intense yearning for the status this would supposedly confer by practioners within the conventional medical system.

There is also another viewpoint to consider. When I was completing my undergraduate work in psychology, I took a history class that explored the phenomena of alchemy. The instructor impressed upon us many times that the consciousness of the typical person living in the Middle Ages, with their intense belief in sprits, unseen forces, and an organic universe, was so radically different from our own epistemology that it would almost be like confronting a different species. Concerning the issue of free will, I think part of the problem is a similar level of consciousness difficulty. When confronted with the old puzzle of whether God could create a rock that He/She/They/It could not lift, Ram Dass stated that if you were in the state of mind where you could conceive of this problem, you were by this very fact excluded from the state of mind where you could resolve it.

I am often struck in my dealings with people how unconscious they are of the large role faith plays in their lives. I am not speaking of faith in a religious sense, but in the sense of taking things on faith, believing them to be true based on limited personal experience. For example, I can tell someone that it is useless to take an antibiotic for a viral infection, but they often do so anyway. One could ascribe this to ignorance or fear, but in many cases this choice is based on faith, an almost religious faith in conventional medicine. Likewise, when one begins to explore the whole nature of beliefs, one finds people do not believe in things like their cars, or their toaster. People put beliefs -- and by extension, experience faith -- in areas where they have a lack of knowledge, or where the issues are so large that there is no definitive answers.

For myself, I believe that free will exists for the same reason I believe God exists. In the face of no definitive evidence, I find that I must take a radical stance -- that is, a stance on which I stake a portion of my life without the benefit of evidence. Since I believe that my purpose on this planet is intimately connected to channeling the force of love into the world, I by extension embrace those attitudes, beliefs, and perspectives that further this belief. Since moral responsibility, self-directed activity, and the power of choice itself is predicated on free will, I choose to believe that human beings do have free will. Except for maybe CE, who is probably some sort of demi-goddess….

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:42 pm

this might be construed as spam, but...

It is really interesting to see how Thantor and my analytical concepts differed, i posted a reply where i questioned, thantor came to conclusions, which proves more useful is down to the oft referred beholder (although i am with Than

- plus he used bigger words than i

)

An extension CE if you don't mind to what you said about freedom, do you think that as human beings we would be able to deal with having complete and total freedom? Would a state of freedom just be at a logical extension, anarchy? Could the human race ever be free from some rules or guidlines?

Of course there are also different features of freedom, a convict for instance can be intellectually free but be in jail, where as a office worker is in an intellectual prison (his mundane job) yet he is free to travel wherever he wants. So who is actually in the better position?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:46 pm

@Sleep: You last post is absolutely not spam, on the contrary it touches upon issues I consider central for this topic. I also think conclusions as well as questions are equally welcome, since thisis the kind of topic where there are no definite anwers, and in such topics, the questions are as important as the conclusions.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 8:40 pm

I think that freedom is the ability to perceive your own inner hard boundaries, those that define you from within rather than without, and accept them.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:29 pm

nice topic

CElegans:

How free are we? How free can human being be?

Our idealistic(platonic?) Freedom can't, abiviously, be ever achived; Our condition demands this fact(because all came against the Total Freedom: Inteligence, Stupidy, Doubt, Certain, Pudor, State, Law, Society....), I don't think this can be contested, so no need to keep the line.

But some studies say that animals, babies and insane-of-all-kinds( I don't think this expression exist in English, I mean all those who are amoral to all moral. Usually because of mental debilities) have this Freedom, exactly by the fact that they cannot be sensient of their Freedom(since they are not sensient at all). What will be one of the greatest God(if I believed) irony.

CElegans:

How should be balance freedom in the form of offering opportunites (freedom to, as in the US) and freedom in the form of removing obstacles that restricts people's personal freedom (freedom from, as in the Scandinavian model)?

I don't exactly understand the importance you give for the "means" here. What is the diference you see?
BTW, can you awnser your question(this one quoted above)?

CElegans:
Do humans have a free will?

None heve full free will, but I Think that some have more Freedom/Free will than others. Based on my perceptions( what is a very very weak proof) I think one state of freedom reinforce the other, don't know if you all think the same. Of course I'm Talking about a gradient, and not a polarized scale. I mean, the large Freedom of some is directed stated by the restrictions of other disfavored group and vice-versa(reciprocally value); sounds a little marxist, i know, but make sense, especially because the sense of Freedom(not platonic) is not stated somewhere, but in the contrast.

-

I also think that there is no purpose to give a concept(personal) of Freedom, other than to simply express ideas(what is also a good purpose), since its the kind of essence and significate I don't have the pretention/ousady/dumbness to try to exaust.
To simply express ideas:
I think Freedom, at least mine view of it, is in the same way, and must be searched in the ways, of the Tolerance, Solidariety and Equity.

Since I really find my concept a little poor, I will put here this other one:

"Be FREE, in our possibilities, is not to don't belive in nothing, but to believe in many things-- Too much things for the spiritual comodity of the blind follower; is to know that there are too many beliefs equaly importants and persuasives for the adoption of a niilistic actitude facing the task of a resposable choose beetween them all; and also to know that any choose(you make) will not let you FREE from the responsability of its consequences, and especially that any choose can be re-reflected about."
Zygmunt Bauman , who now have the unhappyness to be tranlated two times, first English-Portuguese by a professional, and then Portuguese-English by me

.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:38 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

My question for today's debate: How free are we? How free can human being be? Is freedom always a good thing?

How should freedom be achieved? How should be balance freedom in the form of offering opportunites (freedom to, as in the US) and freedom in the form of removing obstacles that restricts people's personal freedom (freedom from, as in the Scandinavian model)? Being able to choose is freedom. Not being too poor to choose an education is also freedom.

And finally: Do humans have a free will?

I will answer to the best of my knowledge/belief (please correct anything you see wrong)

1."How free are we?"

I believe we are free to the point society will allow. Meaning I believe society sets the limit to how much freedom a person can have...without infringing(sp) on the rights of others. With society moving forward the limits are then changed...sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. This would depend on your own morals..(Which like Mr. Sleep says is influenced by consumer culture and the way you are raised by your parent/parents)

2."How free can human being be?"

I'm lost on this question.

Are you meaning how much freedom should a person have? If so I believe my response would be better tied in with the next question.

3."Is freedom always a good thing?"

No I don't believe freedom is always a good thing. Without laws I believe we all will be living in anarchy. The weak will be ruled by the strong without any hope (court) to do something about it. I have little faith in mankind to do better.

(On a side note this) I was watching something on the Discovery Channel about a study showing 10% of the people in prison (in the US) are predetermined to be oppressors (Strong over the weak). How many are not in prison? How many around the world?

For a society (without laws) to survive these people will have to be dealt with...but then you have took their freedom.

4."How should freedom be achieved?"

Personal freedom? Or freedom of a country?

5."How should be balance freedom in the form of offering opportunites"

On the way the government can enforce the laws. If a law is passed giving freedom to something without any way of enforcing it, I believe it is a wasted freedom. The more secure the government in enforcing it's laws, the more freedom it can give to the weak/minority.

Word · Post by **Word** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:44 pm

Freedom to me is the percieved state of social, political, and economic mobility. The proof(for me) of human free will is the limits we set on ourselves through government laws, religion, and mental states like "sanity".

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 10:08 pm

if you define freedom as the ability to choose for oneself then yes we are free. you always have a choice no matter what the situation or the cirucmstances are. for example: even though there are laws you still have a choice whether or not to abide by them. humans most defintley have free will. even if others may try to infulence your choices, you still make the choice of whether or not to allow yourself to be influenced. no one can control you without your consent.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 4:31 am

That's strange, I was thinking of posting this exact same debate just today...'great minds', eh CE?

Although he rambled a little, I think that Thantor has got something, and I also agree with alienbob. Humans have the free will to do whatever they want whenever they want (within physical laws, and, some would claim, without them). I think this is accepted by everyone though, and so is not very interesting...

The interesting question is: Who decides what we want to do?

And there are a couple of interesting points inside that question as well - I believe that humans are driven by animal instincts like sex and hunger, power etc, some of which are as simple as that, and some of which are much more complicated. I think there is a reason from evolution for everything that humans feel the need to do, no matter how confused the link between thriving and surviving and the action is.

The point where that argument gets tricky is with philosophy (and Zen Buddhism, and maybe some other pursuits). I know a philosopher (and I'm sure it is a common point of view) who believes that poetry is far more important than philosophy. Many Buddhists believe that love and understanding are more important than Buddhism - so why do they continue to practice thinking?

Maybe it's because they have an instinct, just like an artist, to do what they do. Artists apparently have to express themselves, for no rational reason. Maybe philosophers just have to spend their time pondering the serious questions, even when they have found out that doing so is the wrong thing to do.

So we are back to being controlled by instincts. I think that the instinct to be artistic, or the instinct to philosophize, are much more inexplicable, but I am sure that they still root (though maybe via very complex connexions) from basic animal needs.

So my point of view is: Humans are free to do what they want, whenever they want, but when it comes to deciding what they want, they have no more choice than ants or jellyfish.

EDIT - What about Presbyterians?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 4:37 am

Politicly speaking I think the most common use of the word freedom is aproximatly the same as rights. And as such often overated. As CE points out in her initial post there is a huge difference between a "right" and a practical possibility. And Imo rights arent worth anything without that practical possibility.

There is also always a opposite effect of handing out a "right". For example if you give people the right(freedom) to own land, you at the same time restrict (other)people from have access to that land (Not freedom).

Like Weasel I think that excatly what rights that should be granted in a society could only be derived from one's personal moral.

Do humans have a free will?
I think we humans are nothing more than biological machines, and does in no way differ from other animals, nor have we the ability to ignore the physical laws that gouvern us. This can of course not be used to justify or explain any behaviour since that would lead us nowhere.

And at last a small off topic note about anarchy.
The vast majority of the anarchists I have met consider an anarchic society to be a society without leaders. This is also the origin of the word anarchy. At very few instance I have seen anarchists that advocate a state of complete chaos and behavioral free for all. People might or might not think its possible to create a world without leaders, But to use the word anarchy as a term for the right of the strong over the weak does imo only cause confusion of ideas.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:04 am

Originally posted by Dottie
And at last a small off topic note about anarchy.
The vast majority of the anarchists I have met consider an anarchic society to be a society without leaders. This is also the origin of the word anarchy. At very few instance I have seen anarchists that advocate a state of complete chaos and behavioral free for all. People might or might not think its possible to create a world without leaders, But to use the word anarchy as a term for the right of the strong over the weak does imo only cause confusion of ideas.

Thus speaks Dottie, the small and meek.

In theory I am one of the latter kind of anarchists, however I also recognize that this concept would never work in the real world. It wouldn't even work in SYM, where we're all generally civil.

I have a very definite idea of freedom, but it differs radically from everyone else's I've seen in this thread so far. IMO freedom is absolute freedom, to be free of all restrictions including those of mind, physical form, and self. To attain this freedom one would have to be everything, there could be nothing else in existence because that would create a limitation on the place where oneself ended and the 'other' began. However as human beings we define ourselves by comparison to our environment and other beings we come into contact with, and a being in my ideal state of absolute freedom would eventually lose all definition of the self.
It could be said that this freedom of mine is nothingness, but it is also a state of being everything, as in one's existence there is nothing but the self, and hence the self as we know it ceases to exist.
In the meantime I value the limited freedoms offered to us as we are very highly, perhaps in part because I know this greater freedom of mine is forever denied to us by our very existence. However as I am aware that my concept of freedom is impossible to attain, I try not to let it bother me and focus on ideals more attainable to our human selves. Sorry if I don't explain it well, but english is a poor laguage for expressing concepts such as this. Until mankind becomes telepathic

this is the best I can do.
This is a topic that holds great importance to me, thanks @CE for giving me the chance to express (however poorly) what I had to say.

@Frogus-I think you're right, artists and philosophers do have to work their respective arts, it's no more voluntary than breathing. As an amateur at both I can tell you if I can't get an image or thought out of my head it near drives me insane, I get almost obsessive that way.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun Jun 16, 2002 2:35 pm

It could be said that this freedom of mine is nothingness, but it is also a state of being everything, as in one's existence there is nothing but the self, and hence the self as we know it ceases to exist.

I am not sure I understand you exactly @Ode

... What do you mean by 'self'? Do you mean one's consciousness, as demonstrated to exist by cogito ergo sum? If so, what flaw do you see in idealism which prevents you from subscribing to it and being totally free?

Does the fact that one's 'self' has already been influenced from outside make it not-free?

If you got a baby, and as soon as it was born (please don't nit-pick, you see what I'm getting at

) you put it in a lead box with nutrition and oxygen, so as it could not be influenced from outside, would it be 'free' as you define it?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Jun 16, 2002 10:30 pm

Originally posted by frogus
I am not sure I understand you exactly @Ode ... What do you mean by 'self'? Do you mean one's consciousness, as demonstrated to exist by cogito ergo sum? If so, what flaw do you see in idealism which prevents you from subscribing to it and being totally free?
Does the fact that one's 'self' has already been influenced from outside make it not-free?

If you got a baby, and as soon as it was born (please don't nit-pick, you see what I'm getting at ) you put it in a lead box with nutrition and oxygen, so as it could not be influenced from outside, would it be 'free' as you define it?

No worries, I can't really explain it that well.

Sorry.
Yes, I do mean one's awareness, though not necessarily only one's awareness, however simply by existing with other beings/objects we are subject to being influenced, and hence limited by their presence. As long as I am alive I will be influenced by external factors and presences, and quite possibly if there is an afterlife it will be the same. As long as this is so one can never be totally free as I define it.
Society, and other individuals, place expectations and limtations upon us. We are limited in our interactions with others by their desires and expectations of us.
No, as it would be bound both by the box and by it's own physical limitations. Even the simple fact that we are creatures of flesh is, in and of itself, a limitation.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 12:41 am

we are creatures of flesh

I don't think you know that for sure. IMHO, for all you know, the entire universe may be a creation of your consciousness...which may be the only entity there is...

at any rate, I believe that we are creatures of flesh as well, so we may as well take that to be true for now...

Anyway, so as to clear things up - Do you believe in non-physical beings? Are you saying that a 'free' being could be physical, aslong as the only matter in the universe was it, or are you saying that it must be non-physical (a spiritual being?). In the case of the latter, do you believe in these non-physical beings, or do you use them as a purely abstract example of freedom which never actually exists?

CM · Post by CM » Mon Jun 17, 2002 12:57 am

I agree with weasel on this. Absolute Freedom will be anarchy. With such a form of freedom you have every right to do whatever that it is you wish. The laws of the land cannot and will not apply as they then infringe on your right of absolute freedom. I don't think anybody has the freedom to put a gun to somebodies head and shoot them. That is illegal. But in an absolutely free society, that would be permissable as that will be the persons choice of doing things.

Do humans have free will? Yes to a limited degree once again. Here I agree with sleepy and the rest, society greatly influences and restricts your degree of will and free choice.

Too much freedom is a bad thing. Again the case of the gun to the head, that person has the freedom to do so in a society where freedom is the most important thing. Society in my opinion should and has to limit freedom so that people can lead a civil life and in harmony with each other. There are many points in life where you want to say something or do something in aggression. You don't do so, as it won't be right, socially acceptable or legal etc. These are constraints on your freedom. If these social "laws" did not exist, anybody could beat up their boss for something and have no worries about it.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon Jun 17, 2002 4:07 am

Originally posted by frogus
I don't think you know that for sure. IMHO, for all you know, the entire universe may be a creation of your consciousness...which may be the only entity there is...

at any rate, I believe that we are creatures of flesh as well, so we may as well take that to be true for now...

Anyway, so as to clear things up - Do you believe in non-physical beings? Are you saying that a 'free' being could be physical, aslong as the only matter in the universe was it, or are you saying that it must be non-physical (a spiritual being?). In the case of the latter, do you believe in these non-physical beings, or do you use them as a purely abstract example of freedom which never actually exists?

I bloody well hope not, if my mind can come up with something so screwed up as the earth and society then I'm sicker than I thought.

Yes, I believe in non-physical beings, I'm saying that if the only matter/non-physical essence in the universe was that being then it would be the universe, in 'spirit' and in physical matter. Presumably if a single non-physical consciousness encompassed the entire universe then it would be the spirit of the universe, and hence the universe itself.
This is going to sound hypocritical, I know, but could you clarify the last question a bit?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 2:04 pm

I'm sure I don't need to clarify, I was just seeing if you actually believe that these non-physical beings exist...if you thought they did not, it would probly be a waste of our time talking about them...

Anyway, I'm interested in your actual beliefs here...I don't wanna sound psychoanalyst-ish or get too off topic, but I think that if we are going to know what freedom is, it would be helpful to know a little about the actual beings who are the only things that can ever hope to be free...

So what are these beings? Ghosts? Angels? Gods? Thoughts? What kind of things..how do you know they are there (if you do)? Do they interact with humans?