How could we be free when we are chained to bodies?

[Dimebag]

The part I like, of the previous publication, is the sentence in which I refer to the chart.

The general framework:
Capitalism < traditional theology (the Devil, Jesus Christ, Holy Trinity) <> the Peek-A-Boo, Samantha Worzeil and Mason Dertry truth > Socialism

What do you mean by this chart?

I revere the format. I revere the framework. Because it makes sense. Indeed, the cultural cliche is that I'm at the mercy of the public psyche, as to why left-wing is granted right over the right, but, it's only a cultural cliche.

What follows?

In even more recent time, I've come up with a choice. Either that there is the sunlight/trade system, in which because I showed devotion to sunlight at a time in the past, sunlight has granted me awareness of its awareness of the true aristocracy. Or, there is left-wing transcendence's rival:


The rival, in question, is another subject of transcendence. It's deadly - transcendence through deadly.

A transgression:
Brad Pitt's Louis is the deserved transcendence, compared to Tyler Durden. In typing the previous sentence, Louis was looking at me. But, is magic at the mercy of me insofar as technology-magic is concerned?

Another bookend.

The magic that surrounds me, is one in which I am subject to the proof of the needless. Or is it? And if true, that evolution's origin is to do with me having to be subject to the proof of the needless, can it be free of conspiracy?

About left-wing politics:
Is a proof of magic, which is an emotion of left-wing but not right-wing an attack against left-wing?

Bahman - what are your thoughts?

I don't know. I don't understand your cryptic language.

By the chart, I meant the belonging to socialism. That socialism is the rightful by being the struggle; by struggle, I mean that if socialism is granted the idea of exposure belonging to it, as a Peek-A-Boo > Jesus Christ reality, socialism is then in the predicament of Still Belonging.

By Still Belonging, I mean the science of the conspiracy being confronted.

What is the conspiracy?
It is deities, or the logical truth to deities being able to live as evil, because I have the power to turn anything into algebra.

Dear trokanmariel,

I say this with the utmost respect for your intellect, and with respect to you as a fellow being, as I can see you seem to be an intelligent and good person, but your posts have a kind of schizophrenic word salad kind of way to them which makes them seemingly incoherent.

You may understand what you mean by your terminology, but, I gather no one else does.

So, either you need to be more clear in what you mean, and not use whatever private metaphorical language you have made for yourself, or, you should seriously consider seeing someone to get some help. You may be suffering unnecessarily.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, you seem to be attempting to make some interesting points, but their meaning is far too metaphorically encoded with weird descriptors making it near impossible to understand.

[trokanmariel]

What do you mean by this chart?


I don't know. I don't understand your cryptic language.

By the chart, I meant the belonging to socialism. That socialism is the rightful by being the struggle; by struggle, I mean that if socialism is granted the idea of exposure belonging to it, as a Peek-A-Boo > Jesus Christ reality, socialism is then in the predicament of Still Belonging.

By Still Belonging, I mean the science of the conspiracy being confronted.

What is the conspiracy?
It is deities, or the logical truth to deities being able to live as evil, because I have the power to turn anything into algebra.

Dear trokanmariel,

I say this with the utmost respect for your intellect, and with respect to you as a fellow being, as I can see you seem to be an intelligent and good person, but your posts have a kind of schizophrenic word salad kind of way to them which makes them seemingly incoherent.

You may understand what you mean by your terminology, but, I gather no one else does.

So, either you need to be more clear in what you mean, and not use whatever private metaphorical language you have made for yourself, or, you should seriously consider seeing someone to get some help. You may be suffering unnecessarily.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, you seem to be attempting to make some interesting points, but their meaning is far too metaphorically encoded with weird descriptors making it near impossible to understand.

In the context, that my overall quality of communication elsewhere is incoherent, I still am able to possess the aforementioned chart as a creative yet objective.

Originally, I wrote the word science, after objective, but deleted it; I did this, to edit the confirmation bias

[bahman]

So, to reiterate bahman’s view of free will.

You, the mind, are free in certain situations of uncertainty, where there is no clear understanding of what particular option one should choose. There is obviously more than one possibility, but, these possibilities are not certain as to which option one should choose.

Not only that. You can freely choose when possibilities are certain too.

So. The ability to freely choose is dependent on:

-Being a mind
-having a body in which choices can be actioned
-being in a situation in which one’s mind can observe a situation where there are more than one possible choices
-having a mind which can imagine the possible outcomes of future actions, as if one can imagine actions and be uncertain, one must have imagined the future outcome of actions.
-being in a situation where these imaginings of future outcomes of actions are not clear what the best choice would be
-being in a situation where it is not clear how that action will create future favourable effects

In that case, when the situation is such that the future outcomes of options are not clear is only one case. I used it to prove the necessity of free will. In reality, you can freely choose when the future outcomes of options are clear too. For example, you can resist to do not scratch the itch for no specific reason.

So, the kind of freedom we are talking about here is not the freedom to scratch an itch. That, under bahman’s view, is not freedom. One simply scratches the itch, without choice, even if one is aware of it.

This view of freedom is a situational freedom. This freedom requires pause. Deliberation. Most actions in bahman’s view, are not free choices, but rather, conditioned behaviour.

Yes.

One favourable consequence is, consciousness is necessary for this kind of choice. Consciousness may not be the ultimate chooser, but, it is at least a necessary link in the chain. The reason I say that is, we do not consciously generate the future imaginings of choice outcomes. If those imaginings are what is determining what choice occurs, then consciousness does not choose, but rather, takes part in the choice process.

Consciousness is the ability of the mind, to be able to experience. As you mentioned, it is required for making a decision.

I can imagine a situation where, while we are imagining possibilities, one particular possibility will appear more favourable than others. This imagining, combined with whatever is deciding on how it is better vs worse than other choices, is the determining factor.

Yes, we can decide according to determining factor but we can even decide against determining factor for no specific reason.

But then we also have the scenario, where one cannot imagine how ones choices will affect future outcomes. A truly uncertain choice. I believe this is where bahman will say, that is where consciousness, or mind, chooses. Seemingly at random. And it might seem at random. But, there will always be factors determining why that particular choice took place vs a similarly attractive choice. If there were not, then causally it would be impossible for a choice to occur.

You got the point. It is impossible that the system of interest could evolve when there is such tension. Therefore, the mind is necessary to overcome such a complication.

We cannot have a case where choice seemingly occurs, but without any causal determining factor. Unless you believe that mind somehow “jacks in” to quantum indeterminacy, and essentially is the one rolling the dice, which tips the scales in favour of choice A over choice B.

Yes, that is what the mind does. It does roll a dice, it simply chooses.

That, however, seems absurd to me. It seems far more likely that there are a myriad of factors which determine a cause, such as the state of the body, the state of the mind, personal preferences, ease of choice, colour preference, handedness (left vs right) etc.

Well, that is not a free decision then.

Edit: there are also times where, not making a choice might be the most favourable choice. If you are simply a dice rolling mind, you simply don’t care about the future outcomes, and seemingly don’t have the ability to be undecided, which as far as I can see, in certain times might be a legitimate and maybe even favourable option.

Indeed, some people seem to even suffer from this inability to choose, I.e. paralysis through analysis. This mental disorder clearly displays how the mind has determining factors for making choices. This disorder seems to be associate with the aversion to feelings of discomfort surrounding uncertainty if the future. So, ones ability to choose in uncertain situations would also be determined by one’s ability to tolerate uncertainty, to hold the future in an indeterminate state, yet, still decisively act in the face of this indeterminacy. A kind of self confidence or faith in one’s own abilities to choose correctly.

Not choosing also requires a decision as well.

[popeye1945]

We are free. We however only can affect reality when our bodies are in undecided states. Otherwise, our bodies behave according to the laws of nature.

Chained to bodies--lol!! If we were not, nothing would be, yourself or the physical world as you know it.

[bahman]

We are free. We however only can affect reality when our bodies are in undecided states. Otherwise, our bodies behave according to the laws of nature.

Chained to bodies--lol!! If we were not, nothing would be, yourself or the physical world as you know it.

You didn't get my point.

[popeye1945]

We are free. We however only can affect reality when our bodies are in undecided states. Otherwise, our bodies behave according to the laws of nature.

Chained to bodies--lol!! If we were not, nothing would be, yourself or the physical world as you know it.

You didn't get my point.

bahman,
What do you mean then by an undecided state, a state of no intention? I am trying here but I seem to be striking out as far as understanding your point. Could you possibly re-phrase your explanation?

[bahman]

Chained to bodies--lol!! If we were not, nothing would be, yourself or the physical world as you know it.

You didn't get my point.

bahman,
What do you mean then by an undecided state, a state of no intention? I am trying here but I seem to be striking out as far as understanding your point. Could you possibly re-phrase your explanation?

An undecided state is a state in which there are available options. Any system in such a state cannot deterministically evolve any further so a decision is needed.

[popeye1945]

Ok, I get that much thanks!