Could something whose existence depends on something else be free?

[Age]

What?

you do BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'eternal or infinite future' does NOT exist, right?

Or, do you now BELIEVE that 'it' DOES exist?

Whether the future exists or not is a different topic.

your OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS at DEFLECTION just do NOT work "bahman".

I NEVER said absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'the future', itself.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I SAID, STATED, and TALKED ABOUT 'the ETERNAL or INFINITE future'.

I am talking about an infinite future that cannot be reached given the definition of infinity.

BUT 'infinity' CAN BE REACHED, given the definition of 'infinity'.

you just WANT TO BELIEVE that 'infinity' can NOT be reached BECAUSE then your WHOLE BELIEF and ASSUMPTION here WILL come CRASHING DOWN.

Oh please, you cannot reach unreachable.

LOL you REALLY DO NOT YET, anyway, have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'you' ACTUALLY ARE, do you?

What do you mean?

What I MEAN IS, 'you' REALLY DO NOT YET have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what the 'you' here ACTUALLY IS, do 'you', "bahman"?

[bahman]

The free decision does not depend on (or is not reducible to) the current state of affairs (by the current state of affairs I mean the existence of something, a mental state for example which is about making a decision in a situation) that is reducible. The existence of something (the current state of affairs) which is reducible by definition depends on something else (this is the definition of reducible). Therefore something which is reducible cannot be free or something which is free is irreducible.

In compact form:

1) Freedom is not reducible to A that is reducible
2) A is reducible
3) Therefore, A cannot be free

There is no such thing as independent existence but even if there were one would need to ask free from what?

Sorry for the short title. I mean is it possible that a thing has free will and whose existence depends on something else?

[bahman]

you do BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'eternal or infinite future' does NOT exist, right?

Or, do you now BELIEVE that 'it' DOES exist?

Whether the future exists or not is a different topic.

your OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS at DEFLECTION just do NOT work "bahman".

I NEVER said absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'the future', itself.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I SAID, STATED, and TALKED ABOUT 'the ETERNAL or INFINITE future'.

I am talking about an infinite future that cannot be reached given the definition of infinity.

BUT 'infinity' CAN BE REACHED, given the definition of 'infinity'.

you just WANT TO BELIEVE that 'infinity' can NOT be reached BECAUSE then your WHOLE BELIEF and ASSUMPTION here WILL come CRASHING DOWN.

No.

LOL you REALLY DO NOT YET, anyway, have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what 'you' ACTUALLY ARE, do you?

What do you mean?

What I MEAN IS, 'you' REALLY DO NOT YET have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what the 'you' here ACTUALLY IS, do 'you', "bahman"?

I know who I am I am.

[Age]

Whether the future exists or not is a different topic.

your OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS at DEFLECTION just do NOT work "bahman".

I NEVER said absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'the future', itself.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I SAID, STATED, and TALKED ABOUT 'the ETERNAL or INFINITE future'.

I am talking about an infinite future that cannot be reached given the definition of infinity.

BUT 'infinity' CAN BE REACHED, given the definition of 'infinity'.

you just WANT TO BELIEVE that 'infinity' can NOT be reached BECAUSE then your WHOLE BELIEF and ASSUMPTION here WILL come CRASHING DOWN.

No.

What do you mean?

What I MEAN IS, 'you' REALLY DO NOT YET have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what the 'you' here ACTUALLY IS, do 'you', "bahman"?

I know who I am I am.

So, what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE, proper AND correct, answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Let us SEE what 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, know here.

[popeye1945]

The free decision does not depend on (or is not reducible to) the current state of affairs (by the current state of affairs I mean the existence of something, a mental state for example which is about making a decision in a situation) that is reducible. The existence of something (the current state of affairs) which is reducible by definition depends on something else (this is the definition of reducible). Therefore something which is reducible cannot be free or something which is free is irreducible.

In compact form:

1) Freedom is not reducible to A that is reducible
2) A is reducible
3) Therefore, A cannot be free

There is no such thing as independent existence but even if there were one would need to ask free from what?

Sorry for the short title. I mean is it possible that a thing has free will and whose existence depends on something else?

bahman,

The concept of free will depends upon the human ability to freely act and I do not believe there is any such thing as human action. There are human reactions, because all organisms are reactionary creatures. The fact that in order to move one needs to be motivated spell's reaction, not action. Human nature thus is dependent upon the world as cause to its reactionary nature, and so, in this sense is not an independent agent, lacking the ability to freely independently to take action.

[bahman]

your OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS at DEFLECTION just do NOT work "bahman".

I NEVER said absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'the future', itself.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I SAID, STATED, and TALKED ABOUT 'the ETERNAL or INFINITE future'.



BUT 'infinity' CAN BE REACHED, given the definition of 'infinity'.

you just WANT TO BELIEVE that 'infinity' can NOT be reached BECAUSE then your WHOLE BELIEF and ASSUMPTION here WILL come CRASHING DOWN.

No.

What I MEAN IS, 'you' REALLY DO NOT YET have ANY REAL COMPREHENSION of what the 'you' here ACTUALLY IS, do 'you', "bahman"?

I know who I am I am.

So, what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE, proper AND correct, answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Let us SEE what 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, know here.

What do you want to know?

[bahman]

There is no such thing as independent existence but even if there were one would need to ask free from what?

Sorry for the short title. I mean is it possible that a thing has free will and whose existence depends on something else?

bahman,

The concept of free will depends upon the human ability to freely act and I do not believe there is any such thing as human action.

Ok, so you neither believe in free will nor in human action.

There are human reactions, because all organisms are reactionary creatures. The fact that in order to move one needs to be motivated spell's reaction, not action. Human nature thus is dependent upon the world as cause to its reactionary nature, and so, in this sense is not an independent agent, lacking the ability to freely independently to take action.

Are you a behaviorist? This is shown to be wrong a long time ago.

[popeye1945]

Sorry for the short title. I mean is it possible that a thing has free will and whose existence depends on something else?

bahman,

The concept of free will depends upon the human ability to freely act and I do not believe there is any such thing as human action.

Ok, so you neither believe in free will nor in human action.

There are human reactions, because all organisms are reactionary creatures. The fact that in order to move one needs to be motivated spell's reaction, not action. Human nature thus is dependent upon the world as cause to its reactionary nature, and so, in this sense is not an independent agent, lacking the ability to freely independently to take action.

Are you a behaviorist? This is shown to be wrong a long time ago.

No, I am not a behaviorist, it is simply logical. If all organisms were not reactionary creatures' evolutionary adaptation would not be possible neither would the functioning of your immune system. If you can accept that you are part of something larger than yourself, it should not be a terrible jump of the imagination to realize as a functional part; you must be a reactionary element in this something greater than yourself; your reactions contributing to that same larger entity.

[bahman]

bahman,

The concept of free will depends upon the human ability to freely act and I do not believe there is any such thing as human action.

Ok, so you neither believe in free will nor in human action.

There are human reactions, because all organisms are reactionary creatures. The fact that in order to move one needs to be motivated spell's reaction, not action. Human nature thus is dependent upon the world as cause to its reactionary nature, and so, in this sense is not an independent agent, lacking the ability to freely independently to take action.

Are you a behaviorist? This is shown to be wrong a long time ago.

No, I am not a behaviorist, it is simply logical. If all organisms were not reactionary creatures' evolutionary adaptation would not be possible neither would the functioning of your immune system. If you can accept that you are part of something larger than yourself, it should not be a terrible jump of the imagination to realize as a functional part; you must be a reactionary element in this something greater than yourself; your reactions contributing to that same larger entity.

Have you ever had a doubt?

[popeye1945]

Ok, so you neither believe in free will nor in human action.


Are you a behaviorist? This is shown to be wrong a long time ago.

No, I am not a behaviorist, it is simply logical. If all organisms were not reactionary creatures' evolutionary adaptation would not be possible neither would the functioning of your immune system. If you can accept that you are part of something larger than yourself, it should not be a terrible jump of the imagination to realize as a functional part; you must be a reactionary element in this something greater than yourself; your reactions contributing to that same larger entity.

Have you ever had a doubt?

Doubt, of course, doubt is mostly what there is, but if you let it freeze you in place; it serves the same purpose as fear. Both fear and doubt serve us well, but they can both stop you from living an authentic life.

[Age]

No.


I know who I am I am.

So, what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE, proper AND correct, answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Let us SEE what 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, know here.

What do you want to know?

Are you BLIND and DEAF?

I want to KNOW your answer to the question I posed and asked 'you', "bahman".

[bahman]

No, I am not a behaviorist, it is simply logical. If all organisms were not reactionary creatures' evolutionary adaptation would not be possible neither would the functioning of your immune system. If you can accept that you are part of something larger than yourself, it should not be a terrible jump of the imagination to realize as a functional part; you must be a reactionary element in this something greater than yourself; your reactions contributing to that same larger entity.

Have you ever had a doubt?

Doubt, of course, doubt is mostly what there is, but if you let it freeze you in place; it serves the same purpose as fear. Both fear and doubt serve us well, but they can both stop you from living an authentic life.

But how could an organism as you define it have doubt?

[bahman]

So, what IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE, proper AND correct, answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Let us SEE what 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, know here.

What do you want to know?

Are you BLIND and DEAF?

I want to KNOW your answer to the question I posed and asked 'you', "bahman".

I am a human being. Period.

[popeye1945]

You are a multicellular organism; you do not doubt that I assume, but you have doubts about how to react to the complexities/circumstances of the world.

[Age]

What do you want to know?

Are you BLIND and DEAF?

I want to KNOW your answer to the question I posed and asked 'you', "bahman".

I am a human being. Period.

So, to the one known here as "bahman" the correct AND proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' IS 'human being'. Now, to "bahman", am 'I' dependent upon some 'thing' ELSE?