I just read the actual BIP document all the way through for the first time, and I have a few questions about it, if some of you don't mind answering.
The gist of it seems to be "think for yourself," or, in other words, rediscover your lost freedom.  Is this a fairly correct summation?
If so, I'm not really sure what is meant by this.  I think the underlying assumption of the entire document is that freedom does actually exist.  Is this correct?
If so, what is the freedom that is being spoken of?
Look for LMNO's sig and click the bottom link.
Good things there.
This is how I think of it: Are you happy with your life?
If the answer is yes, then you are fine. Leave it alone and be happy. You won.
If you say "no, I feel I'm missing out on alot", then it's time to ask these questions.
To me freedom is about internal freedom. As far as "think for yourself",
if you like letting others think for you, then by all means, go with that.
If not, most of these BIP documents are to help you through that.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 09:18:35 AM
Look for LMNO's sig and click the bottom link.
Good things there.
This is how I think of it: Are you happy with your life?
If the answer is yes, then you are fine. Leave it alone and be happy. You won.
If you say "no, I feel I'm missing out on alot", then it's time to ask these questions.
To me freedom is about internal freedom. As far as "think for yourself",
if you like letting others think for you, then by all means, go with that.
If not, most of these BIP documents are to help you through that.
I guess I am just having trouble understanding this "think for yourself" stuff.
What do you mean by internal freedom?
Two kinds of prison
1) people build it, capture you and put you in it
2) one you build yourself, figuratively, fake limitations you place on your own state of being
Both can be escaped from, with effort. We concentrate on no2.
You might be suprised to know just how much people don't (sometimes can't) think for themselves. I consider myself pretty liberated, and I still have trouble with it.
Let's use the often used punk example. A person feels that popular society isn't doing them good, so they decide to embrace a counterculture. They pick the punk ethos, which is strongly rooted in "i'm not taking up the ass from the system just because everyone else is doing it." They buy a leather jacket and spikes and set off to be their own person. Unfortunatly punk comes with it's own set of rules and styles. Little Jack used to love Metallica, but to be punk you can only listen to the most underground music. Instead of saying "I like Metallica, and this fucking bracelet bugs me", they lose their personality and become a carbon copy of most every punk on the market.
Have you ever liked a song, but were afraid to say so because your metal buddies think Celine Dion sucks? Thats being a slave to fashion.
Plus you'd be totally gay if you liked Celine Dion.
Did you every say a movie was good because it was a "hit" even though it sucked?
Slavery to fashion.
Have you held back from getting a tattoos because someone said it would suck?
Thinking for yourself is forming your own opinions and living your own way.
Internal freedom is thinking for yourself, despite yourself.
I see people say "I want to quite smoking, but I can't."
Yes you can.
"I've always wanted to do karaoke, but i'd be embarressed."
Why?
These are instances of times you are the only thing that prevent you from making your life better.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 04, 2007, 09:48:16 AM
Two kinds of prison
1) people build it, capture you and put you in it
2) one you build yourself, figuratively, fake limitations you place on your own state of being
Both can be escaped from, with effort. We concentrate on no2.
Why are there only two?  Doesn't it go beyond self-imprisonment and second-party imprisonment?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 09:53:54 AM
You might be suprised to know just how much people don't (sometimes can't) think for themselves. I consider myself pretty liberated, and I still have trouble with it.
Let's use the often used punk example. A person feels that popular society isn't doing them good, so they decide to embrace a counterculture. They pick the punk ethos, which is strongly rooted in "i'm not taking up the ass from the system just because everyone else is doing it." They buy a leather jacket and spikes and set off to be their own person. Unfortunatly punk comes with it's own set of rules and styles. Little Jack used to love Metallica, but to be punk you can only listen to the most underground music. Instead of saying "I like Metallica, and this fucking bracelet bugs me", they lose their personality and become a carbon copy of most every punk on the market.
Have you ever liked a song, but were afraid to say so because your metal buddies think Celine Dion sucks? Thats being a slave to fashion.
Plus you'd be totally gay if you liked Celine Dion.
Did you every say a movie was good because it was a "hit" even though it sucked?
Slavery to fashion.
Have you held back from getting a tattoos because someone said it would suck?
Thinking for yourself is forming your own opinions and living your own way.
Internal freedom is thinking for yourself, despite yourself.
I see people say "I want to quite smoking, but I can't."
Yes you can.
"I've always wanted to do karaoke, but i'd be embarressed."
Why?
These are instances of times you are the only thing that prevent you from making your life better.
But how do we know we can control ourselves? Is it really possible for so-and-so to quit smoking or do karaoke? How would we know?
I also think of natural imprisonment.
The concept that our frail ape bodies and minds are only capable of soaking in a very small percentage of our surroundings. This blinds us to many of the universes vast possibilities.
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 10:01:07 AM
But how do we know we can control ourselves? Is it really possible for so-and-so to quit smoking or do karaoke? How would we know?
Because many of us use our understandings of our prison to rise up.
Not everyone does.
I can. I do.
Please remember I speak only for myself.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 10:01:33 AM
I also think of natural imprisonment.
The concept that our frail ape bodies and minds are only capable of soaking in a very small percentage of our surroundings. This blinds us to many of the universes vast possibilities.
Does natural imprisonment only have to do with "blindness," or does it also include the determined essence of thought and action themselves?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 10:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 10:01:07 AM
But how do we know we can control ourselves? Is it really possible for so-and-so to quit smoking or do karaoke? How would we know?
Because many of us use our understandings of our prison to rise up.
Not everyone does.
I can. I do.
Please remember I speak only for myself.
But how do you know your "rising up" is not simply another predetermined action? You say your understandings are used to help you rise up. In that case, aren't you still imprisoned by your paticular understandings?
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 10:05:20 AM
The concept that our frail ape bodies and minds are only capable of soaking in a very small percentage of our surroundings. This blinds us to many of the universes vast possibilities.
Does natural imprisonment only have to do with "blindness," or does it also include the determined essence of thought and action themselves?
Quote
Yes.
My inability to fly prevents me from doing many things I wish to do.
My slow monkey brain often times cannot find the easiest solution. This holds me back.
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 10:08:40 AM
But how do you know your "rising up" is not simply another predetermined action? You say your understandings are used to help you rise up. In that case, aren't you still imprisoned by your paticular understandings?
Dosen't matter. If I am happy, but still in prison, so be it.
Many of the things found here are for people who have found they are in prison, and are disturbed by it.
Most of the population is deep in it, but quite happy. Good for them.
State of mind is my end all.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 10:05:20 AM
The concept that our frail ape bodies and minds are only capable of soaking in a very small percentage of our surroundings. This blinds us to many of the universes vast possibilities.
Does natural imprisonment only have to do with "blindness," or does it also include the determined essence of thought and action themselves?
Quote
Yes.
My inability to fly prevents me from doing many things I wish to do.
My slow monkey brain often times cannot find the easiest solution. This holds me back.
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 10:08:40 AM
But how do you know your "rising up" is not simply another predetermined action? You say your understandings are used to help you rise up. In that case, aren't you still imprisoned by your paticular understandings?
Dosen't matter. If I am happy, but still in prison, so be it.
Many of the things found here are for people who have found they are in prison, and are disturbed by it.
Most of the population is deep in it, but quite happy. Good for them.
State of mind is my end all.
So are we just accepting that we are inevitably imprisoned?
I am.
I'm just trying to fill my cell with drugs and pillows.
You... Well you do what you like.
I wouldn't want to impose on our friendship with orders.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 10:17:37 AM
I am.
I'm just trying to fill my cell with drugs and pillows.
You... Well you do what you like.
I wouldn't want to impose on our friendship with orders.
Then telling people about the BIP seems pointless, doesn't it? If you and I think that everyone is inevitably imprisoned, why bother burdening them with such a realization?
I usually don't. I see people happily going about their lives and I leave them alone.
I also see unhappy people that just won't get it, and I leave them alone too.
Occasionally however, I run across someone who knows something isn't right, but can't put it to words. I say "read this, and tell me if it makes sense."
I have found the literature in this forum infinately useful and interesting, so to me it's all been worth it. Nothing pointless about it.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 10:36:13 AM
I usually don't. I see people happily going about their lives and I leave them alone.
I also see unhappy people that just won't get it, and I leave them alone too.
Occasionally however, I run across someone who knows something isn't right, but can't put it to words. I say "read this, and tell me if it makes sense."
I have found the literature in this forum infinately useful and interesting, so to me it's all been worth it. Nothing pointless about it.
But isn't giving someone a pamphlet just providing them yet another prison to fall into? Or, to put it another way, doesn't putting the words "think for yourself" onto various media and distributing them imply a contradiction?
No.
If you were to find a BIP pamphlet in, say, a copy of Steal This Book, you are perfectly free to ignore it.
Or pitch it.
Roll it up and smoke it for all I care.
If you think for yourself, you don't blindly follow everyscap of paper you find.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 10:46:18 AM
No.
If you were to find a BIP pamphlet in, say, a copy of Steal This Book, you are perfectly free to ignore it.
Or pitch it.
Roll it up and smoke it for all I care.
If you think for yourself, you don't blindly follow everyscap of paper you find.
This brings me back to "thinking for yourself." Are we saying that thinking for yourself is better than not doing so? What does it even mean to think for yourself? Are we free to do anything? Is freedom even real?
Are you happy with your life?
I don't.
Think for yourself.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 11:04:04 AM
Think for yourself.
Okay, but I wanted to know what that means. You seem to have given me a circular response.
I already explained it.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 11:11:27 AM
I already explained it.
Oh, I guess I missed it or didn't understand.
It just seems to me that telling someone "think for yourself" doesn't make sense, because isn't that the only thing anyone can ever do? I guess a better question is, how can anyone not think for themselves? If they are blindly accepting the ideas of others, didn't they have to decide to do so in the first place? "Think for yourself" seems like a tautology.
Keyword: seems
It's not physically thinking we are talking about.
Look at the 4th or 5th post in this thread (my 1st or 2nd post).
We all too often do things because of heavy outside influence and don't realize it.
One instance might be to work a job we hate because we are expected to do it.
Another might be liking a band because they are in the genre you are expected to like.
A discordian may be compelled to say the 23 movie was good, even though they hated it.
It happens everywhere.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 11:28:17 AM
Keyword: seems
It's not physically thinking we are talking about.
Look at the 4th or 5th post in this thread (my 1st or 2nd post).
We all too often do things because of heavy outside influence and don't realize it.
One instance might be to work a job we hate because we are expected to do it.
Another might be liking a band because they are in the genre you are expected to like.
A discordian may be compelled to say the 23 movie was good, even though they hated it.
It happens everywhere.
I think I see what you're saying.
But is it really possible to form your own opinions, as you said before? It seems like all we ever do is absorb information and rearrange it in our heads, ever since we were born. Even the way we think about that information is guided by either some instinctual process or by thought processes that were taught to us. Is instinctual thought somehow better or even truly possible to isolate?
You are asking many of the very questions pondered and bounce around by our impressive array of BIP contributors.
Short Answers:
1. I hope so. I believe I can, and I have fun doing so.
2.Non-issue for me. I'm content with whatever thought process is happening right now.
Remember, my end all is true contentment. If I'm heading in that direction, i'm good.
Results may vary.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 11:50:49 AM
You are asking many of the very questions pondered and bounce around by our impressive array of BIP contributors.
Short Answers:
1. I hope so. I believe I can, and I have fun doing so.
2.Non-issue for me. I'm content with whatever thought process is happening right now.
Remember, my end all is true contentment. If I'm heading in that direction, i'm good.
Results may vary.
That's great, in respect to your own personal goals. But in the context of the BIP project, how can it be a non-issue? That is, aren't thought processes exactly what we are arguing about when we are making these pamphlets that talk about thinking for yourself?
There is something that does the thinking. My advice is examine it. By my own definition you are 'out of jail' the minute you do this although (to save LMNO pointing it out) you are only out on visit.
The thing that does the thinking is trapped in mind and often doesn't realise that he/she/it is also in control of mind or, to be more precise, is able to take control and dictate, to a greater or larger extent, the operations, calculations, decisions and ambitions of mind.
You cannot escape the prison but it's entirely up to you what kind of place it is. It could be full of cheap hookers and expensive beer. You have to decide to decide. I did so it really doesn't matter to me if you do or not.
BIP is one of those "Wish I was there to see the look on their face" documents. Most people it will have no effect on but the odd person who is almost ready to make the leap will be enlightened by it. It was reading stuff like BIP that made the penny drop for me. I wonder if the guy who wrote "Little Book of Zen" would get the buzz I'm talking about if I could tell him "Yeah dude, satori, for me, right on page 9"
I don't know the intentions of everyone that reads this stuff.
I'm just not "there" yet.
Therefore I am inadequate to answer that question for you.
Nothing in the BIP should be argued, it should be discussed.
It's all about the memes. We spread them cause we can. Nobody knows what these memes will or will not accomplish. There's only one way to find out.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 04, 2007, 11:59:18 AM
There is something that does the thinking. My advice is examine it. By my own definition you are 'out of jail' the minute you do this although (to save LMNO pointing it out) you are only out on visit.
The thing that does the thinking is trapped in mind and often doesn't realise that he/she/it is also in control of mind or, to be more precise, is able to take control and dictate, to a greater or larger extent, the operations, calculations, decisions and ambitions of mind.
You cannot escape the prison but it's entirely up to you what kind of place it is. It could be full of cheap hookers and expensive beer. You have to decide to decide. I did so it really doesn't matter to me if you do or not.
BIP is one of those "Wish I was there to see the look on their face" documents. Most people it will have no effect on but the odd person who is almost ready to make the leap will be enlightened by it. It was reading stuff like BIP that made the penny drop for me. I wonder if the guy who wrote "Little Book of Zen" would get the buzz I'm talking about if I could tell him "Yeah dude, satori, for me, right on page 9"
I don't know if we really decide anything though.  We, here on this forum, might have been predetermined to read things like PD and BIP and, based on our genes and upbringing, we got something out of it.  And others might be predetermined either not to read such things or to not get anything out of reading them.
For me, what I have gotten from a lot of this Discordianism stuff is that it is a mistake to think about what "ought" to be.  Instead, it seems that peace of mind comes in accepting what "is."  That itself is a famous philosophical problem introduced by David Hume, aptly called the "is-ought problem".  In simple terms, how can we ever derive what ought to be from what is?  The question is, is it just an illusion or rather a delusion to think that it is up to us what kind of prison we inhabit?
1. I'm having fun trying.
2. Another non-issue for me. I'm having fun. Whether I chose this, or it was thrust upon me doesn't concern me. I'm raking in the lulz, so i'm good.
The question is: What do you think about all this?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 04, 2007, 12:17:07 PM
1. I'm having fun trying.
2. Another non-issue for me. I'm having fun. Whether I chose this, or it was thrust upon me doesn't concern me. I'm raking in the lulz, so i'm good.
The question is: What do you think about all this?
Mu?
hmm....sounds like this is moving from a BIP issue, to a 'does free will exist?' issue.
but that's cool.
as the others have said, the BIP for me was in part, the acknowledgement of the prison. that is, our conceptual and biological constraints. for some people, this is horrible, shocking news. they think that the BIP is dark, bleak, nihilistic etc. that however, misses the point entirely. part of the BIP notion is that while the 'prison' cannot be escaped, it can be drastically modified and it's up to the individual how they do that. this is why LMNO threw out the idea of 'the golden sphere of possibility' because some people were too caught up in BIP as being something bad. he thought GSP was a more of an ubeat phrase and less off-putting.
for me BIP contains the paradox that although we are limited in our perception, and our perceptions are inevitably interpreted/filtered/distorted by our belief systems, if it were not for these limitations, we would not be able to manifest in order to have those experiences in the first place. the liber 812 BIP poeecast addresses this. and i'm not just saying that to plug SSOOKN products.....well, not entirely.
so for me it's a case of: as a human being existing within the material world, you can either have imperfect experience (BIP) or..uhh...well..nothing. of course, this could lead into a discussion about death, the afterlife, the notion of consciousness that isn't materially based etc etc. my impression is, however, that the BIP literature does not really address death & the 'afterlife' so called (and nor does it want to in all probability). the overall tone is getting your lulz in this life and leaving the 'other' to the theologians, religionists etc. naturally, you are free to speculate on that kind of yourself, being always free to do so. it's just that the BIP focus seems to be on 'the now'.
i don't know whether the other BIPs here would agree, but from my own P.O.V., we are not our thoughts. by being able to observe my own thought processes (say, via meditation) then it means that i am an observer of thought. that's about as much as i can say on that, especially since i've not had my cereal yet. my feeling though, is that the people who take the time to observe their own thoughts, realize that they're often a dishevelled accretion of nonsense that's accumulated over the years - these are the people who are experiencing BIP consciousness (if i can use such a pretentious phrase). knowing that beliefs are 'just thoughts you keep having' is, i believe, an antitdote to dogmatism which is partly why i think BIP is a useful meme to be spreading.
i think at the bottom of it, the BIP is saying: you can't escape 'the prison' in this life, but you can change it. knowing that you are free to change it sort of stops it being a prison really. instead it becomes a life-long interior renovation project.
or something like that. maybe.
Maybe it becomes a GSP?
Maybe both memes are required as two sides of the same coin. Maybe you escape the BIP by using it as a GSP. Incarceration is the mother of invention - use your cell as you will.
nice thread
freedom and limitations work hand in hand
it seems the more one understands their limitations, the more free they become
alternatively, limitations suggest a prison
from my stance, 'think for yourself' is a encouragement not to sell yourself short
never stop exploring or experimenting ESPECIALLY based on what comes out of the mouths of others
in the words of the SubGenius: pull the wool over your own eyes
not thinking for yourself puts unwarranted dependency on others
shaky foundation
not good to build upon
nice thread
Quote from: Mangrove on March 04, 2007, 03:07:20 PM
i think at the bottom of it, the BIP is saying: you can't escape 'the prison' in this life, but you can change it. knowing that you are free to change it sort of stops it being a prison really. instead it becomes a life-long interior renovation project.
or something like that. maybe.
This is the correct hammer hitting the correct head of the correct nail.
There are limitations we have as humans. The walls of the prison represent that boundary, but it isn't static. As Mang mentions, we have the ability to redecorate, but we can only do that if we actually see the walls. For someone who doesn't see it, they don't realize where they are. They don't see how the cell they are in is affecting them. Perhaps their walls are made up of coercion and pressure from friends, family, teachers, society at large, to "live a certain way." That you have to do X,Y, and Z to become the lawyer, to make the bucks, to buy the car, to get the girl, to have the blonde, blue-eyed kids, etc., etc., They can't see how the path, the prison cell is stifling them. That happiness can be found in different cells that can be reached by walking down different hallways. There are more options if you just open yourself up to them.
But, you don't know if you don't see.
Quote from: Mangrove on March 04, 2007, 03:07:20 PM
i think at the bottom of it, the BIP is saying: you can't escape 'the prison' in this life, but you can change it. knowing that you are free to change it sort of stops it being a prison really. instead it becomes a life-long interior renovation project.
or something like that. maybe.
I suppose this does boil down to a "free will thread" so to speak.
Okay, so we can't escape the prison. Everyone here seems to agree with that, right?
But can you really say that you are able to change it? How do you know freedom to make alterations is not just as illusory as the freedom to escape?
by confronting taboos and assessing the validity of fears and apprehensions you can make changes
ive said it before (repeatedly)
but it still bears repeating:
nobody likes martyrs
there is a fine line between freedom and martyrdom
but
there are apprehensions that people have that are very restricting
the fear of death is the biggest one
and that one can be changed (but it aint easy)
ive actually been thinking about this - how to give a person the tools they need to go from 'please dont hurt me' to 'Or Kill Me'
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 04, 2007, 09:57:01 PMBut can you really say that you are able to change it?  How do you know freedom to make alterations is not just as illusory as the freedom to escape?
for me, because that sounds like a pretty lousy excuse for not even wanting to try.
but even then, srslsy, in some philosophy course i once took, i had to learn a big discussion about free will, and basically the answer is, as long as you continue reasoning in a rational manner, you get nowhere, no denial no support, just simply nowhere. there have been a multitude of theories, and they all have been brought down, and the counterarguments too, etc ad nauseum.
the trick is, usually while reading all that stuff, people tend to stick at one or another of these theories because it fits their worldview best. or maybe they form their own "better" theory in the mean time.
but don't assume that
we have all the answers, better take a trip, search free+will+philosophy in google (http://www.google.com/search?q=free+will+philosophy&num=50), click around a bit, see if you can come up with anything.
my personal answer lies in chaos theory, free will as a strange attractor in the chaotic system of our body. i got there because it fit most problems of the stuff i was reading back then and evades most of the problems and didn't end up at the determinist/nihilist concept of "there is no free will" which i simply dislike.
i haven't in fact tried to apply it to the notion of escaping/redecorating the BIP though, i'll try that out some time (not now, it's late)
'free will' and 'responsibility' can live together
the same way order and disorder live together
if you dont utilize your freedom, then you will get weighed down by responsibility
if you dont attend to your responsibility, then you are stripped of your freedom
the responsibilities are generically covered by most religions, but are done so in a way that suffocates people
Quote from: LHX on March 05, 2007, 12:21:46 AM
'free will' and 'responsibility' can live together
the same way order and disorder live together
if you dont utilize your freedom, then you will get weighed down by responsibility
if you dont attend to your responsibility, then you are stripped of your freedom
the responsibilities are generically covered by most religions, but are done so in a way that suffocates people
Can't both "free will" and "responsibility" not exist as well?
of course they can not exist
the same way as anything for which there is a word for but cant be visually demonstrated
in this case -
the only trial is experience
and not playing dirty by replacing 'free will' and 'responsibility' with synonyms
when you make a movement - what is it called?
what is the motivation behind it?
gravity makes things fall
pressure makes you move - perhaps free will and responsibility are examples of pressure and/or absence of pressure?
we can flesh out the possibilities
So, almost everything I was going to say has already been said.
But, because I like to hear myself speak-- uh, type-- I'll repeat what has come before.
The point of the BIP metaphor is (at least) twofold:
1. Accept that there are limitations in your biology and psychology.
--a) Accept that the limitations in your biology imply that you can never be 100% sure you can see everything that's going on around you.
--b) Accept that the limitations in your psychology further color and warp the limited information your biology allows you to see.
2. You can change your psychology as you see fit.
Now, while this seems fairly simple, it also seems fairly obvious that many people do not act with this knowledge in their mind. They seem to act only semi-conciously, as if believeing that their limited perception of the universe IS THE ONLY REALITY THERE IS. They also ascribe many of their psycholgical limitations to external forces. While there are physical consequences to the actions you choose, the choice is ultimately yours to make.
The ultimate goal, then, is not to achieve some sense of "enlightenment" or "higher level"; it's to accept more responsibility in your life, and to take action to make your life more enjoyable.
Like the big Woman says: "Oh, well, then stop." And a corollary: "Or shut the fuck up and stop whining."
For a current example of 1(b) refer to the GodhelpBritain blog featured in the news section.
Actually, I think the OP was asking a question about free will....Personally, I am surprised there are Discordians who don't believe in free will. I would question your choice in irreligion if you are a determinist and perhaps go with something more....structured.
I know I have freedom, because I can make choices. Its pretty simple. I could have answered this at any time yesterday. I wasn't doing anything important, yet I decided not to. In fact, I did something a bit less enjoyable which I didn't have to do for any particular reason, except I wanted to.
If you want to deny your freedom, thats your business. Become another automaton, try and play a role that has been predetermined for you. But you'll only be proving me right, because you chose to do it in the first place.
Quote from: Cain on March 05, 2007, 05:39:14 PM
Actually, I think the OP was asking a question about free will....Personally, I am surprised there are Discordians who don't believe in free will.  I would question your choice in irreligion if you are a determinist and perhaps go with something more....structured.
I know I have freedom, because I can make choices.  Its pretty simple.  I could have answered this at any time yesterday.  I wasn't doing anything important, yet I decided not to.  In fact, I did something a bit less enjoyable which I didn't have to do for any particular reason, except I wanted to.
If you want to deny your freedom, thats your business. Become another automaton, try and play a role that has been predetermined for you.  But you'll only be proving me right, because you chose to do it in the first place.
Cain to the rescue with the sentiment I failed to include in my post.
I thought about it offline over the weekend as I was doing crap around the house. Basically, I cannot give anyone a detailed, philosophical argument over why I believe in Free Will. All I can say is that notions of Predetermination/Predestination or whatever just seem so apparently
wrong. All I have is a gut feeling that the notion that my whole life is preplanned is just stupid. There's no philosophy, only my intuitive appreciation that Free Will is the sensible explanation.
I hear lots of people say: "Oh well...everything happens for a reason". Of course, people only really use that cliche after something bad has happened. I've never heard anyone say: "Hey! I WON MONEY!!! EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON!!". It's usually more lik: "I got fired from my job...but then I found a new one and I met a nice girl at work....everything happens for a reason."
I don't accept that. Things happen and you find reasons for them. Guess that's just another law of fives thing. When Mrs Mang's father was killed by teen drunk drivers, the church people that Mrs Mang knew were like: "Oh well..I'm sure God had this in his plan and that he
needed MrsMangDad to be with him in heaven." Well, that's just the dumbest thing I ever heard.
If God is ALL POWERFUL, then teleporting someone to heaven & back isn't a problem. There was no need to squish him in an auto accident. The poor guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He exercised his free will to be in his car, as did the kids who chose to drink/drive.
The kids exercised their free will to drink & drive. Their BIP (typical of adolescent males) was structured on the belief that "it's ok to drink/drive because the chances of anything happen are so remote."
So I guess...as I'm thinking this out while I type....our Free Will and our BIP structures are intermingled and co-emergent. Free Will is the light that shines between the bars?
I need tea & a baked good of some description....
Free will is what you make of it. Choose to decide, or don't. Believe in limitations and see patterns as you see fit. If you think the world is out to get you it will be. Reality is no less real to the guy who wears a tinfoil hat. You might think he's crazy but he doesn't. He prolly thinks you're crazy, doesn't change a thing. The CIA might as well be beaming thoughts into his head, either way you look at it.
I doubt we truly have free will in a deeper sense of reality, but that the experience of conscious volition is an essential delusion to maintain.
Quote from: Netaungrot on March 05, 2007, 08:39:12 PM
I doubt we truly have free will in a deeper sense of reality, but that the experience of conscious volition is an essential delusion to maintain.
and Net rips a hole in the entire thread
this forum is classic
the most reluctant metaphysicists on planet earth
Quote from: Netaungrot on March 05, 2007, 08:39:12 PMI doubt we truly have free will in a deeper sense of reality, but that the experience of conscious volition is an essential delusion to maintain.
if my chaostheory solution turns out to be bullshit i would be going with this one.
(it's kind of related to what i tried to put into words with "for me, because that sounds like a pretty lousy excuse for not even wanting to try.")
shall we now again continue do discuss
why it is essential, and how to convince others that it, in fact, is the case?
Quote from: Netaungrot on March 05, 2007, 08:39:12 PM
I doubt we truly have free will in a deeper sense of reality, but that the experience of conscious volition is an essential delusion to maintain.
Why so we don't give up?
But, then is the choice to give up free will or the delusion of conscious volition?
At simplest level - we can move molecules about and mix them and make and destroy stuff. Chaos does not dictate what we will decide to do, it merely predicts that a decision will be made.
No one can tell me that the decision itself is not up to me, regardless of how heavily influenced I am by things like media, government, astrology or alien thought beamers.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 05, 2007, 09:14:47 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on March 05, 2007, 08:39:12 PM
I doubt we truly have free will in a deeper sense of reality, but that the experience of conscious volition is an essential delusion to maintain.
Why so we don't give up?
But, then is the choice to give up free will or the delusion of conscious volition?
Because it's all around more fun.
Of course I'd say it's a delusion of choice here, but outside the context of this discussion I'd probably presuppose free will exists.
i think its even further than that
watch what happens when you try to give up
'giving up' suggests the premise that you can go somewhere where it isnt as rough (some people seem to think that there is a place called 'non-existence')
giving up isnt a option - but you have the free will to try it out if you arent convinced
Quote from: Netaungrot on March 05, 2007, 08:39:12 PM
I doubt we truly have free will in a deeper sense of reality, but that the experience of conscious volition is an essential delusion to maintain.
I find myself agreeing with Netaungrot here.
Let's think about something for a moment.
What is your body made up of? Trillions of cells, right? What does each of those tiny cells do? Function as an automaton, right?
The question that I have yet seen any satisfying answer to is: where and how does "freedom" fit in within an amalgamation of automata?
Descartes' "ghost in the machine" is still quite the ghastly problem, is it not? Where do you think we get the joke about consulting our pineal glands?
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 05, 2007, 11:25:29 PMWhat is your body made up of?  Trillions of cells, right?  What does each of those tiny cells do?  Function as an automaton, right?
The question that I have yet seen any satisfying answer to is: where and how does "freedom" fit in within an amalgamation of automata?
these trillions of cells form a network. a very amazingly complex network.
the functions a network is able to perform, it's complexity, rises exponentially (or more) with the number of components in the network.
there are tresholds above which "properties" emerge from the network that are somehow bigger than the sum of its parts. this phenomenon is called emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).
it is my belief that at a certain treshold a network will become capable of self-reference, or consciousness.
i would not think it is impossible that some steps further up the complexity chain perhaps "free will" becomes a possibility as well (although i'm not nearly as sure about that as i am about the consciousness thing).
the thing with free will is that you can seemingly always lead a certain action back to its originating impulses. i scratch my head because impulses in my nerves make my arm move, which are caused by impulses in my brain, caused by the sensation of itch. or something like that, you get the point.
now the beauty of it is, that for very complex networks (like our brains), you simply cannot do this. the amount of possible states of these networks is larger than the amount of particles in the known universe. it is simply impossible to trace the chain of deterministic events backward in these cases.
unfortunately i don't know much about the maths behind complex networks, but maybe i'll be able to study it one day, so i can actually defend these vague hunches a bit better.
Quote from: triple zero on March 05, 2007, 11:39:08 PM
it is my belief that at a certain treshold a network will become capable of self-reference, or consciousness.
Already happened or don't you think this applies to things like you?
huh? yea i was talking about a complex network like our brain. so, seeing as i'm perfectly capable of reasoning about myself i would say, yes, yes self-consciousness has happened with me.
?
freewill?
actually i'm not too sure about it, but it could be a possibility.
i did write this explanation down in a somewhat convoluted form on the philosophy exam i took when i was learning about this stuff (the free-will thing was part of a general philos. course "core problems of philosophy" good stuff), but i think they sort of ignored that bit, as i passed the exam anyway.
reading about emergence on wikipedia now--check this out:
Quoteemergence refers to "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems." The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward causation."
an example of self-organisation is for example the appearance of those "sand ripples" on the beach when the wind blows. it's the cause for a lot of patterns in nature, like zebra stripes, skin cells etc (morphogenesis)
perhaps if you combine this with self-consciousness, you arrive at some sort of free will? [again, i'm just guessing here]
Quote from: triple zero on March 05, 2007, 11:39:08 PM
the thing with free will is that you can seemingly always lead a certain action back to its originating impulses. i scratch my head because impulses in my nerves make my arm move, which are caused by impulses in my brain, caused by the sensation of itch. or something like that, you get the point.
now the beauty of it is, that for very complex networks (like our brains), you simply cannot do this. the amount of possible states of these networks is larger than the amount of particles in the known universe. it is simply impossible to trace the chain of deterministic events backward in these cases.
Do you think the fact that we cannot "trace the chain of deterministic events" is what causes us to believe in an illusory free will? Maybe it's like how we thought the sun revolved around the earth, until Copernicus provided evidence to the contrary, right?
ok from wikipedia, how about this:
QuoteEmergence may be generally divided into two perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence". Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. Emergence, in this case, is merely part of the language, or model that is needed to describe a system's behavior.
But if, on the other hand, systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This view of emergence is called strong emergence. Some fields in which strong emergence is more widely used include etiology, epistemology and ontology.
Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:
Quote"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)
QuoteAn emergent behaviour or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviours as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties. These are two of the major reasons why emergent behaviour occurs: intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback. The property itself is often unpredictable and unprecedented, and may represent a new level of the system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities: they are irreducible. No physical property of an individual molecule of air would lead one to think that a large collection of them will transmit sound. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds or shoal of fish are also good examples.
so free will could be an emergent property at the macro- human interaction level, while it is pretty much deterministic at the micro- cellular interaction/chemical level (and again, i suppose, but it is besides the point anyway, non-deterministic at the quantum-level, IANAQP)
Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 12:16:31 AM
so free will could be an emergent property at the macro- human interaction level, while it is pretty much deterministic at the micro- cellular interaction/chemical level (and again, i suppose, but it is besides the point anyway, non-deterministic at the quantum-level, IANAQP)
At this point, you are really going to have to provide a rigorous definition of free will that you are working off of.
Back to the issue:
I don't think anyone denies the executive ability of the brain. However, the traditional notion of free will involves us somehow exiting the causal chain of events. I don't think any type of emergent property would involve such magic.
the important point here is the separation of scale:
on the micro-level, chemicals and cells are (supposedly) acting causal and deterministic.
on the macro-level, things like our interaction, making of decisions, creativity, etc might not be.
Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 12:37:48 AM
the important point here is the separation of scale:
on the micro-level, chemicals and cells are (supposedly) acting causal and deterministic.
on the macro-level, things like our interaction, making of decisions, creativity, etc might not be.
I not even sure I know what it would mean to not act within the constraints of causation.
free will is romantic
causation isnt
if there is free will - then we post in this forum because we like to
if there isnt free will - then we were brought together for a reason
causation can be romantic as well - you just have to warm up to her a little bit
either way
here are a couple more observations:
- a lot of people hate this kind of discussion the same way they hate discussing death
- there are common courses of action that make sense regardless of what side of the fence you lean toward in this discussion
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 04, 2007, 09:48:16 AM
Two kinds of prison
1) people build it, capture you and put you in it
2) one you build yourself, figuratively, fake limitations you place on your own state of being
Both can be escaped from, with effort. We concentrate on no2.
:mittens:
syn - needed that.
Peri:
It would seem to me that whether or not we actually have Free Will is irrelevant. If given the way the Universe seems to work, and the way that Humans seem to behave inside it, then the important thing seems to be that we act as though we have free will. To do otherwise is to submit your will to something other than yourself.
Freedom is not a state or phenomena. It is not a pattern of molecules or thoughts. Freedom is a decision. Once you decide to be free the question of whether freedom really exists or not becomes academic, you are free regardless.
[TGRR]
Freedom is a verb, you sockfuckers.
[/TGRR]
as in:
I'LL "FREEDOM" YOU IN THE JIMMY YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!!
if i understood him correctly
Quote from: LMNO on March 06, 2007, 01:29:37 PM
Peri:
It would seem to me that whether or not we actually have Free Will is irrelevant.  If given the way the Universe seems to work, and the way that Humans seem to behave inside it, then the important thing seems to be that we act as though we have free will.  To do otherwise is to submit your will to something other than yourself.
Yes, even if free will is illusory, we still seem necessitated to believe in it on instinct. That is why it seems so counter-intuitive to many people when they are confronted with the possibility of its non-existence, maybe?
However, I like LHX's response about how necessity can be just as romantic as liberty if viewed from a different perspective.
Personally, I get more lulz out of the fact that I am part of some big predetermined game/performance that is being played out on a cosmic stage, rather than thinking that I must desperately struggle as a free individual against the billions of other forces fighting against me in the world. But I'm sure there are plenty of others who like it the other way around, right?
Probably, yeah.
I like to think god has a plan for me and I keep sabotaging it by doing the 'wrong' thing
after reading what i did yesterday, i think i'm going with the scale-difference for a while:
so, chemicals are deterministic, but i'm not going to pretend i can exercise my free will on the laws of physics to make them behave otherwise.
but the higher-level stuff, like people talking, working, creating things, i mean, what do we do all day? can you translate that back into chemical reactions? and let's say you have done so (if at all possible), can a human mind grasp these chemical reactions as being such? i don't think so, we cannot possible be aware of the human body as a huge chemical reaction, that is why we have created symbols to deal with it, i'm not gonna say "the chemicals in my body will do such and such and such and such .. and such .. and such .. and such" but i will say "i'm gonna walk over here", because in the first case you will not understand what i mean, neither can i express it correctly. this is just another bar in our prison.
now i'm gonna agree with anybody who says that free will doesn't exist on the chemical level, but on the macro-level, where we talk only about the meaning of these chemical reactions, where, and we cannot build a bridge between the micro and macro level, you cannot even imagine how a chemical reaction makes a single muscle-fiber move (well maybe our resident biologist could), let alone how a complete human body works, especially the mind/brain/nervous system (or the heart, for that matter). so i'd like you to make a case against free will on the macro-level, without making any sudden leaps to the micro/chemical level.
Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 03:03:06 PM
after reading what i did yesterday, i think i'm going with the scale-difference for a while:
so, chemicals are deterministic, but i'm not going to pretend i can exercise my free will on the laws of physics to make them behave otherwise.
but the higher-level stuff, like people talking, working, creating things, i mean, what do we do all day? can you translate that back into chemical reactions? and let's say you have done so (if at all possible), can a human mind grasp these chemical reactions as being such? i don't think so, we cannot possible be aware of the human body as a huge chemical reaction, that is why we have created symbols to deal with it, i'm not gonna say "the chemicals in my body will do such and such and such and such .. and such .. and such .. and such" but i will say "i'm gonna walk over here", because in the first case you will not understand what i mean, neither can i express it correctly. this is just another bar in our prison.
now i'm gonna agree with anybody who says that free will doesn't exist on the chemical level, but on the macro-level, where we talk only about the meaning of these chemical reactions, where, and we cannot build a bridge between the micro and macro level, you cannot even imagine how a chemical reaction makes a single muscle-fiber move (well maybe our resident biologist could), let alone how a complete human body works, especially the mind/brain/nervous system (or the heart, for that matter). so i'd like you to make a case against free will on the macro-level, without making any sudden leaps to the micro/chemical level.
If you want a case against "macro-level" free will, talk to a sociologist?
sorry but i think that, while a sociologist would agree that certain actions of individuals are predictable up to a certain point, he would definitely not say they are fully deterministic, nor deny the ability for an individual to make his own decisions, or, in effect, free will.
but maybe you can find a sociologist that says otherwise.
but i don't think so.
can you predict individual actions? yes, up to a certain point.
can you coerce individuals to make certain actions, even without their knowledge? of course, up to a certain point.
can individuals decide to act different from their predicted actions? of course, up to a certain point this is what discordianism is trying to do (and it's not a work in progress, we are already doing it)
can individuals resist coercion, decide to, coerce themselves, do whatever the fuck they damn well please? of course! and i think no sociologist is going to tell you otherwise.
(so um, i just noticed that, after a slight detour this brings me at pretty much the same stage as LHX, LMNO, Silly and the rest, with the slight difference that i can now actually rationalize/argument the idea enough for myself to believe in .. for now, at least)
Heh. Agreement, ITT. Close this thread now!
Also, you can make predictions of human behavior based on probabilities and typical primate behavior, but you can't predict precise individual action/thought/behavior. Yes, I know this is what 000 just said. Shut up.
Quote from: LMNO on March 06, 2007, 03:24:42 PMHeh.  Agreement, ITT.  Close this thread now!
quickly! close it and bury it! let nobody see anybody discordians can actually agree on anything!
QuoteShut up.
aye.
Sociologist: You have no free will, everything you do is determined by forms and forces beyond your comprehension
Cybin: Observe this barstool
Sociologist: Ungggggffffff!!!!!
Cybin: Well, would ya look at what predetermination just made me do.
i totally predicted someone would say that
(out of free will of course)
Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 03:38:17 PM
i totally thought someone would say that .. to myself... can't prove it
(out of free will of course)
Fixxored - predictions have to be spoken out loud!
i am not congratulating anybody in this thread
Quote from: LHX on March 06, 2007, 04:21:08 PM
i am not congratulating anybody in this thread
Bravo!!
Quote from: LHX on March 06, 2007, 04:21:08 PM
i am not congratulating anybody in this thread
Or at all. If everyone is tired of the congradulatory blowjobs on here, our new motto will be "If you don't have something mean to say, then don't say anything!"
That was our motto, back in 2005
HSD- only behind 2 years now!
my reply to the OP:
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/freedomstatueironywilliamwallacemay.jpg)
That statue is a fucking abortion.
Just saying
Quote from: LMNO on March 06, 2007, 03:24:42 PM
you can make predictions of human behavior based on probabilities and typical primate behavior, but you can't predict precise individual action/thought/behavior.
But the inability to predict something doesn't necessarily preclude that thing from being predictable, does it?
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 07, 2007, 12:37:14 AM
Quote from: LMNO on March 06, 2007, 03:24:42 PM
you can make predictions of human behavior based on probabilities and typical primate behavior, but you can't predict precise individual action/thought/behavior.
But the inability to predict something doesn't necessarily preclude that thing from being predictable, does it?
storms
Heisenburg's uncertainty principle
the more accurately you know the position of something, the less accurately you know the speed at which it moves
the more accurately you know the speed of something, the less accurately you know its position
there is a rogue factor when self seeks to define self
a part of the feedback loop that is not predictable
but - on the other hand -
all you have to do is get meta with it and say that something is predictably unpredictable
its not clear cut
Quote from: LHX on March 07, 2007, 02:00:02 AM
but - on the other hand -
all you have to do is get meta with it and say that something is predictably unpredictable
Chaos Theory, oh noes!!!1
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 07, 2007, 12:37:14 AM
Quote from: LMNO on March 06, 2007, 03:24:42 PM
you can make predictions of human behavior based on probabilities and typical primate behavior, but you can't predict precise individual action/thought/behavior.
But the inability to predict something doesn't necessarily preclude that thing from being predictable, does it?
Predicting the
probability of an action is very different than predicting the
possibility of an action.
Or, to be more precise, predicting the
probability of the possibility of an action is very different than predicting the
possibility of an action.
You can say, "in a group of 100 people given stimuli X, about 90 will react with Y"
Or you can say, "if Joe is given stimuli X, there is a 90% chance he will react with Y"
But you can't say, ""if Joe is given stimuli X, he
will react with Y 100% of the time."