It's time to wake up!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Travelling lighter is enlightenment.

People without the lugguage have nothing to gain from this.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Your definition is one way it is defined. there are more then one ways of defining it.
I agree with your definition. There is freedom in doing what you want. But his desire was out of his control.

Back to agreeing and disagreeing at the same time?

a reply to: daskakik

I don't think it has been found but, that doesn't mean that there isn't a source of control.

In an absolute sense yes. If there was control, you would be able to find it. But it's impossible because it couldn't possibly exist.

Can you control your movement of atoms? No. Things on a micro level determine your macro decisions so if there is no control of the micro there is no control of the macro (desires).

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Who is "you"?

The 'you' in the statement - 'The choice is not made by 'you'' - is pointing to an illusion. Seeing that there is no one choosing, acting, thinking then that 'you' is not. But you think it is - that is the issue - the topic of discussion.

a reply to: daskakik

Back to agreeing and disagreen at the same time?

Yes because there are two main aspects of free will.

a reply to: Andy1144

No, you don't know that.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Travelling lighter is enlightenment.

People without the lugguage have nothing to gain from this.

Exactly but 'people' have baggage. They carry around the past and the future - they are like that Atlas bloke carrying the weight of the world.

a reply to: daskakik

What?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Like always you say a whole lot and never really answer the question.

I have said it before and think that it is worthy of repeating "nothing" makes for great circular logic.

a reply to: Andy1144

What you just posted.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Exactly but 'people' have baggage. They carry around the past and the future - they are like that Atlas bloke carrying the weight of the world.

Those who don't have this type of baggage described by Andy have nothing to gain from these ideas.

All you offer is nothing and since you can't force people to realize you actually have less than nothing to offer.

a reply to: daskakik

Free will is predominantly meant in two ways. the freedom to choose what you desire, and the lack of control of making a choice because it is determined by prior causes.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Free will is predominantly meant in two ways. the freedom to choose what you desire, and the lack of control of making a choice because it is determined by prior causes.

You are not using either correctly in your examples.

ETA: Actually your second "definition" doesn't make sense. That is the one you have twisted to fit your idea.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Exactly but 'people' have baggage. They carry around the past and the future - they are like that Atlas bloke carrying the weight of the world.

Those who don't have this type of baggage described by Andy have nothing to gain from these ideas.

There is nothing to gain - it is a losing of some thing.

All you offer is nothing and since you can't force people to realize you actually have less than nothing to offer.

I have absolutely nothing to offer - did you think you were going to get something from all this?
I have no intention of forcing anyone to realize anything either.
This is just expressing as it is.

a reply to: daskakik

You are not using either correctly in your examples.

I think I have, will you bother explaining how specifically?

How doesn't my second idea make sense?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Exactly my point.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: Peeple

That's not the sort of free will I am talking about. if that person eventually chooses to stay sober, his choice was influenced by conditioned which he couldn't control. His brain was structured a certain way, therefore he chose that, if he had a different brain, then maybe he wouldn't. And you can't choose your brain or the structure of it.

Wrong. His/her brain was conditioned and biological structured to drink. His free will allows him a different path.
There is just no talking to you, you are so biased, even when it doesn't work, you change the definition and expect everybody else to go along with that. That is no discussion it is a farce.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I think I have, will you bother explaining how specifically?

No, because you flat out dismiss anything that doesn't fit.

I also post for other readers. I'm sure they see it.

a reply to: daskakik

You can choose to override your conditioning to not drink. But that desire to do so would be conditioned from other causes as well.

No, because you flat out dismiss anything that doesn't fit.

But your not saying specifically where so I don't know what your talking about.