Free will

reply to post by Iamschist


You can respond responsibly if you are present with what is present. Or you can react if you are running on unconscious programming. There is the conditioned individual and there is present awareness.

The conditioned individual has learned responses, each and every one of us has this conditioning, it runs most peoples lives automatically. The conditioning, the program is always running but can be seen by the present awareness that you really are. The program, the mind, can do nothing without your being. You are the being and the mind should be used by you. If you are trapped in the mind then you are still inside the bars.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Iamschist

 

You can respond responsibly if you are present with what is present. Or you can react if you are running on unconscious programming. There is the conditioned individual and there is present awareness.

o yea walk present with atrocities never react god man as long as u r being from obvious monsters life

god do not exist, existence is clearly real so free out of god where god freedom out of all existence is living by using existence as toilet wc whenever he wants confirm simply that god do not exist and that at a certain time god will b forced to learn how to live free without touching existence realities freedom that has nothing to do with him

reply to post by Itisnowagain

The conditioned individual has learned responses, each and every one of us has this conditioning, it runs most peoples lives automatically.

So we all live in a Skinner state do we? hummmmm Personally that is really offensive. The implications that choice or free will is not free, but must be earned somehow, or one must be special or "present" as you say in order to have it or exercise it, is some sort of elitist hooo haaa.

The conditioned individual has buttons all over him. If you spend a lot of time with him you will know exactly where they are, push this button and this happens, push that button and that happens, you know it's true. Does this conditioned individual have any choice? He can choose to blame his enviroment, his spouse, his work collegues or he can look to himself for the problem, after all they are his buttons.
What if the buttons could be removed? Or the one with buttons? The conditioned individual has buttons because he believes certain things are right and other things are wrong.
Present awareness sees this moment fresh and new, that everything is ok. Present awareness does not have beliefs, it has the truth.

The individual likes to conflict, it likes to be better, it likes to be right.

reply to post by Iamschist


I don't know who Skinner is so i am not sure what state he lives in.
If you have freewill why are you not choosing to be happy?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Skinner is available via a simple internet search, he specialized in conditioning.

When you are unable to sustain your argument, you turn to assumptions about the person you are arguing with in order to distract from your failure to make your point?

reply to post by Iamschist


I see no argument or distraction.
Projection.

And yes you do live in a Skinner state, as do most humans. TV 'programs' rule. You are conditioned by words like good and bad. Until you see the conditioning (the bars) you will not be free.

It is not about being 'special'. It is about you knowing who is making the decision, is it the conditioning (the machine/the matrix/the system) or is it the true intelligence of present awareness?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Is your argument now personal? How is it that you know what state I live in. Please make your arguments about the topic. If all you have is we are not free, then I have already argued that. Thanks for your input

Humans are conditioned to see everything as win or lose. Discussion can not be just a discussion it is has to be an argument. The human condition is to fight. Humans have been conditioned to fight with everything.
"What ever it is I am against it!!!" How sad a condition to be in.

reply to post by Iamschist


You are taking it personally when i am speaking about the 'conditioned individual'. The conditioned individual takes everything seriously and personally.
There is no argument here except the one you 'think' is happening.
I am expressing what is known here, that is all. It is not personal to you.

when u see others being in condition how are u then positive present ? u cant b present awareness unless u r seeing objective in absolute positive terms
how can u be negative towards what is infront of u and claim that all is right as u being out of being conditionned?

if u r not in condition while acting present then u must b an objective add while an add cant b but to what is already absolutely positive

u r proving how it is u the being condition while we are talking relatively out of everything meaning just anything or nothing concerning any fact but u insist to make arguments for what u r in condition of being from conditions

wat is that present awareness doing plz enlighten us

reply to post by absolutely


and wat are those buttons u r daring offending others to limit to, noone has any button while simple reactions are very sane when freedom is the only truth so anything is to react to for infinite reasons, wether u choose to stay still in reacting or u choose to move back first and help that move by being clearly negative to smthg else is another issue that has nothing to do with conditions on the contrary while all to freedom only and when freedom is the truth then any free point is all intelligence truth immediately

anyways reactions are the opposite to conditions, when conditions are all to actions life so constant positive still senses of being, rejecting actions are to freedom from conditions

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Iamschist

 

You can respond responsibly if you are present with what is present. Or you can react if you are running on unconscious programming. There is the conditioned individual and there is present awareness.

The conditioned individual has learned responses, each and every one of us has this conditioning, it runs most peoples lives automatically. The conditioning, the program is always running but can be seen by the present awareness that you really are. The program, the mind, can do nothing without your being. You are the being and the mind should be used by you. If you are trapped in the mind then you are still inside the bars.

edit on 11-2-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The most insidious 'conditioning' is perpertrated by the individual unit, on the individual unit...since it has tacit 'approval' by the processess involved in navigating experience by that individual unit...there's nothing like convincing yourself of something which is not true on a 'global' level.
Being 'out of control' means exactly that. It is a recognition that there is a problem with what is believed, and what is being experienced...(incidentally, if you nonetheless believe it...you will not recognise it!...and vice versa...for the same reason).
Some units are 'comfortably numb' and prefer to instead focus on the inconsistencies of others, while bypassing thier own responsibility to themselves and thier role on this grand 'game-board'.

FREE WILL is always present...conditioning and hypnosis are actions perpetrated with open or tacit consent, which springs from FREE WILL to choose...

Akushla

reply to post by absolutely


objective existence is obviously through opposites while subjective existence is obviously through dualities
which again prove how freedom is the only constant way of being present so all what u preach being through is clearly of lies

the major duality reason of our existence condition of being ones, is god and nothing freedom
god is the superior from before existence that refuse to consider superiority existing so is absolutely negative to all else and nothing is the free sense from before existence that refuse to consider any positive value existing unless it gets somthg out of it constant

that is why everyone basically is at the same time enjoying criticizing anything and anyone else while also focus when it sees some interests to keep in reaching to own some things

this is the base of absolute subject existing dualtiy but there are much more others reasons living sources like the last god and nature that we know more

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by akushla99


...and thus, 'on impulse', through no process of FREE WILL, affect the belief system of another 'unit' to determine an outcome you deem...'practical, humane or redemptive' because YOU believe it?!

Warning...major quandaries on argument!

Akushla

I don't quite understand what you are saying.

You are 'arguing' a circular argument...this is why it makes no sense.

You've started on one side of the merry-go-round, worked your way round to the original contention and then continued to ask the same questions...in a different way...and back on round the merry-go-round.

Remove FREE WILL,
...and you remove responsibility...

No 2 ways about this.

Akushla

edit on 10-2-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

No you're the one begging the question. I admitted, and I still admit, that by rejecting free will, you are indeed rejecting responsibility in the philosophical sense.

Originally posted by lampsalot
by rejecting free will, you are indeed rejecting responsibility in the philosophical sense.

not necessarily, or even on the contrary, by rejecting free will ones could mean objective responsability since all what they would be is through what they do clearly

so the problem is not there, wether ones accept freedom superiority or act for freedom rights

the problem is exclusively from freedom rights abuse literaly in absolute terms as the condition of being or conscious existence still constant ways

yeah, get him out, JUSTICE FOR WILL!

The main issue on decieding if there is freewill or not is who is it that can make a choice. Because there is a belief in a separate individual, the supposed separate individual believes he can make a choice.

youtu.be...

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by akushla99


...and thus, 'on impulse', through no process of FREE WILL, affect the belief system of another 'unit' to determine an outcome you deem...'practical, humane or redemptive' because YOU believe it?!

Warning...major quandaries on argument!

Akushla

I don't quite understand what you are saying.

You are 'arguing' a circular argument...this is why it makes no sense.

You've started on one side of the merry-go-round, worked your way round to the original contention and then continued to ask the same questions...in a different way...and back on round the merry-go-round.

Remove FREE WILL,
...and you remove responsibility...

No 2 ways about this.

Akushla

edit on 10-2-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

No you're the one begging the question. I admitted, and I still admit, that by rejecting free will, you are indeed rejecting responsibility in the philosophical sense.

A) my replies are begging nothing...
B) seems to me that your tune has changed a little across these three pages...
C) i am not, and have never said that by rejecting FREE WILL, you are rejecting responsibility in any ONE sense...I maintain that, rejecting the 'concept' of FREE WILL is the ABNEGATION of responsibility, in all senses!

Remove FREE WILL from the equation and you remove responsibility for your actions. This is a common defence for mentally impaired (or not so mentally impaired) who commit horrific crimes under the auspices of it not having been 'them' what did it...

You can wax 'philosophical' on this, but the rub IS...no FREE WILL = no responsibility.

Akushla

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by akushla99


...and thus, 'on impulse', through no process of FREE WILL, affect the belief system of another 'unit' to determine an outcome you deem...'practical, humane or redemptive' because YOU believe it?!

Warning...major quandaries on argument!

Akushla

I don't quite understand what you are saying.

You are 'arguing' a circular argument...this is why it makes no sense.

You've started on one side of the merry-go-round, worked your way round to the original contention and then continued to ask the same questions...in a different way...and back on round the merry-go-round.

Remove FREE WILL,
...and you remove responsibility...

No 2 ways about this.

Akushla

edit on 10-2-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

No you're the one begging the question. I admitted, and I still admit, that by rejecting free will, you are indeed rejecting responsibility in the philosophical sense.

A) my replies are begging nothing...
B) seems to me that your tune has changed a little across these three pages...
C) i am not, and have never said that by rejecting FREE WILL, you are rejecting responsibility in any ONE sense...I maintain that, rejecting the 'concept' of FREE WILL is the ABNEGATION of responsibility, in all senses!

Remove FREE WILL from the equation and you remove responsibility for your actions. This is a common defence for mentally impaired (or not so mentally impaired) who commit horrific crimes under the auspices of it not having been 'them' what did it...

You can wax 'philosophical' on this, but the rub IS...no FREE WILL = no responsibility.

Akushla

And it appears the no responsibility 'cancer' is the flavour of the legal system if we are to take the obscene amount of 'human rights'(i say that in that in the perjorative sense when i alude to islamic nutcases getting tons of liberal do goood suport in uk)No body is fully accountable in this world because of the deterministic beer goggles of the judges.look at the amount of rehabilitation courses treatment centres and sad lack of victim support makes me SICK .this could herald a whole new thread