Do we have free will, and how "free" is it?

[Jah Bong]

While reasoning with someone, we came upon the topic of free will. We mostly got stuck at an idea that free will can't really be unlimited - free - if we're not given every choice possible in one sitting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on free will? Does it really exist, should it even exist? Is it a limited "freedom?" Can we be human without it?

[seshatasefekht7]

peace and hotep,

Jah Bong.

What is the logical step-by-step process that takes place when words and definitions are used that will result in the guarantee that no person is mistreated and also guarantee that the person who needs help the most get the most help?

It has been my experience that anything that isn't headed toward a SYSTEM of justice is helping to maintain and/or refine the current SYSTEM of non-justice. This includes the use of words, meaning words and their definitions. The objective is to use words to reveal truth in a manner that promotes justice and correctness in all places and at all times.

How does the use of the word "free" written above help to promote justice and correctness in all places and at all times?

-------the Party inculcate self-deceptive habits of mind to the inner and outer members, thus crimestop ("preventive stupidity"), halts thinking at the threshold of politically-dangerous thought, and doublethink allows simultaneously holding and believing contradictory thoughts without noticing the contradiction, to wit:

“ . . . but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. ”


FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

"if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves", become politically conscious and so depose the ruling oligarchy; therefore, ". . . in the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance".

"war" is "waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact", therefore, war is peace

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.  If "{IF} that is granted then all else follows"

"How does one man exert power over another man?
...by making the other man suffer"

george orwell, 1984---------------


Jah Bong,

"Your duty is to produce justice.
my duty is to make sure that justice is produced.
our duty is to eliminate all enjoyment, and all 'profit', from any activity that does not help produce justice".

Reason(s) / Explanation(s):

Every person in the known universe, white and non-white, has the basic duty to produce, or help to produce, justice.

The smartest, and most powerful people (White Supremacist) have the greatest capability for producing justice, and, therefore, have the greatest responsibility,

The powerless, most pitiful, and most primitive people (non-white people , collectively), have the greatest disability for producing justice, and therefore , have the least responsiblity.


Slave =

(1)   A person who is dominated by any unjust and/or incorrect force.

(2)   A person who lacks both the will, and the ability, to find truth, and to use truth in such manner as to produce justice and correctness, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.

Example:
All people who exist in subjugation to Racism [White supremacy].

Slavery =

(1)   Domination by any unjust, and /or incorrect force.

(2) The lack of both  the will, and the ability, to find truth, and to use truth in such manner as to produce justice and correctness, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.

Explanation:

Every person in the known universe is a “slave”----at least to his or her own ignorance and/or weaknesses.

The slavery of Racism, however, is the most damaging form of injustice and incorrectness, that, also could be most easily avoided and/or eliminated.

It is a form of slavery in which truth is deliberately prevented from being used in a manner that would best promote justice and correctness among the people of the known universe in a relatively short span of time.



Free: Not subject to anything or anyone.

Jah Bong, is it possible to be free? No.

Why?

Because if all things are interrelated, then logically speaking the only thing that is free is the "thing" that created All things. And since people don't create anything, it is not possible for people to be free. ……… if the creator is not a person.


Is there a defintion for "free will"?  I don't believe that White Supremacists would allow such a thing.


Choice is an illusion maintained and/or applied  by those with power on and/or against those without power. In some cases "choice", represent the best or premium (grades of meat, vehicles etc...) while in other cases where the victims of White Supremacy are concerned........."choice" may be a "bad" decision (negro/n-word product).    

and limited “freedom”?  Is "not being oppressed" possible for non-whites, under a system "where whites oppress"?

Can non-white people not be subject to white supremacy (racism) under the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) at any time?

This is where the definition makes all the difference. The definition of freedom is "not being subject to". This way I will not think I have obtained "freedom" and still function as a victim/n-word under the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism).

Now if other victims want to think they have obtained "freedom" that's on them. The truth is that "freedom" is a product of justice.......the product of guaranteeing that no person is mistreated and guaranteeing the person that needs help the most gets the most help


do not call people 'human beings'.
do not speak of any person as being a 'human'
being.

for a person to be a 'human' being, he or she must think, speak, and act 'humanely' at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity.

in order for a person to think, speak and act 'humanely' at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, he or she must think, speak and act to find, REVEAL and use, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity. these areas of activity must include all aspects of Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.

this means that a person, in order to be a HUMAN BEING, must not promote falsehood, injustice or incorrectness, at any time, in any place, in any area of activity.

IT ALSO MEANS, THAT THAT PERSON MUST NOT SUBMIT TO, AND/OR COOPERATE 'WITHE', any persons who do.

'human' beings do not now exist in the known universe.

IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY PERSON IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE TO TRY TO BECOME A 'HUMAN' BEING



Independent:  Not needing anyone or anything in order to exist.


Explanation: When you have absolutely no need for air, food, water or people in order to exist then you are truly "independent".  Is any person truly "independent"?



The way that the White Supremacists (Racists) use counter-racist language against non-white people is to lead the conversation directly toward confusion when the non-white person uses language that isn't "air tight".  As long as there is any wiggle room in the language non-white people use, White people that practice White Supremacy (Racism) will find a way to exploit the weaknesses in the language.



Liberty:

(1) Guaranteeing that no person is mistreated.

(2) Guaranteeing the person that needs help the most gets the most help.



White Privilege: 1.White supremacy 2. A negro product

"White Privilege" is a term White people use to avoid using the term White supremacy. Think about it, a "privilege" is something that is given to you. Who "gives" White people "White privilege"? White people.

It’s a great term for disconnecting White people from White supremacy because it gives the appearance that White people aren't doing anything to maintain it.

If you ask a White person for an example of "White privilege" they will say, "you know, when I go in a drug store I can be sure to find a band-aid that matches my skin color..."

They wanna talk about Band aids instead of what White people have to DO to make sure Black people don't get their promotions on time.

There is no such thing as "White privilege" there is only White supremacy. "White privilege" is a negro/n-word product  or a term created just to be used on the victims of White Supremacy Racism.

Don't buy it.


N-WORD/NEGRO  PRODUCT[josh]:


A statement or answer given to a non white person that is designed to obscure truth and create confusion.


When a person goes shopping, they want to purchase a "good" product (a product that functions effectively and produces a desired result). In discussions about racism/White supremacy, a non white person wants "good" answers (answers that reveal truth).

Through my investigations of White supremacy I have found that White people have answers about racism that they only give to Black people, these answers are what I call "N***** PRODUCTS.

Cheap, low quality, poorly constructed, inferior...at its root, its a lie, but it is often wrapped in adjectives, emotional buzzwords and assorted "ear candy" to make it resemble the truth or at least a product with some kind of value no matter how vague or amorphous.

FOR EXAMPLE:

During a conversation about racism/White supremacy, I asked a female if she was a White person. You know what her answer was?

She said: " I’m a non-white White person."

And she was serious.

That’s the "product" she put on the counter for me to buy.

Now, what makes her answer a "negro product" ?

It’s a "negro product" because its an answer she only offers to negroes. Think about it...do you think she put that on the census form? Is this what she tells a potential White boyfriend, his mother, other White people anywhere in the universe?


No, this is what she tells non white people...negroes/n-words.


Next time you get an answer to a question about racism from a White person, ask yourself: "would they say this to a White person?"

Don't buy any "negro products".  Always hold out for the truth.  Point to it.  Reach for it and don't accept that item from under the counter that they reach for when you walk in the door.

There is no substitute for the truth.

Ask for it by name.


http://www.counter-racism.com/cgi-bin/work-study/viewtopic.php?t=15

[seshatasefekht7]

in order for a person to think, speak and act 'humanely' at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, he or she must think, speak and act to find, REVEAL and use TRUTH, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity. these areas of activity must include all aspects of Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.

[skeptic]

Because if all things are interrelated, then logically speaking the only thing that is free is the "thing" that created All things. And since people don't create anything, it is not possible for people to be free. ……… if the creator is not a person.

I would dismiss a logical approach to Creationism as an explanation of free will, mainly because we do "create" things, we just don't design life on a molecular and genetic level.  There are much more gaping holes in a benevolent monotheistic philosophy that supposes free will as true.  Epicurus concisely punched that hole into that way of thinking hundreds of years prior to the arrival of Christ.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him "God". ..... Epicurus (341-270 BCE)"

Isn't the reason we are not free is that we are subject to a number of limiting factors?  Race, politics, social conditions, economic conditions, culturally embedded stigmas, biological limitations (for example, a handicap would limit choice)etc.

Is there a defintion for "free will"?  I don't believe that White Supremacists would allow such a thing.

On the contrary, they endorse it as a matter of dogma as to why the crimes of European capitalist exploitation of Africa remain unaddressed.  Meanwhile, migrant labor is a remaining resource in the United States that is relied upon for low prices at the grocery, all the while their rights are shouted down by angry whites who have been scared by their televised ideologues selling paranoia for their corporate masters.  That's just one form of slavery under a veil of rationalization.

do not call people 'human beings'.
do not speak of any person as being a 'human'
being.

for a person to be a 'human' being, he or she must think, speak, and act 'humanely' at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity.

I submit that human is simply colloquial for hominid, which is what we are.  It has as many negatives associated with it as positives, but it just is.  We should not seek to define each other by the ideal definition of human, but change the definition by forwarding the social and economic progression of all humans.  Dehumanization is not the answer.  We must own our atrocities as well as our triumphs.  It can only help us learn more about ourselves.

I'd like to address some of the other points in your post, but I've got to go.

[skeptic]

Is there a defintion for "free will"?  I don't believe that White Supremacists would allow such a thing.

I don't think reality would allow such a thing.  Freedom itself is an abstract concept, relative to other "freer" societies.

Can non-white people not be subject to white supremacy (racism) under the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) at any time?

Only if they found a way to reject individual identity and have others conciously reject that identity along with them.  Or if the social construction of race is altered, then they can be included into designation of "white" versus "non-white."  Jews, Irish, and Italians were at one point considered non-white.  The most important distinction here though is that phenotypical variations like melanin/pigmentation in equatorial and African populations would make that kind of integration nearly impossible considering the rigid archetype of white supremacy.  My point though is that "non-white" is mostly a sociopolitically constructed hierarchy.  There are "non-whites" living without the stigmas and cultural challenges of being so, but that's because society no longer views them as non-whites and they may not consider themselves non-whites. 

White Privilege: 1.White supremacy 2. A negro product

"White Privilege" is a term White people use to avoid using the term White supremacy. Think about it, a "privilege" is something that is given to you. Who "gives" White people "White privilege"? White people.

It’s a great term for disconnecting White people from White supremacy because it gives the appearance that White people aren't doing anything to maintain it.

If you ask a White person for an example of "White privilege" they will say, "you know, when I go in a drug store I can be sure to find a band-aid that matches my skin color..."

They wanna talk about Band aids instead of what White people have to DO to make sure Black people don't get their promotions on time.

There is no such thing as "White privilege" there is only White supremacy. "White privilege" is a negro/n-word product  or a term created just to be used on the victims of White Supremacy Racism.

Don't buy it.

In my studies, white privilege has always meant the inherited social products of white supremacy.  It doesn't deny white supremacy.  In fact, most of the in-denial variety of white supremacists will scoff at the idea that any of them receives privilege for their skin color.  Sadly, these people are your average Joes who go about their daily lives counting the alleged advantages that gov't programs provide while neglecting to observe the disadvantages of existing in a culture whose identity has racism so firmly embedded in its soul that they mistake the symptoms for the core problem.  White privilege is the bias in the court system and the police force.  Whites aren't expected to speak or act on behalf of all whites... blacks are judged by the actions of any given black person.  Whites are not stared down in the convenience store.  It's a product of white supremacy.

Through my investigations of White supremacy I have found that White people have answers about racism that they only give to Black people, these answers are what I call "N***** PRODUCTS.

Cheap, low quality, poorly constructed, inferior...at its root, its a lie, but it is often wrapped in adjectives, emotional buzzwords and assorted "ear candy" to make it resemble the truth or at least a product with some kind of value no matter how vague or amorphous.

FOR EXAMPLE:

During a conversation about racism/White supremacy, I asked a female if she was a White person. You know what her answer was?

She said: " I’m a non-white White person."

And she was serious.

That’s the "product" she put on the counter for me to buy.

Now, what makes her answer a "negro product" ?

It’s a "negro product" because its an answer she only offers to negroes. Think about it...do you think she put that on the census form? Is this what she tells a potential White boyfriend, his mother, other White people anywhere in the universe?


No, this is what she tells non white people...negroes/n-words.

While there is a bit of front-stage/backstage effect in how whites conduct their dialog I wouldn't mind getting a little background on this exchange.  It's entirely possible that she doesn't see herself as "white."  It's part of white privilege to not have to be reminded of your color, but to reap the social benefits regardless.  White supremacy isn't as conscious of itself, which is a huge reason it is capable of existing in American culture without question.  Race is not significant because of an individual effort to define your racial identity, but because of collectively inherited attitudes that affect how others see you.  She doesn't have to see herself as white to be a white supremacist, she just has to be part of the group that inherently sees black as inferior.

Next time you get an answer to a question about racism from a White person, ask yourself: "would they say this to a White person?"

They absolutely would say it to a white person.  They buy their own bull.  Their view of blacks is that "reverse racism" is the pendulum swung to the opposite direction. From the political compromises of the Equal Rights act and the politically moderate views of MLK Jr., whites turn colorblindness on its head as a way to point out that people are making an issue out of race (which, in their minds is therefore racism).  It takes a lot of education mostly with the details and nuance of competing political forces and ideologies, to challenge the oversimplified and whitewashed US "centrist" history of the mandatory public education system.  It takes more than not judging people by the color of their skin, but understanding how European colonialism, trade, and political philosophy (=capitalism) have shaped and mostly invented race as an effective catalyst for exploitation.  Whether because of shame, guilt, or just plain stubbornness, it seems that reality is a hard pill for people to swallow.

[seshatasefekht7]

peace and hotep,

Skeptic.

Because if all things are interrelated, then logically speaking the only thing that is free is the "thing" that created All things. And since people don't create anything, it is not possible for people to be free. .....if the creator is not a person.

I would dismiss a logical approach to Creationism as an explanation of free will, mainly because we do "create" things, we just don't design life on a molecular and genetic level.  There are much more gaping holes in a benevolent monotheistic philosophy that supposes free will as true.  Epicurus concisely punched that hole into that way of thinking hundreds of years prior to the arrival of Christ.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him "God". ..... Epicurus (341-270 BCE)".

Skeptic, please be mindful that i did not refer to the Creator as a "person". 
would you agree withe epicurus that "free will" was caused directly by chance?
i refered to the Creator as "the thing" that created All things.  The things that people 'create' are only re-creations or replications of things present in the known universe.  Everything that mankind has 'created'  was already here. 

Is there a defintion for "free will"?  I don't believe that White Supremacists would allow such a thing.

On the contrary, they endorse it as a matter of dogma as to why the crimes of European capitalist exploitation of Africa remain unaddressed.  Meanwhile, migrant labor is a remaining resource in the United States that is relied upon for low prices at the grocery, all the while their rights are shouted down by angry whites who have been scared by their televised ideologues selling paranoia for their corporate masters.  That's just one form of slavery under a veil of rationalization.

Skeptic, "Manifest Destiny" is a primary dogma of White Supremacist [Racist] and "Manifest Destiny" has nothing to do withe 'free will', chance or choice. 
"Manifest Destiny" has everything to do withe what the Religion of White Supremacy decries---the condemnation of a non-white world.
'free will' can not exist for those subjugated by Racist Man and Racist Woman in all areas of people activity as long as White Supremacy exist.
 

I don't think reality would allow such a thing.  Freedom itself is an abstract concept, relative to other "freer" societies.

Skeptic, freedom  is the freedom to state that 2+2=4. 
if that is granted then all else follows.......yet how does one man show power over another?  one man makes the other suffer and through suffering any man may convince himself that 2+2= something other than the truth that in reality the poor has been made into slaves by those who teach lies.

do not call people 'human beings'.
do not speak of any person as being a 'human'
being.

for a person to be a 'human' being, he or she must think, speak, and act 'humanely' at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity.

I submit that human is simply colloquial for hominid, which is what we are.  It has as many negatives associated with it as positives, but it just is.  We should not seek to define each other by the ideal definition of human, but change the definition by forwarding the social and economic progression of all humans.  Dehumanization is not the answer.  We must own our atrocities as well as our triumphs.  It can only help us learn more about ourselves.

Skeptic, correctly, dehumanization is not the answer......but what is the problem?
is mankind subject to innate weaknesses like arrogance, stubborness and ignorance or is mankind being manipulated by some alien presence.
i would prefer to follow the logic.
how can people not define themselves by their 'ideal' since we are all biological specimens sitting here vibrating and we do not know what we are vibrating about......?   

Can non-white people not be subject to white supremacy (racism) under the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) at any time?

Only if they found a way to reject individual identity and have others conciously reject that identity along with them.  Or if the social construction of race is altered, then they can be included into designation of "white" versus "non-white."  Jews, Irish, and Italians were at one point considered non-white.  The most important distinction here though is that phenotypical variations like melanin/pigmentation in equatorial and African populations would make that kind of integration nearly impossible considering the rigid archetype of white supremacy.  My point though is that "non-white" is mostly a sociopolitically constructed hierarchy.  There are "non-whites" living without the stigmas and cultural challenges of being so, but that's because society no longer views them as non-whites and they may not consider themselves non-whites.

Skeptic, if  A dolf Hitler  views one as  not being 'white', then how does one escape being a biscuit in an 'oven'?
who determines white over non-white status? how? why? when? 
 

Next time you get an answer to a question about racism from a White person, ask yourself: "would they say this to a White person?"

They absolutely would say it to a white person.  They buy their own bull.

Skeptic, are you a White Person? 
if not, how would you know what White People discuss when White People are alone?

since White Supremacy [Racism] is maintained by the skillful use of direct violence and deception,  is it logical that non-white people may keep secrets from White People and/or is it logical to assume that White People inform non-white people about everything that White People are knowlegable of?   

freedomisahapisalve

[EmpresKeneilwe]

Hotep

Correct, free-will is an abstract concept. Meaning it does exist.

Free-will is the ability to do/act/speak as you please. However, RESPECT is another aspect that is of extreme importance. Therefore FREE-WILL is limited in the sense that we, as a community are naturally considerate of the next person.
So RESPECT, in a sense limits FREE-WILL, which is a good thing.

[DonBK]

While reasoning with someone, we came upon the topic of free will. We mostly got stuck at an idea that free will can't really be unlimited - free - if we're not given every choice possible in one sitting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on free will? Does it really exist, should it even exist? Is it a limited "freedom?" Can we be human without it?

Ahoy

As long as Babylon exists, no one is free

Jah Guide!