Karl, if you are out there, I have proof that Marx was an idiot, and that private property will never cease to exist – ever! This actually won’t take very long. In fact, it is so obvious; I am embarrassed to admit that I have missed it all these years. I’m certain that this self-apparent proof has occurred to most everyone else, so I’m not claiming this is going to be anything new. Anyway, here goes.
It is impossible for you not to have property in yourself!
That’s it. That’s all I have, Karl. But I deny you to prove that you do not own your free will – especially since you are constantly claiming the workers’ right to their labor. After all, labor is nothing more than a manifestation of our will. So, if you have already granted that the workers’ own their labor – and you have – then you have already granted my assertion: that we have property in ourselves. And since no one other than us can control our will, this makes it the very definition of private: owned by a single person.
This means Marx – and those who follow him – are exactly what I have always claimed: Idiots…or, it makes them a would-be tyrants who are purposely using the allure of Marxism to other useful idiots to seize the control they seek. Either way, private property will never “end” because it can’t.
OH! There’s one more thing, Karl. Since you are born with this private property right to yourself, that makes it an INALIENABLE NATURAL RIGHT! And since the existence of a right denotes a right and wrong in regards to how others treat it, this indicates the existence of universal morality. And universal morality means there is a universal Natural Law. And together, this implies there must be a Creator as, without Him, none of these things can logically exist.
Have a nice day, Karl 🙂
The Rio Norte Line 
This should be interesting. I can’t wait to hear what nonsense he grabs out of midair to explain this one away…
Libercrite,
There is NO “rational” way out of this one, so whatever he does will be a demonstration of insanity. And yes, this should be entertaining — as well as informative/instructive 🙂
WhAtever he reasons, Joe, we can rest assured that it will be some form of begging the question. You’re absolutely right on this one. I’m anticipating his reply purely for entertainment value.
Libercrite,
I’ve got the popcorn and soda already ready 😉
Libercrite and Joeski … I have to be a little of a Kill-joy about this from Joe’s otherwise more than excellent post……
……….”…Have a nice day, Karl….”
Marxists / Socialists NEVER have a nice day …. they want everyone to Share their misery … to have a “Fair share” of it .
Socialism / Progressivism ………………. Always one execution away from Utopia !!!!
Don,
lol, sssh, don’t tell anyone — especially Karl — but that last part was meant as ironic sarcasm 😉
Oui, Je sais que.
After our last exchange with Karl (where he jumped on and off of so many band wagons, I believe he may have herniated himself), I see no reason to ever reply to any of his posts again.
Ralph,
Come on, my friend. If he tries to reply to this one, can’t you just imagine the fun we’ll have watching those mental gymnastics? He’s going to make the Circus Ole people look like a bunch of frozen boulders compared to the squirming back flips he’ll be doing. 🙂
Do you mean Cirque Sole ??
Circus Ole with the Squirming and Flips thingies sounds more like a San Francisco outfit to me…. :- )) .
Cirque DU Soleil even….sheesh !
Don,
Yeah, whatever. Why can’t they pick and English or German name so I’d have a better chance of spelling it correctly?
Parce Que ( Because)….The Frenchies are the owners of the Sun King ( Le Roi-Soleil )…..and thus the center of the Universe…..they’ve sent the memo and the world is just having a hard time “getting with the program”……
Maybe that’s cause Le Memo was in French ….. you’d think they’d learn … ;- ))
Let’s see if I can make a prediction
” the collective comes before the individual, and so self is suborned to the group” (say this with chin tucked in , and in STENTORIAN TONES)
lol
Karl Marx believed that man is defined by what he produces. Since free will is not the result of production it cannot be classified as property that is owned.
The men of the English and American Enlightenment, Locke, Publius, etc., believed that a man’s ideas are his private property.
It is therefore necessary to view Marxism as not just a difference of opinion but a total rejection of Western Civilization, the greatest, most prosperous, most just, most technologically advanced civilization in human history.
So by rejecting the best Marxism defines itself as pure foolishness.
Oh, goodie.
So, man does not “produce” man. OK, then how did Marx think he got here: by stork? Besides, if Marx had told me that, I would have asked him how man produces anything without first making the decision to do so (i.e. exercising free will).
Charlie, it is as you say: Marx was an idiot 🙂
Joe,
In Karl’s world free will does not exist. Man decides to do something because he has a gun pointed at his head. Therefore, he produces and does not have to exercise free will. Problem solved.
Chhelo,
I understand, but then, Karl would have to explain how the person pointing the gun came to decide to point it 😉
Joe,
Simple, he has a gun pointed at his head as well. The theory of last man standing. He then has to do his own work because everyone else is dead and now he’s working but would really like to have someone else do it. So he works not because he wants to exercise his free will but because he forced to.
Guess that’s as full circle as you can get.
Free will does not exists because free will does not exists outside of the human body. I could program a robot to believe in free will and adamantly defend the fact it has free will. Tell me how would you convine or prove that robot doesn’t have free will? Humans are programmed by society and society changes aling with material conditions, when slavery was necessary for the southern u.s to have a vie economy, it was seen as moral. Now that slavery is not necessary, it is seen as immoral. The men of the different geographies and eras were programmed differently, if there was free will there would be a universal morality that has lasted through alll of human history, but there isn’t. That is why some philosophers and holy texts espouse a morality the humans programmed by this era would find absolutely horrifying.
Charlie Bees Smart ! ( that’s the Ebonics version)
English translation…..
Charlie has given an excellent, Cogent and succinct explanation of Marxisms failures. Failures which flow from Marxisms very core and basic Principles…..well done indeed Mr. Malvida.
Property IS your life.
Life is nothing but “time”.
We exchange our time, working, for property.
Property accumulated represents your life.
To take one’s “earned” property, is to take one’s life.
Tell that to the parasitic class, some of who have enormous amounts of property but have not exchanged any time for it. While other slave away for years, and end up with no pensions or have an accident and have to declare bankruptcy. Prooerty does not equal amiunt of time worked, if it did, inheritance wouldn’t exists, and some men would not accumulate more property in one year than some who work for 10 years.
If I am interpreting your argument right are you saying Private ownership of the means of production will coninue forever because a human being is composed of an individual body. Collectivism is recognizing that there is a collective and its production can be administered collectively. Currently the masses are not in control of their production, instead market forces and the parasitic class decide production. Creating a situation of contradictions and crisis. The only way for humanity to move forward is to unite as one and work towards common goals, rather than enter in a competition of private property accumulation.
Like good little robots?
Were we good little robots when we ramped up production and made common sacrifice for the fight against the Axis Powers? Are you being a good little robot when yo pray?
You can make anything sound negative, but the fact is we need to pull together. Other nations do it, and we re losing market share as well as the share of new patents. Unity is not a dirty word
The Allies committed to the war of their own free will, and I pray of my own free will. You cannot create a robot with free will.
Not quite sure what you mean by pulling together to unite. I do believe the biggest cause of division in this country is this administration.
Believe what you want, the facts are a odds with your beliefs. The repubs bring up race far more often than the dems, and it is the repubs who are making it harder for the poorest of us to get out the vote, under the pretense of voter fraud, of which there is little or none. The repubs are the ones who keep calling for useless votes against obamacare instead of providing a vision for this country’s future, or actually working to solve our financial mess..
Obamacare is a train wreck, and a jobs killer.And Komrade Obama has now focused “laserlike ” on the Economy…..For the 20th time. Competition fuels advancement. Participation trophies are for 6 year olds. If you can’t cut the mustard, sit on the bench.
The great Soviet experiment proved that communal fields produced 1/3 the crop as fields set aside for family needs. The Kommisars couldn’t cut the mustard, even when they held guns to the heads of the “peasants”. The only place Marxism ever worked was in Marx’s head. Reality is a buzzkill. You “Marxists ” spout unicorns and rainbows, and deliver horse shit and panther piss.
You are a very strange person, your Mother should have taught you manners, and someone should have taught you the truth about communism (hint: we are not even close to being communist, idiot!)
That is the pot and kettle accusing the spoon.
Why don’t you go shoot holes through silver dollars at 300 paces, Joe? Be sure to correct for the wind and your severe lean to the right.
EXCUUUUSE ME , MR Malodorous,
Where to begin.
1. If you have read anything on this site, you would know that the Republicans have not been getting rave reviews for their performance
.2. Lets talk about the Democrat/ Republican Racial Relativism
A.1866 – DEMOCRATS form the KKK (1872 under oath in Congress KKK formed to restore Democrat control.)
B 1901 REPUBLICAN T. Roosevelt invited Booker T Washington to the white house….Congressional Dems go apeshit.<Along with the media
C. 1920's Reps in House pass anti – lynching legis, killed by Dem controlled Sernate
D.1947 Branch Rickey (REPUB) hires Jackie Robinson (also REPUB)
E. 1957 D.D.Eisenhower (R) authors a Civil Rights Bill, Democrats block and weaken it to the strenth of nothing more than a resolution
F. 1960, Senator Everett Dirksen (R) muscles a bill through the senate, it takes 4 years to finally get it passed , and signed (under duress ) by LBJ in 1964.
G. The bill signed by LBJ is essentially the same one authored by D.D.Eisenhower, and filibustered by Sen Robert Byrd (DEM) the Grand Kleegle of the KKK of West Virginia.
H. The voting rights Act of 1965 is virtually the same one authored by Eisenhower in 1959
As to the truth about Communism, I have seen , first hand the results of the "wonderful revolution" and it has been without exception , the cause of countless deaths, and untold misery.
I have walked the streets of your workers Utopias, and can tell you that the people living in them WANT OUT.
So , please pardon my poor manners, in response to one who proposes the enslavement of the entire human race.
Ralph,
BE CAREFUL! You’re using facts and reason on a Leftist. That will cause him to go into anaphylactic shock. If he dies, you’ll be accused of murder.
Communism sucks, on that we agree. But you have the problem shared by many of the insight-deficient denizens of the Rio Norte. Namely, you have adopted the stupid concept that anything to the left of your brown-shirted self is communism, thus trivializing the term.
In a room where stupidity is camoflage, you blend in quite well.
Point after point to blast your Republican as racist and you missed them all. If adherence to the constitution is “Brown Shirt” then I guess i plead GUILTY.
Ralph,
All this guy has is straw man, ad hominem and unsupported assertions. You’re wasting your time. Like Jefferson said: it makes no more sense to reason with those who renounce reason than to give medicine to the dead.
The republicans of the 1800’s are the democrats of today. The racist democrats left the party to join the republican ranks, where they were appreciated,
Today’s republican party is the party of the ‘Southern Strategy’ and voting restrictions. In short republicans are either racists or they are courting the racist vote with their policies
Melfamy,
When Hillary claimed her “Early 20th Century Progressive” heritage, she proved that this last comment of yours is NOT true. Now, if you want to keep stating falsehoods, go take it up with her.
B, are you lying to yoiurself now? You have said that TR was a leading progressive, and he was a republican.
If you are denying the existence of the Dixiecrats, if you think the Willie Horton ads weren’t deliberately racially divisive, then you aren’t worth engaging in a discussion
Be careful Ralph…..the Marxist Melfamy was taught mannors that include AccusingCommentors here of Rape and incest….of being in the business of Prostitution and as you have seen for yourself and unbroken line of commentary which personally attacks the Commentor.
And as you so correctly address…..The Defunding of ObamaCare vis a Vis the current Continuing Resolution proposals would go a long way to solving our Financial mess.
And of Course PATENTS thrived in the Environment when INDIVIDUALS could benefit from their efforts….and when it was encouraged to do so……not at a time when Those who collect Entitlement checks sit on their mental Behinds and DEMAND that others create new Technologies and New wealtgh for them to “Unite ” in and steal by “redistribution”.
Those who can…do. Those who CAN’T …demand the Gov’t take from those who can………………….That is the essence of Marxism / Communism / Re-Distribution.
We could have cured the economic mess by getting rid of OBAMMY last election cycle.
” I could program a robot to believe in free will and adamantly defend the fact it has free will.”
Karl’s argument fell apart when he claimed he could program a robot to “believe” and have “passions” (adamantly defending).
“Free will does not exists because free will does not exists outside of the human body”
By this reasoning, nothing inside the human body exists, since it doesn’t exist outside the human body…
Karl loses his arguments when he says “I.” He doesn’t understand why or how this is true because he doesn’t understand logic.
You fail to comprehend my argument, free will does not exists, because it does not exists outside of the body. You know like an apple which can exists outside of a human, or even a human heart.
A robot can be programmed to say it has free will , does it mean it has free will? You can yell all you want at the robot, but until you change the programming it will endlessly repeat programmed arguments and say it has free will. Even though it is robot and most free will advocates say robots can’t have free will.
That is the most circular argument I can recall in many moons. There isn’t free will because I say there isn’t and I say there isn’t because there isn’t! So there!
Karl,
Free will does not have to exist outside the human body to be real. You are — as usual — committing a fallacy. In this case, you are pleading special case.
But here’s one: the precious labor of your workers does not and cannot exist without the active exercise of free will. Those who do not possess free will are called vegetables. They don’t do any work at all.
Prove that free will exists, and prove that a robot can’t have it. A robot can be programmed to do labor, does that mean a robot on an assembly line has free will?
Karl,
Free will and programming in the same sentence, and Malfamy says I’m Strange.
Karl,
This is easy. Can humans do art? YES! Can a machine? No! They can only be programmed to approximate it.
Do you have an imagination? Yes! Does a machine? No — by definition.
Can humans create? Yes! Can a machine? NO! It can only perform its functions.
In all three cases, the machines result are a product of the human effort, the human act of free will — NOT that of the machine. The machine was just the object through which the human will was achieved.
See, told you this one was easy 🙂
Art is self expression, machines self express all the time, ever get an error code? If the definition of imagination is the ability to analyze objects that do not exists in the physical world, then computers do have imagination, computers anakyze many different models and simulations, as do humans. If you argue computers need hard drives and memory alog with electricity, yiu are correct. Humans are no different. Humans need brains and eletrical impulses going through nerve cells, in order to have an imagination.
Machines create things all the time.
Karl,
You do like to frame things so they MUST “prove” your point, don’t you? It is fallacious reasoning.
Creativity is something one does in which you make that which hasn’t been thought of before. Let’s see your computer create a play that compares to MacBeth. Or let’s wait for it to paint something to compare to the Mona Lisa. Let’s wait for it to make a person.
Now, if these things do not indicate free will, and we are just following a mindless program that resulted from random events in the universe, how did Marx dream up something that has never been and can never be: Communism?
Material conditions, Marx or any other philosopher would have neer been able to write das kapital, if the factory system hadn’t developed and other philosophers hadn’t made the case for materialism. Here is an article on computational creativity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity
But the factory system didn’t develop. You said it can’t. It is not a material thing, it is a created thing, and creation requires and act of will. You said there is no such thing as free will, so there is no capitalism. The same applies to those philosophers: they could make anything as making requires something you say doesn’t exist: free will.
Please, Karl, keep this up. You prove my point every time you try to object. 🙂
what I mean by free will is, a false characteristic that supposedly only humans can have. the false characteristic of free will is not true because robots have also demonstrated characteristics of free will. it is a scientific fact that humans react and create and produce based on their environment and biology. that their reactions, creations and productions are not derived from a soul or free will.
So yes Joe a factory system can develop with free will and I have never said it can’t.
*a factory system can develop withOUT freewill
And thus, Karl is tricked into admitting he does not exist 🙂
“Prove that free will exists, and prove that a robot can’t have it. A robot can be programmed to do labor, does that mean a robot on an assembly line has free will?”
There are numerous problems with this Karl. The main problem being, the points you are trying to make, are falling into a well beaten path of circular reasoning (which Ralph pointed out). “Free will doesn’t exist because you can’t prove that free will exists”. Come on, are you kidding me? Anybody that has taken a freshman level college philosophy class can tell you that this is a textbook fallacy. They even use examples very similar to this reasoning in the textbooks!
Secondly, this argument is being made from a materialistic standpoint. You’re implying that because you can’t observe free will with your senses, stick it in a test tube, or apply it to the scientific method, that it doesn’t exist. By that reasoning, Marxism doesn’t exist either, and nobody should give serious consideration to Marxist theories. Thats the problem with your materialistic reasoning Karl, and thats the larger problem of your atheist counterparts of the marxist discipline; you people pick and choose what does and does not apply the materialistic reasoning, instead of accepting every dynamic and mechanism of materialism. Had you actually been serious about this “existence” stuff, you would examine everything that falls into the broad framework of your worldview as well.
“prove that a robot can’t have it”
A robot cannot have free will, even if the robot’s programmers and engineers really wanted it to. Artificial intelligence has limits. Technology has limits. You should know this, Mr. Science. We don’t have to try very hard to prove that a robot cannot have free will, because a robot is not organic, and cannot be made to have free will. Humans don’t have the ability to dispense free will, and we don’t inherit free will from our parents or ancestors. Since humans cannot dispense free will and humans create robots, robots cannot be made to have free will. This robot stuff is a weak analogy. There is no sufficient grounding to compare a humans use of free will to a robots. At the least, if you would have chose some sort of animal instead of a robot, you would be SOMEWHERE inside of the same ball park.
Your comment “You fail to comprehend my argument” speaks volumes of hypocrisy, since you fail to comprehend your own arguments.
“Your comment “You fail to comprehend my argument” speaks volumes of hypocrisy, since you fail to comprehend your own arguments.”
You NAILED him on this point, Libercrite 🙂
Marxism is an method, and it disappears as soon as everyone forgets it and no traces remain of its existence. Free will is not an method, it is a wrong answer to a wrong question. Similar to what color is 5 plus 6? the answer whatever it is, is wrong.
The solution of free will is to the question of “what makes the soul do what it does?” The question is inherently wrong since there is no soul. Another wrong solution sprouting from an incorrect answer to “what happens to me when I die?” The truth is that you cease to be an animate being and continue your existence as an inanimate being. Your body incapable of supporting the senses and thought (perception and analysis of memories and senses) ceases to be able to continue its necessary to life processes and begins to disintegrate.
You should give up you idealistic fantasies and realize the world is a material world.
You also say freewill can be expressed in paper and other journals of thought. Than why is a printout of a spreadsheet not a sign of the free will of a computer?
You say humans cannot dispense free will. Then who can? How and why can they dispense free will and why can’t humans?
Karl,
PROVE to me there is no soul. Prove to me you actually have ideas, or intelligence. I’ve
seen no more evidence of the last 2 than you claim to have of the soul.
Either way, Nobel laureates in neurobiology have said their work forces them to conclude there is an aspect of mankind best described as a soul. I should think them a better authority than you.
As for the rest of your drivel, it’s just that: drivel. You are diverting from the fact that the only answer you have to our challenges is to deny them. THAT IS AN ACT OF FREE WILL! 🙂
You can’t prove a negative, prove to me that there isn’t a hyperdimensional toad laying eggs on your head, also this toad and its eggs are imperceptible to human senses since it exists in th 28th dimension.
The burden of proof for the existence of the soul falls on you. I will gladly review the evidence.
Then why or how do you get off claiming the soul doesn’t exist? There’s a word for that: IDIOT!
As for the proof that the soul exists: that’s already been posted on this blog — twice. Go find it.
OH! And thanks for ANOTHER illustration of YOUR free will in action. 🙂
How do you get off saying there is no hyperdimensional toad? I’m just stating the material truths of the world.
/break in your confrontation with Joe
Jesus Karl, you really are a misinformed troll.
/resume
Augger,
I think the official communist term is “useful idiot” 🙂
“You should give up you idealistic fantasies and realize the world is a material world.”
Actually, this is not a provable statement. What is gravity? Is it material? How can you tell when you HONESTLY can’t tell us what it is or how it works. The best you can do is DESCRIBE how it APPEARS to work.
What is a thought, or a memory? You CLAIM they are chemical processes in the brain, but physical experiments have been conducted on live, conscious patients where they artificially stimulated the regions of the brain thought to control these functions. Guess what? They could never create a thought or memory. Worse for you, the patients knew what they were doing, and that the patients were not the ones commanding their body — the experimenters were. If we are just “material,” this shouldn’t have been possible.
Then there is the matter of a decision. How do you make them? You don’t know. You also can’t explain emotions — you can only rationalize them.
In short, you are a scared little person who deals with his/her fear by denying the existence of that which you do not understand and cannot explain. Like the little half-clothed girl in the cheap horror show, you just turn your back, squeeze your eyes shut and tell yourself that drool on your shoulder from the monster’s mouth isn’t real. Might work for her — or you — but we, the audience, know the truth 🙂
Creating a memory by stimulating the brain with electrical signals is like trying to create a fetus by punching a woman in the uterus. Whoever conducted this experiment was not a serious scientist.
Emotions are reactions created by hormones and how society expects us to react. Some men abandon their unwed pregnant daughter and others support them and others don’t even feel a twinge of disappointment. Different reactions due to different environments.
The process of memory creation is still a mystery to science just like radiation and germs were once a mystery.
Just because science doesn’t have an answer, does not mean that god, souls and hyperdimensional toads are the answers.
“Creating a memory by stimulating the brain with electrical signals is like trying to create a fetus by punching a woman in the uterus. Whoever conducted this experiment was not a serious scientist.”
Nobel Lauriets in Neuro-Science, so I guess you need to go tell them they don’t deserve their accolades.
“Emotions are reactions created by hormones and how society expects us to react. Some men abandon their unwed pregnant daughter and others support them and others don’t even feel a twinge of disappointment. Different reactions due to different environments.”
Funny how this seems to haunt us later in life (guilt/regret). Doesn’t seem that your explanation quite fits actual observation.
“Just because science doesn’t have an answer, does not mean that god, souls and hyperdimensional toads are the answers.”
OR GOD! THANKS FOR ADMITTING YOU GOT NOTHING!
See how easy it is folks? You just got to keep them babbling long enough and, sooner or later, they admit they don’t know squat. They just want to justify their lazy greed. 🙂
You keep saying nobel laureates, but which nobel laureates and what did they say and what are their proofs? Regret is very much a social thing, a young womam may enjoy participating in group sex, but as soon as grandma finds out she may feel intense guilt, shame and regret.
It takes a big man to say he doesn’t have the answers, but it takes a small mind to claim he has the answer and the answer is ‘god dun it’
If this debate had been going on in the 13th century, you would be saying, if god isn’t real how come some people get smallpox and others don’t? I would reply, I don’t know, but just because our 13th century science doesn’t have an explanation. Doesn’t mean god dun it.
Now we know about germ theory. Proving that the lack of scientific knowledge of one era does not prove that god is the explanation of the unsolved scientific question.
By not looking it up in the search feature of this blog, you confirm one of my accusations against you collectivists: YOU ARE LAZY!
Way to gloss over the massive hole in your logic. About explaining the uknown with the acts of god, then when the uknown is known, it happens to not be god.
You are lazy, you are incapable of tailoring a response to my question, instead you ask me to take on your burden of proof.
Karl,
Did your parents have any children that lived?
“Way to gloss over the massive hole in your logic. About explaining the uknown with the acts of god, then when the uknown is known, it happens to not be god.”
WRONG! And wrong as a matter of basic logic. EVERYTHING could be known and explained the way you want it to be and it could STILL be attributable to God. Nothing precludes God’s hand. Being able to explain something does not rule Him out. You say I cannot prove a negative. Guess what, IDIOT? You asserting God does not exist is the same thing: you are claiming you have proved a negative.
Man, if your life depended on you being a rational being, you’d know how wrong you are about God by now — BECAUSE YOU’D BE TALKING TO HIM!
You can’t prove god exists. That is the main issue, why would I believe in something that can’t be proven. Why would anyone? Unless they’ve been raised to be ignorant.
Karl,
Never said I could prove God exists and I wouldn’t even if I could. That would destroy faith.
What I said is that any attack you make on God applies equally to your faith: atheism. Its a “He’s rubber, you’re glue” kinda thing. 🙂
Okay so there is no proof of god. Well if you choose to stick to faith, do so. But I must tell you that you should not let your irrational faith affect real life questions that can be solved by science. People who choose to be ignorant, in other words the faithful, should not be allowed to exercise any authority in problem solving. Especially when it comes to middle east policy, where their solution for middle eat problems are not based in science and history. But in what their irrational religion tells them should be done.
Hw can somethig be attributable to god, if he can’t even be proven to exists? I guess I can decide to be ignorant and attribute everthing to invisible toads.
Also,
Free will can be observed in a few ways. Free will can be observed on paper (I mean paper in a general sense, including anything published digitally) and in discussion, since written and verbal communication is a manifestation of the mind. Ideas that come into thought can exist in at least one form, if it is communicated through either of these mediums.
Free will can be observed in everyday life, and it is not merely the ability to choose between a mocha or a latte at Starbucks. Free will is the totality of those two words.
Here are the definitions of “Free”, “Will”, and “Free Will” from Merriman-Websters Dictionary (online):
FREE:
1.
a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen
b : enjoying civil and political liberty
c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination
d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another
2.
a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself
b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer
c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously
3.
a : relieved from or lacking something and especially something unpleasant or burdensome —often used in combination
b : not bound, confined, or detained by force
4.
a : having no trade restrictions
b : not subject to government regulation
c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
WILL:
1:
—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal
FREE WILL:
1
: voluntary choice or decision
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.
Now apply free will pragmatically. If Joe sits down to post something on RLN, that is Joe’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to write a post without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention.
If an artists sits down to paint a portrait or sculpt something, that is the artist’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to create without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention.
If a kid goes out to play organized contact football for a local club, that is that kid’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to play football without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention.
If somebody decides to commit a crime, that is that persons willingness, desire, choice, etc, to commit a crime without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention.
If a woman decides to have a Summers wage worth of sex in contraceptives, that is that woman’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to have a Summers wage worth of sex in contraceptives without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention. (and not everybody else’s responsibility to pay for that Summers wage worth of sex in contraceptives!)
If a family decides to go on vacation to Florida, that is that family’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to go to Florida without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention.
If a somebody decides to become an entrepreneur and start a company, that is that entrepreneur’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to start a company without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention.
If somebody decides to apply for a job at that entrepreneur’s company, and signs all of the contracts and agreements to abide by that entrepreneur’s rules and regulations, that is that applicant’s willingness, desire, choice, etc, to apply for a job at that entrepreneurs company without prior cause, subjugation, domination, or divine intervention. (and a violation of that entrepreneur’s free will, to unionize that entrepreneur’s company, might I add!)
Do you get the idea? It’s not difficult to understand. Don’t confuse the the circumstances surrounding free will, with free will itself.
My challenge to you Karl is this: prove that free will doesn’t exist…
“Marxism is an method, and it disappears as soon as everyone forgets it and no traces remain of its existence. Free will is not an method, it is a wrong answer to a wrong question. Similar to what color is 5 plus 6? the answer whatever it is, is wrong.”
Just like the weak analogy of comparing human free will to preprogrammed robots?
“You also say freewill can be expressed in paper and other journals of thought. Than why is a printout of a spreadsheet not a sign of the free will of a computer?”
Because a spread sheet is an invention of human free will, and a print out is the result of a computer responding to a human practicing free will, giving the computer a command to “print”, or the computer responding to an automated human command to “print” at a certain scheduled time.
“You say humans cannot dispense free will. Then who can? How and why can they dispense free will and why can’t humans?”
God dispenses free will. Since God is the author of the universe and every single working mechanism within it (both observed by humans an unobserved), it stands to reason that only God could dispense such a thing as free will among humans. Just like we can observe the laws of physics, we can’t actually create a purely organic physical law. We can conduct experiments that put those laws into action, but thats all we can do. Free will works the same exact way. It’s not really difficult to grasp at all.
“You should give up you idealistic fantasies and realize the world is a material world.”
Maybe some of us understand that an organic material world is completely compatible with a Creator. Maybe some of us understand that science and spirituality don’t address the same questions, and that it is folly to use one to completely explain the other.
It’s clear that you don’t understand free will to competently critique it, Karl.
Who is to say that the same way a computer creates a spreadsheet because a person clicks print, is not the same way a person goes to work because his environment demands he do so so he can feed himself.
How is protein somehow able to hold free will, but not metal?
Karl, you’re failing to make a serious point. Just as your criticized rather that scientist is a “serious scientist” or not, we must now examine rather you are a serious thinker or not.
“Who is to say that the same way a computer creates a spreadsheet because a person clicks print, is not the same way a person goes to work because his environment demands he do so so he can feed himself.”
A computer doesn’t create a spreadsheet unless a human creates a spreadsheet through it, or an automatic command is programmed into the computer (by human programming) to create specific spreadsheets on given times and dates. Obviously you have never used Excel, and obviously you have no idea of how computers or robots work.
People go to work because they make the choice to go to work. People also choose NOT to go to work. Why do people skip work when their job may be at stake? Wouldn’t that threat of loosing the means to feed oneself, compel one to go to work? Shouldn’t evolution have provided some sort of failsafe system to prevent people from missing work, losing their job, and not being able to feed themselves?
Protein could hold free will, if the author of free will dispensed free will to protein. If that same Creator saw a purpose for metal to have free will, I’m sure it wouldn’t have been a problem for Him to give metal free will either, although entertaining this idea is entirely pointless and incoherent since metal does not, cannot, and will not ever have free will…
Thanks for playing, try again.
Hahahahahaha. You haven’t got a clue to what your talkig about. You don’t propose an actual scientific reason for free will. All you say is ‘god dun it’
Many people skip work, because they hate their job or work. Does that mean they won’t ever work again, it just mean they won’t be returning to the same place of work. Your queston about evolurion is a wrong question. Why would evolution provide things that are unique to the last 800 yearsvof human history?
Hahahaha I’m glad you find the humor in that, Karl, because we have all been equally humoring ourselves in your fallacious arguments for quite some time now.
I haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about, and you’re the one who resorts to fallacious test tube reasoning, as EVERYBODY has recognized at some point or another, so you tell me, is incoherence better than ignorance?
“all you say is ‘god dun it'”.
Since nobody here has ever actually said “god dun it”, nor does anybody else actually type like that here.
People skip work because they make a choice to skip work. There you go, free will at work.
Once again, nice try but thanks for playing.
When you say freewill is totally in the hands of god and only god can create it, you are saying ‘god dun it’. You are not presentin scientific evidence of free will. You are equivicating the ability to make decisions with a divine false attribute. Your argument falls apart when it is shown robots and computer programs are capable of decision makin and original creative production and analysis.
Why can’t you realize that free will, gods and souls are fantasies that are inside your head? You have closed your mind to science and have embraced willful ignorance. What is so hard to understand that the immaterial does not exists?
Karl,
I have written 2 posts in which I have cited several SCIENTIFIC studies in which the scientists all said the only explanation that explains their results is that we have a soul. You keep denying it, but those who have read my posts for any length of time probably remember them. So please, don’t try to tell us there is no evidence. Heck, a simple Google search will find the same studies I cited.
Next, free will exists. If it didn’t, you wouldn’t keep typing. But you do, and by typing, you demonstrate the self-evident fact of my argument. You can claim free will is only an illusion, but there again, that is an act of imagination, which is an act of free will. Now here’s the trick: if the universe is nothing but material matter governed by fixed laws, then everything that ever was and will ever be was predetermined at the moment the universe began. This would preclude free will. Heck, it would preclude anything random. And if nothing is random, there goes your precious evolution and — SHOCK OF SHOCKS — that only leaves God to create life!!!
Thanks, Karl. You did it again 🙂
Everything is predetermined. This fact has nothing to do wih the validity of evolution.
Me respondig is not free will, my upbringing, circumstances,environment and biology, make the being known as Karl respond. Just like gravity and the laws of nature make rain drop.
If everything is pre-determined, then evolution cannot be. You cannot have natural selection if everything is predetermined. You also don’t need to worry about your workers’ struggle. Just sit back and wait for the predetermined to happen.
I am just sitting back and seeing capitalism crumble. How is natural selection affected by predetermination? When you shoot a shotgun at a can, the paths of the pellets are predetermined. Some pellets hit the can and others don’t. The same goes for natural selection, some species survive and others don’t. Some traits get passed on and others don’t. Predetermination doesn’t refute evolution.
The fact that I choose to reply to these false charges of closing my mind to science, is material evidence of free will. Why is this easily understood concept so hards for you to grasp? Who exactly is having the comprehension problems here?
Because a reply is a physical action originating from the physical world. The reason for replying is not metaphysical. What is so hard to understand about cause and effect? About human being’s acts originating from their world.