Freedom

Wally Pipp

Quote:

---

reality check simon : whether your mind does or doesn't see it as a restriction, it still remains a restriction unless you regard being death as a form of freedom.

---

I believe you misunderstand me.

I am not suggesting mind over matter (although that is another possibility) by suggesting that with the right mental focus, you can overcome any obstacle to freedom.

What I am suggesting is that we can be totally free by choosing not to do anything that we would otherwise be restrained from doing. I am saying that a restriction is not a restriction unless it is preventing you from doing something you want to do. If you don't want to do it, it's not a restriction.

Thus, the only obstacle we must overcome to achieve total freedom is to recognise that all restrictions are self-imposed.

Simon

Quote:

---

I agree essentially with this sentiment. Freedom is completely undefineable. We can only define things that restrict freedom, not freedom itself.

As for restrictions, Are you restricted from doing something if you don't want to do it anyway? If not, the ultimate way to achieve freedom is to focus your mind onto doing things that you are not refrained from doing.

---

Perhaps you are the first to take a stand for absolute independency? I know you're not able to explain it but I can, its quite simple actually.

Quote:

---

I know you're not able to explain it but I can, its quite simple actually.

---

Go on then...

Back to the breathing thing again.

You're saying the following :
It is no restriction because we can choose not to. If we apply that thinking to all then we would be free. Now we are not because we choose to do so. Thus self-imposed.

I say : in the case of breathing there is a choice of doing so or not but that choice will not affect the fact that it will continue.
We could impose ourselves not to breathe but that will result in death. The fact remains that breathing is a necessity, unhampered by our notions that we "could" choose not to.
If we don't then we die, such is nature.
In order to live we must breathe thus breathing is a restriction but only if we choose to live. If we choose to die, the restriction is alleviated because at that point it becomes irrelevant.

The freedom you're discussing is a version of absolute freedom but with the added element of life and death. Absolute freedom while living is impossible.

Sugar please ! Oh, and a bit of milk too if you would be so kind ...

Simon
Ok, caring about nothing leads to independence, as you've suggested concentrating on not doing removes the retriction of not being able.
Absolute independency freedom is death, by overcoming all obstacles (including biological) you've obtained absolute independency freedom. Reason why you can die is because there's nothing stopping you from being passive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Absolute freedom while living is impossible.

Sugar please ! Oh, and a bit of milk too if you would be so kind ...

---

OMG :D You've done it again :D

I told you but would you listen ? Noooooo ! :D

Wally Pipp

Quote:

---

You're saying the following :
It is no restriction because we can choose not to.

---

No, I am not saying that we can choose not to breath. I am saying that we can choose not to regard the necessity of breathing as a restriction. If it is not a restriction, we are free to do what we want to do (which includes breathing).

The point is, we can always find things to regard as restrictions. Every definition and natural law in the universe could be regarded as such so the only way to be free in your model would be to cease to exist.

Wally, I frequently underestimate you :p damn you seem to be knowing more than me at times :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pipp

No, I am not saying that we can choose not to breath. I am saying that we can choose not to regard the necessity of breathing as a restriction. If it is not a restriction, we are free to do what we want to do (which includes breathing).

The point is, we can always find things to regard as restrictions. Every definition and natural law in the universe could be regarded as such so the only way to be free in your model would be to cease to exist.

---

Example then :

By your definition, you should have the freedom to walk under water for 3 hours when you regard breathing not a restriction.
How long do you think you can hold that theory ?

Keddie, don't tell anyone but I'm just mouthing you so everyone else understands it too ;)
Simon could do that too but he chose not to :p

yup, thanks for taking my place :)

Freedom is relative.

everything with you is relative Bonker. Even the validity of your posts :p

WallyPip

Quote:

---

By your definition, you should have the freedom to walk under water for 3 hours when you regard breathing not a restriction.
How long do you think you can hold that theory ?

---

I don't know how to explain myself any better so that you will undnerstand what I am trying to say.

My whole hypothesis rests on the fact that there is no such thing as freedom. There are only restrictions. Something is only a restriction if we regard it as such. We can choose not to regard a restriction as a restriction.

If you don't want to do something, you are not restrained from doing it and therefore you are free. Not to do something that would be a restriction if you wanted to do it. You are free because you only want to do things that you are not restrained from doing.

Bonker, love the classics too :o

Wally, just tell me when things get too heavy :p I'll take over whenever you want

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
WallyPip

I don't know how to explain myself any better so that you will undnerstand what I am trying to say.

My whole hypothesis rests on the fact that there is no such thing as freedom. There are only restrictions. Something is only a restriction if we regard it as such. We can choose not to regard a restriction as a restriction.

If you don't want to do something, you are not restrained from doing it and therefore you are free. Not to do something that would be a restriction if you wanted to do it. You are free because you only want to do things that you are not restrained from doing.

---

I think you are confusing relative with absolute here.
For many things your hypothesis will work, for some things it will not work.
Physical limitations are also limitations on freedom. For example, however hard you'd wish for it, humans cannot fly even if they wanted to. Thus flying is, for us humans, a restriction whether we choose to regard it as such or not.
So if I wanted to fly then I couldn't do that because we're not meant to fly.
Thus your freedom is relative, relative to the things we can do.
Absolute freedom covers all, even things we're not meant to do. Absolute freedom means that if I wanted to fly I should fly.
Absolute freedom in the frame of living is not possible, relative freedom to a certain extend is.

WallyPip

Quote:

---

Thus flying is, for us humans, a restriction whether we choose to regard it as such or not.

---

Well, that's precisely where we differ. I don't believe that a restriction is a restriction unless we regard it as such.

If I don't want to do something, am I being restrained from doing it?

Yes you sometimes are by your very nature.
You can jump off buildings but it'll not be flying, it'll be plummeting to a certain death.
Whether you do or do not want to do it doesn't change that.

Restrictions:

• Physical (I cannot propel myself to Saturn)
• Biological (I cannot hold my breath for 10 days)
• Imposed (I cannot leave my cell)

All these affect freedom, therefore I conclude that freedom is one third relative, sorry for the previously misleading post.

I consider this subject now closed.

Exactly what I'm saying bonker !

Quote:

---

• Physical (I cannot propel myself to Saturn)
• Biological (I cannot hold my breath for 10 days)

---

I'm saying that the first two really just boil down to the third option...self imposed restrictions.

However, I can see that I'm not making (or likely to make) any progress here so I shalln't bother to put my point across anymore.

I'm not trying to poo-poo your arguments :p

I tend to agree with you that there's no such thing as freedom.

Good. Final example then :

You're standing on top of a building with, for some dark reason, the burning desire to fly.
You're saying to yourself "I really, really want to fly".
In your theory the fact that you can't is attributed to saying to yourself "I restrict myself from doing it (in case it doesn't work)" therefore the restriction is self-imposed.
That's what you say.
What I'm saying is that it is not self-imposed, that whether you think that you can fly has no relation to the fact that you physically can't. Therefore flying is a restriction, whether you choose to see it that way or not.
Restrictions of whatever kind, as BG pointed out, limit freedom thus freedom is relative, not absolute.
I can think of a million things that I can do but choose not to do, courtesy of the relativity of freedom.
Absolute freedom implies that you are not hampered by any kind of restrictions.
That is the difference.


Freedom is relative, nothing more, nothing less.

But you'll no doubt claim that I can't see your point so let's give it a rest then.
I think my explanations have been clear enough.

Simon

Ok back to your argumentation.

Wally and you don't see things at freedom the same way (although Wally knows), he sees freedom as ability. You argue that freedom is independency. If you leave out matters that would restrict you, you are becoming more and more independent, then again two notations of independency:
1. Absolute: which is subjective, a perspective that is independent will make your freedom, in other words death will lead you to this success.
2. Relative: which is objective, being dependent on something, and only realising that you do, will put meaning in this relation.

Now where do you want to go? Absolute freedom. Where do you come from? Relative freedom.

Wally Pipp

Quote:

---

I think my explanations have been clear enough.

---

I agree. It is my explanations that have not been clear. I just don't know how to express myself any better because I honestly believe you are not picking up on the point I am trying (bot obviously failing) to make.

In your example, it pre-suposes the desire to fly and therefore you are bound to face the restriction of not being able to fly. However, I am saying that the desire to fly is self-imposed (since desires can be overcome) and that if you remove the desire to fly, you remove the restriction of not being able to fly.

Not, I repeat NOT because you are then somehow able to fly...indeed, I am not advocating mind over matter...but because I believe that freedom is only defined by restrictions...retsrictions preventing you from doing what you want to do.

I am not restricted from flying because I don't want to fly. I can only be restricted from doing something I want to do.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

1. Absolute: which is subjective, a perspective that is independent will make your freedom, in other words death will lead you to this success.

---

I don't agree with this. I think ultimate success can be arrived at by meditation on the self. If all restrictions are self-imposed, realising this can allow us to be free.

Simon
That is relative freedom. If you avoid to see things as restrictions then you avoid discovering them.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

That is relative freedom. If you avoid to see things as restrictions then you avoid discovering them.

---

I don't really care to bring terms like relative/absolute into this discussion. The only thing that matters is freedom from the perspective of the individual. What does it matter if an individual is, in an absolute sense, restrained if he consisders himself free? If an individual only chooses, only wants to do things that he is not physically restrained from doing, is that not true freedom?

Restriction is (according to the dictionary) a principle that limits the extend of something.
The principle here is "It is physically impossible for a human being to fly", the something is "freedom to do whatever you want without restrictions".
I pre-suppose the desire to fly, yes, and that desire can be manipulated but the principle cannot be manipulated (we're talking about flying without aid here).
You still will not be able to fly, even if you say that you don't want to. The restriction remains because the principle remains.

Thus freedom is relative. There are a million other things where the principle can be manipulated by free will.
And there is what you've been on about all this time : free will.
But, and this is important, free will does not equal freedom.
Absolute freedom means that you have the free will to decide to do a certain act (no matter what) or not without any kind of restriction but the reverse does not apply.
In relative freedom it can be reversed but not for all

That is my point.

Wally Pipp

Perhaps you would consider the following example:

Imagine that I have a pet ant but it is a strange creature because all it ever does is perpetually walk round in a circle (say a diametre of 5cm).
Now, say I put an insurmountable wall around the ant that was circular with a diametre of 6cm). Has the ant somehow lost some of it's freedom?
I would argue not. It doesn't know or care about the wall. It can carry on doing all it ever wanted to achieve from life by continuing it's perpetual circular motion.

Now, consider a human being who was put in a prison cell. He started walking about and whenever he approached a wall, he completely convinced himself that he wanted to turn 90 degress and walk in another direction.
Thus, he is completely able to walk where ever he wants to. He just happens to only want to walk within the confines of the prison cell.

Quote:

---

Restriction is (according to the dictionary) a principle that limits the extend of something.

---

Exactly, and I agree with this definition 100%

If your extent (or desired extent) is limited somehow, change the extent of your desire and you are no longer limited.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pipp

Perhaps you would consider the following example:

Imagine that I have a pet ant but it is a strange creature because all it ever does is perpetually walk round in a circle (say a diametre of 5cm).
Now, say I put an insurmountable wall around the ant that was circular with a diametre of 6cm). Has the ant somehow lost some of it's freedom?
I would argue not. It doesn't know or care about the wall. It can carry on doing all it ever wanted to achieve from life by continuing it's perpetual circular motion.

Now, consider a human being who was put in a prison cell. He started walking about and whenever he approached a wall, he completely convinced himself that he wanted to turn 90 degress and walk in another direction.
Thus, he is completely able to walk where ever he wants to. He just happens to only want to walk within the confines of the prison cell.

Exactly, and I agree with this definition 100%

If your extent (or desired extent) is limited somehow, change the extent of your desire and you are no longer limited.

---

in those example it indeed doesn't matter but are they able to go outside these limitations (can the ant, should it want to, leave its stone wall prison ? Can the human being leave his cell should he want to ? Both answers are no. Restricted).

I agree that you can change the extend (as I outlined) but for some restrictions you cannot (re. flying, you cannot change the fact that you can't fly thus the principle remains).

As long as you have those restrictions, freedom is relative.

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

I agree that you can change the extend (as I outlined) but for some restrictions you cannot (re. flying, you cannot change the fact that you can't fly thus the principle remains).

---

No, you can't change the fact that humans can't fly no matter how hard you try. I'm not suggesting you can. I am saying that not being able to fly is only a restriction as long as you want to fly. If you don't want to fly, it's not a restriction.

Quote:

---

As long as you have those restrictions, freedom is relative.

---

What has "relative" got to do with it?

You define freedom in terms of being able to do what ever you want. I define freedom as only wanting to do whatever you can.

Thus not being able to fly is only a restriction of my freedom if I want to fly. As long as I don't want to fly, it is not a restiction. I am free.

There you have it, a difference in definition.

What you define as freedom, I define as free will.
Simply put, you cannot fly.
You can think you can, you can think you cannot, you can deem it irrelevant to your current desires but you cannot change the fact that you can't fly.
The thinking process falls under free will and is only present in the mind.
The principle falls under freedom and is present as a physical limitation with no relation to your opinion of it.

Freedom is the ability to do everything and anything without restrictions of whatever kind.
Relative means that for some actions you have that freedom but for others you have not.
You have individual freedoms but the sum of it is negative from the moment on you can find an action or event that is imposed upon by restrictions.

F.I. you have freedom of speech but, as stated, you cannot fly.
The overall result of the both is that you have relative freedom, i.e. freedom with parameters. If these parameters are zero, the equation is positive. If the parameters are non-zero (existing) the equation is negative.

Again, free will does not equal true freedom. You think you're free and in many ways you are but in many other ways you're restricted.
That's what relative means

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

Freedom is the ability to do everything and anything without restrictions of whatever kind.

---

I think it is safe to say that we both agree with this definition of freedom. However, we have different definitions of what constitutes a "restriction".

You say that a restriction is a restriction in the absolute sense. You say that flying is a restriction whether or not I want to fly because, if I wanted to fly, I would not be able to.

However, I say that a restriction is defined by what an individual wants to do, but can't. I believe it is meaningless to say that I am restrained from flying if I don't want to fly.

Are you restrained from moving through the fouth (spatial) dimension? Not really, because you don't want to move through it and even if you did, you wouldn't know where it was.

Quote:

---

Again, free will does not equal true freedom.

---

No, but it allows for true freedom. It allows you to decide what you choose to regard as a restriction or not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

I think it is safe to say that we both agree with this definition of freedom. However, we have different definitions of what constitutes a "restriction".

fair enough


You say that a restriction is a restriction in the absolute sense. You say that flying is a restriction whether or not I want to fly because, if I wanted to fly, I would not be able to.

that's the idea yes


However, I say that a restriction is defined by what an individual wants to do, but can't. I believe it is meaningless to say that I am restrained from flying if I don't want to fly.


So, if you cut yourself and you're bleeding you say it's meaningless to say that you're restrained from not bleeding because you don't want to ?


Are you restrained from moving through the fouth (spatial) dimension? Not really, because you don't want to move through it and even if you did, you wouldn't know where it was.

As I remember correctly the fourth dimension is time which, as I pointed out somewhere else, I don't believe it exists in the absolute sense so judging by that theory I indeed wouldn't know where it was.


No, but it allows for true freedom. It allows you to decide what you choose to regard as a restriction or not.


So your definition, being free will (as I see it), does not equal true freedom but merely acts an actor for true freedom ?
So true freedom being to be able to do everything and anything without any kind of restriction is reached by a broad range of free wills ? If you would be able to attune all free wills to positive you would have true freedom.
Where do you place physical limitations then when you do decide to fly ? You just toss them aside and jump anyway ?

Sounds like a flawed theory to me

---

Sorry Simon but I fail to see the validity of your view.

Premise 1 : True Freedom is the ability to do everything and anything without restrictions of whatever kind.
Premise 2 : I decide I'm going to fly because I want to.
Premise 3 : Humans are by physical limitations not able to fly.
Premise 4 : restriction is a principle that limits the extend of something

4 premises on which we agree.

The 3rd premise excludes the first because based on the third I could give you a situation where the first wouldn't be true anymore.

i.e. If I want to fly (2) then I can't because of (3). But wanting and being able to fly is part of (1) so (1) can't exist.

You negate (2), ignore (3) (on the basis that it doesn't apply anymore), argue that because ~(2) there are no restrictions (3) and you accept 1 to be true on the condition that the above equation counts for everything.

Conclusion : I say that true freedom doesn't exist because I can think of situations that negate the premise (1) and you do the same (almost) by crossing out a premise.

When we're talking about relative freedom then the picture changes because for some premises, number 2 and 3 will not contradict 1.
But that isn't true for all premises.
Thus true freedom is impossible
I hope my logic isn't flawed but that is what it boils down to.

I decided to poke my head in here and see how far this thread has gotten...

I think simonm has some nice ideas here. I must admit that I've never thought of it that way. I feel that I have to agree with his view.

Wally Pipp, you said that "restriction is a principle that limits the extend of something".

Would you say that a gate is keeping a bull in if it's not the slightest bit interested in leaving its pen? I would be able to prove that the gate isn't limiting anything by just opening it. The bull would stay in there, which proves that the gate was never preventing the bull from leaving, and therefore wasn't restricting anything.

However, if that bull did want to go, then the gate would be holding him back and restricting him to the confines of his pen.

I do see where you're coming from, though. You're regarding the gate as a restriction in both cases, becase you're not taking the bull's desires into account. For you, it doesn't matter what the bull wants or doesn't want. He could easily change his mind and decide that the pen is a bad place to be.

Wally Pip

I think we are both comming from different sides of an, as yet, unresolved philisophical debate. You cannot prove me wrong with logic because, however valid your logic is in your paradigm, it isn't valid in mine.

Quote:

---

The 3rd premise excludes the first because based on the third I could give you a situation where the first wouldn't be true anymore.

---

The situtations that exclude the first premise do not apply in my paradigm because I am not interested in irrelevant limitations. I say irrelavent because if you don't want to perform a restricted action, it is meaningless to say it is restricted.

Quote:

---

Where do you place physical limitations then when you do decide to fly ? You just toss them aside and jump anyway ?

---

The point is that the physical limitations that are present, if I wanted to fly, are irrelevant if I don't want to fly. I get round the limitations, not by deciding that I can fly but by deciding that I don't want to fly.

Quote:

---

So true freedom being to be able to do everything and anything without any kind of restriction is reached by a broad range of free wills ?

---

No. I am saying that true freedom is not being able to do "everything and anything", it is being able to do everything and anything you want to do. The other things that you can't do (which there is always an infinite number of) are irrelevant.

Quote:

---

As I remember correctly the fourth dimension is time which, as I pointed out somewhere else, I don't believe it exists in the absolute sense so judging by that theory I indeed wouldn't know where it was.

---

Yes, the time is generally regarded as the fouth dimension and that is why I stipulated that I was talking about the fouth spacial dimension. Call it the fifth dimension if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tygur
I think simonm has some nice ideas here. I must admit that I've never thought of it that way. I feel that I have to agree with his view.

---

Wow! Something we agree on. I must change my stance immediately! ;)