Freedom

You've got it wrong tygur. I do take the bulls desires into account.
I'm saying that if it should decide to leave the pen while the gates are closed, it would encounter a restriction.
If it's open there isn't a restriction as far as willing to leave the pen is concerned.
On the other hand, the gate in closed state is still a restriction whether the bull decides to leave or not because if it decides to leave it would be blocked. The fact that it doesn't think about leaving doesn't change the above.
True freedom means that every action, every desire, every will can be performed without restrictions. Since I can describe a situation that doesn't comply with the above statement I say there is no true freedom, only relative.

That is what I'm saying.


And again, simon, you are crossing out parts of the equation.
Some premises are independant to what you think.
Flying is independant of your thinking. Flying is an universal restriction under any circumstances for humans. Saying "Oh I don't want to fly" is not alleviating that restriction because if you do decide to fly, the restriction is still there.

A ball doesn't cease to exist just because you don't see him.
That is the principle

I misread the title of this thread. I thought it said Femdom

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

You've got it wrong tygur. I do take the bulls desires into account.
I'm saying that if it should decide to leave the pen while the gates are closed, it would encounter a restriction.

---

I think that you have it wrong. You demonstrate Tygur's supposed error by changing the example to suit your premise.

If the Bull decides to leave the paddock, then the restriction comes into play. Until then, it is free. That is the crux of the point.

It's no good saying that if the bull wanted to do this, because the point of the example is that the bull doesn't.

Quote:

---

True freedom means that every action, every desire, every will can be performed without restrictions. Since I can describe a situation that doesn't comply with the above statement I say there is no true freedom, only relative.

---

Agreed. There is no true freedom because the true freedom that you refer to is a meaningless concept.

The point we are making is that you can be completely free one moment but then restrained the next simply by a change of mind. If you want to do something you can't do, you're no longer free. To become free, either remove the obstacle or change your mind about what you want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

I think that you have it wrong. You demonstrate Tygur's supposed error by changing the example to suit your premise.

If the Bull decides to leave the paddock, then the restriction comes into play. Until then, it is free. That is the crux of the point.

What do you think Tygur did in his argumentation ? He assumes that the bull would stay inside even if he opened the gates.
That could constitute as changing the premises to suit your needs.
My point of view is however that if it decides to leave there is a restriction.
If it doesn't decide that, well then it doesn't leave but the restriction is still there.


It's no good saying that if the bull wanted to do this, because the point of the example is that the bull doesn't.


If it doesn't then it doesn't but the gate is shut and poses a restriction that could affect the bull but it is a restriction nevertheless.


Agreed. There is no true freedom because the true freedom that you refer to is a meaningless concept.

The point I was making all along. I'm saying all along that it is relative.


The point we are making is that you can be completely free one moment but then restrained the next simply by a change of mind. If you want to do something you can't do, you're no longer free. To become free, either remove the obstacle or change your mind about what you want to do.

Thus you change the nature of the example. :rolleyes:

Again, a ball doesn't cease to exist just because you don't see it or you forget about it.
The restriction remains, you just choose not to think about it.
I can see why you would say it's irrelevant to the current situation but it still remains.

So I'm saying freedom is relative to the situation because of the various restrictions. We don't always think about it but they are there.
You need a velocity of 11.2 Km/sec to escape the earth but that number remains impervious to the fact that you do want to leave the earth or not. It doesn't cease to exist.

---

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

My point of view is however that if it decides to leave there is a restriction.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

If it doesn't decide that, well then it doesn't leave but the restriction is still there.

---

OK, I am prepared to concede that it is a potential restriction. It becomes an actual restriction when the bull get's it into it's head that it wants to leave.

And I do believe that is an important distinction. Your consideration of the the possibility that the bull might want to leave is a mere hypothetical flight of fancy.

I believe that the cow's freedom status is determined by the moment and the restrictions that apply at that moment. When the cow doesn't want to leave, the restriction is no more than a hypothetical possibility. But, it's senseless to think about "what if's".

At any given moment in time, the cow has an intention of purpose. If, at that moment in time, it's intention leads it to a restriction, it is no longer free. If, however, it's intentions are kept within viable bouderies, it's not going to come into a restriction. Thus it can remain totally free.

Why not mention the fact that the cow is being restrained from moving through the fourth (fifth if you like) dimension? It does not know or care about such movement so mentioning that restriction is worthless. It does not apply.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
You've got it wrong tygur. I do take the bulls desires into account.
I'm saying that if it should decide to leave the pen while the gates are closed, it would encounter a restriction.
If it's open there isn't a restriction as far as willing to leave the pen is concerned.
On the other hand, the gate in closed state is still a restriction whether the bull decides to leave or not because if it decides to leave it would be blocked. The fact that it doesn't think about leaving doesn't change the above.

---

In my previous post, I said "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." How is that not so? You said it yourself. You don't feel that what it wants is important because it could change its mind.

My point (and simonm's) is that as long as it doesn't change its mind, it's not restricted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
What do you think Tygur did in his argumentation ? He assumes that the bull would stay inside even if he opened the gates.
That could constitute as changing the premises to suit your needs.
My point of view is however that if it decides to leave there is a restriction.
If it doesn't decide that, well then it doesn't leave but the restriction is still there.

---

Yes, I did assume that the bull would stay inside. If the bull doesn't want to go (as is clearly stated in the beginning), it won't decide to go. I didn't change anything.


If the gate is closed and the bull wants to stay, it's a potential restriction, because it could be a restriction if the bull decides it wants to go. I'm not saying that the gate is nonexistant. It's just not relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

Agreed.

OK, I am prepared to concede that it is a potential restriction. It becomes an actual restriction when the bull get's it into it's head that it wants to leave.

Potential or actual, it is still a restriction however improbable or hypothetical. It IS a restriction.
That is the central point.


And I do believe that is an important distinction. Your consideration of the the possibility that the bull might want to leave is a mere hypothetical flight of fancy.


It's not hypothetical if it actually happens.


I believe that the cow's freedom status is determined by the moment and the restrictions that apply at that moment. When the cow doesn't want to leave, the restriction is no more than a hypothetical possibility. But, it's senseless to think about "what if's".

So, in other words, true freedom is impossible leaving only relative freedom.
I've said that all along.


At any given moment in time, the cow has an intention of purpose. If, at that moment in time, it's intention leads it to a restriction, it is no longer free. If, however, it's intentions are kept within viable bouderies, it's not going to come into a restriction. Thus it can remain totally free.


You're thinking with if's just as I do. You enter the same possible pitfalls you've described above.
The point is that restrictions (possible and actual) are detached from the will. That may be a difficult to understand. But a shut gate may not be an actual restriction but it still is a potential one.
Thus it is a restriction regardless of what you may think about it.
If we're talking about freedom, we're talking hypothetically because reality is full of restrictions. If freedom is thought up here as hypothetical then potential restrictions are equally as good as actual.
"It could rain but it doesn't" is a whole lot different than saying "it doesn't rain so why should I believe in rain"


Why not mention the fact that the cow is being restrained from moving through the fourth (fifth if you like) dimension? It does not know or care about such movement so mentioning that restriction is worthless. It does not apply.

I already said that I question the existance of the time plane but that is an altogether entirely different discussion ;)

---

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

Potential or actual, it is still a restriction however improbable or hypothetical. It IS a restriction.
That is the central point.

---

No it isn't! Potential and Actual aren't the same thing.

Is a potential elephant the same as an actual elephant?

Is a potential heart attack the same as having an actual heart attack?

I think not.

You're whole assertion rests on the notion that "potential" and "actual" are logical equivilants. They're not.

Quote:

---

"I could rain but it doesn't" is a whole lot different than saying "it doesn't rain so why should I believe in rain"

---

No, you are saying that I will get wet even if it doesn't actually rain because it could potentially rain. I'm not saying that I don't believe it could rain. Of course it could (and probably will in this country) but I don't actually get wet until it does rain.

Quote:

---

I already said that I question the existance of the time plane but that is an altogether entirely different discussion

---

Please forget about the time dimension. I am talking about the fouth spacial dimension.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

No it isn't! Potential and Actual aren't the same thing.

Is a potential elephant the same as an actual elephant?

Is a potential heart attack the same as having an actual heart attack?

I think not.

You're whole assertion rests on the notion that "potential" and "actual" are logical equivilants. They're not.

No, you are saying that I will get wet even if it doesn't actually rain because it could potentially rain. I'm not saying that I don't believe it could rain. Of course it could (and probably will in this country) but I don't actually get wet until it does rain.

Please forget about the time dimension. I am talking about the fouth spacial dimension.

---

You should really learn to read everything simon, not just the parts that are not correspondent to your view.

I said that we discuss freedom hypothetically thus a potential restriction is possible.
If you are about to turn round a corner there could very well be a dog. So there is a potential to a dog. There might not actually be a dog but the possibility is there.
Your rain comparison is severely flawed and way off the mark to what I actually said.
I never said that potential equals actual, I merely said that they both are a restriction.
Jesus, If you're going to misquote me, we might as well stop here.
The central point here is the characteristics of restrictions apparently.

Do we agree on the following : relative freedom exists and absolute, true and pure does not ?

If not then we simply have a different view on freedom and we're never going to convey our points of view towards one another. The frame of reference is too different (That is what keddie is always on about)
If so, why are we having this discussion ?

Quote:

---

You should really learn to read everything simon, not just the parts that are not correspondent to your view.

---

I believe I read everything you posted, at least I must have done if I am being accuesed of selecting the parts that do not correspond to my view.

However, I am not going to argue with the things I agree with am I? It is the parts that I don't agree with that I shall comment on.

Quote:

---

I said that we discuss freedom hypothetically thus a potential restriction is possible.

---

OK, I can agree that our hypothetical freedom is affected by hypothetical restrictions. However, our actual freedoms are not.

i.e. The Bull is actually free because it doesn't want to go through the closed gate. That hypothetical restriction has no bearing on the Bull's actual freedom.

Quote:

---

I never said that potential equals actual, I merely said that they both are a restriction.
Jesus, If you're going to misquote me, we might as well stop here.

---

Well, I'm sorry if you feel that I am misquoting you but I don't think I am. Misinterpreting you, maybe, but not misquoting you. Can you quote any mis-quotes that I have quoted? ;)

Quote:

---

Potential or actual, it is still a restriction however improbable or hypothetical. It IS a restriction.

---

I interpret this sentance to imply that whether or not a restriction is actual or potential, it still actually effects your freedom. If you mean that it only potentially affects your freedom, fair enough.

Quote:

---

Do we agree on the following : relative freedom exists and absolute, true and pure does not ?

---

Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by "absolute freedom". If you mean freedom from any potential restriction, then I would agree, there is always a potential restriction that could obstruct a freedom.

Quote:

---

If not then we simply have a different view on freedom and we're never going to convey our points of view towards one another. The frame of reference is too different (That is what keddie is always on about)
If so, why are we having this discussion ?

---

Well, I did suggest that we were arguing from within different paradigms earlier but we carried on anyway.

I think that we might potentially agree, if not actually agree. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

I believe I read everything you posted, at least I must have done if I am being accuesed of selecting the parts that do not correspond to my view.

However, I am not going to argue with the things I agree with am I? It is the parts that I don't agree with that I shall comment on.


Fair enough, scratch my remark then ;)


OK, I can agree that our hypothetical freedom is affected by hypothetical restrictions. However, our actual freedoms are not.


I never said that too. I merely implied that there are premises that are restricted and therefore restrict our freedom.


i.e. The Bull is actually free because it doesn't want to go through the closed gate. That hypothetical restriction has no bearing on the Bull's actual freedom.


It's freedom within the pen yes. Again, relative freedom


Well, I'm sorry if you feel that I am misquoting you but I don't think I am. Misinterpreting you, maybe, but not misquoting you. Can you quote any mis-quotes that I have quoted? ;)


Let's call it misinterpretation then. That's what I actually meant :)


I interpret this sentance to imply that whether or not a restriction is actual or potential, it still actually effects your freedom. If you mean that it only potentially affects your freedom, fair enough.

I meant the last one


Well, I'm still not sure what you mean by "absolute freedom". If you mean freedom from any potential restriction, then I would agree, there is always a potential restriction that could obstruct a freedom.

Absolute freedom is the ability to do everything and anything without any form of restriction.
You've said it there, that's what I've always held as view. :)


Well, I did suggest that we were arguing from within different paradigms earlier but we carried on anyway.

I think that we might potentially agree, if not actually agree. :D

Good one ! :D

---

Simon, the purpose of this thread was a question of the nature of freedom.
I've always, throughout my arguments held the view that freedom is relative, that there is no such thing as absolute or true freedom. We can only approximate it.

It's because the restrictions, potentially or otherwise that we are hampered in attaining absolute freedom.

We have relative freedom, I've never contested that.
Absolute we will never have. If you jump off a building, you splat on the sidewalk, even if you didn't think you could fly. Flying is a limitation and, according to the supplied explanation of restriction, it limits freedom because you can't do that.
If you don't care about it, fine but you still can't.
Thus relative freedom. Your bull may merrily wander around its pen for 10 years but when the moment comes that he wants to get out, he's limited if the gates are shut.

If there were absolute freedom and the bull had reached it, it wouldn't matter if the gates were open or shut.

Bottom line: freedom is relative, not absolute. I've said that all along and I suspect that you said that too so it looks like we're going around in circles arguing on how we got to that conclusion while all the time the conclusion is the same.

Ironic, isn't it ? ;)

Wally Pip

Well, you are probably right, we generally agree but there is still a nagging doubt in my mind that we are disagreeing on something.

You are saying that we have relative freedom but not absolute freedom. You say that we do not have absolute freedom because there are physical limitations on what we can achieve.

I say that there is no such thing as absolute freedom, not because of physical limitaions, but because it is a meaningless concept. To define freedom independantly of what we want to do is just meaningless.

I believe that we can achieve complete freedom by entering a state of mind whereby we face no more restrictions. We can remove any restrictions we do encounter by changing our state of mind so that we no longer come into conflict with a physical constraint. Thus complete, unabridged freedom is acheivable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip

Well, you are probably right, we generally agree but there is still a nagging doubt in my mind that we are disagreeing on something.

You are saying that we have relative freedom but not absolute freedom. You say that we do not have absolute freedom because there are physical limitations on what we can achieve.

I say that there is no such thing as absolute freedom, not because of physical limitaions, but because it is a meaningless concept. To define freedom independantly of what we want to do is just meaningless.

Actually I combine both but I use the former argument to support my theory.


I believe that we can achieve complete freedom by entering a state of mind whereby we face no more restrictions. We can remove any restrictions we do encounter by changing our state of mind so that we no longer come into conflict with a physical constraint. Thus complete, unabridged freedom is acheivable.

Are you by any chance into zen or buddhaism ? Sounds like it.
It'll be damn hard to achieve then. Certainly when your plummeting towards the pavement ;)

---

Quote:

---

Are you by any chance into zen or buddhaism ? Sounds like it.
It'll be damn hard to achieve then. Certainly when your plummeting towards the pavement

---

Well, I have never actually studied zen or buddhism but I believe this is pretty similar to what they believe.

I actually came upon the theory independantly whilst under the effects of some pretty strong acid (no don't laugh :o ). At the time, I was able to adjust my emotional state of mind just by willing it and felt completely free.

I don't think it is that easy in a normal state of mind and I suspect that one needs to practice meditation in order to achieve it.

They actually believe that the mind works independent of the body and that by honing their minds through meditation they can overcome physical limitations.
However impressive their results may be, it is only achieved by denial of several luxuries, abhorrance of anything material and a rigourous meditation scheme.
And even then they cannot overcome a drop from 20 ft :D

Quote:

---

They actually believe that the mind works independent of the body and that by honing their minds through meditation they can overcome physical limitations.

---

Well, if that is their belief, I do not share it. I believe only that we can overcome the self-imposed limitations of the mind, not the physical limitations of the physical world.

It is not exactly their belief but it is part of it.
I'm not an expert on buddhism :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
Beacon
Do you mean that when you say chaos, you mean the exact same things as absolute fredom and vice versa?

---

Yes. Absolute Freedom is Chaos.
Though i can see how Abosulte freedom => choas would make sense also. I.e Chaos cannot be achieved without Absolute Freedom.
So i'm a bit on the fence at the moment.

Wallypip: A black hole doesnt need matter to live it would still be there.

Simonm:
I havent read everything in detail take me too long but what your saying is that say "the bull" is free in the paddock with the gates locked because it doesnt know what it's missing out on right?
If so i'll take the breathing example for your argument. Now you saying i'm free because i dont know what it's like to not have to breathe? Ok hold your breath. Now i know what it's like to not breathe. So i choose to breathe which is an self-imposed restriction.
Thats what your sayin correct?

All:
Why is everyone focusing on the fact that humans and animals are the only things in this universe that could have any type of freedom?
Take an asteroid for example that at the moment is circling our sun. Now if bumped off course by another asteroid does it then have freedom from our sun?
Now the asteroid is not a living thing that can make choices so it cannot have self-imposed freedom?

First of all beacon, I was talking about energy and forces, not matter (re. black hole)

Second, I gave the example of the lead cube earlier on in my posts.

Third, breathing still goes on whether you think about it or not.
If you want to live you have to breathe, like it or not. That is a restriction on our freedom. We cannot walk on the bottom of the sea for 10 days (without support) because of that. So if you think you're free because you think it's not a restriction doesn't matter. It is there. Once you run out of breath you'll notice that your thinking has no bearing on the reality. It's like a barrier. You can move back and forth but once you'll get to that barrier and face it.
It doesn't mean that that barrier isn't there all that time, it doesn't mean that it suddenly pops into existence just because the situation changed so that it became a restriction.

If you die and you stop breathing and living altogether, are we having freedom then ?

I've explained it all.
We agreed, to some extend, that freedom is relative to the situation and can never be absolute (as long as the physical element is involved).

Let's keep it to that eh :D

What energy what forces?
Black holes dont use energy they create it. They are not tied down to it.

Quote:

---

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

---

.

What i'm trying to say is a non-living object cant have self-imposed freedom as simon says. I'm saying it's imposed by another force or object.

In your dreams you have absolute freedom.

Beacon, that's what I've held all along :D
Get with the program :p

Here we go again...:rolleyes:

Beacon

Quote:

---

Now i know what it's like to not breathe. So i choose to breathe which is an self-imposed restriction.
Thats what your sayin correct?

---

Nope, that's not what I'm saying attall. I'm saying that it is a self-imposed restriction if we think of breathing as something we don't want to do. Think of it as something you want to do ant then it is no longer a "restriction". The fact that you have to breath doesn't go away but the status of it being a restriction does go away.

Quote:

---

Why is everyone focusing on the fact that humans and animals are the only things in this universe that could have any type of freedom?

---

Is it meaningful to talk about the freedom of an inanimate object? Is it not merely processing the laws of physics? I believe it is only meaningful to talk about freedom with things that might have free-will.

Wally Pip

There I was thinking that we had reached some sort of agreement and you go back to saying things like this again:

Quote:

---

If you want to live you have to breathe, like it or not. That is a restriction on our freedom. We cannot walk on the bottom of the sea for 10 days (without support) because of that. So if you think you're free because you think it's not a restriction doesn't matter. It is there.

---

I thought that we'd agreed that if you want to breath, the physical requirement of breathing is rendered nothing more than a hypothetical, potential restriction on our freedom. It is no longer an actual constraint. Not because we don't have to do it but because we want to do it and it doesn't make sense to call something we want to do a constraint (even though we have to do it).

what would you call it then simon ? A liberty ? An option ? A possible choice ?
Don't be daft.
If you run for miles and miles and you are out of energy and breath so that you can't run on, is that a choice too ?
It's a limitation that is, either potentially or actual, present.
Limitations are restrictions.

Look, I don't want to go over all that again. You know how I think, you do agree for let's say 90%. I'd say that is well within acceptable margins, isn't it ? ;)

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

It's a limitation that is, either potentially or actual, present.

---

Forgive my ignorance, but something that exists potentially doesn't actually exist, does it? So you can't say "either potentially or actual", you must choose whether you mean potential or actual. And if you accept that it is potential, then it doesn't exist (it just means that it will exist in a different set of circumstances).

If you can agree with that then I'm happy.

Do you believe in multiverses and reference frames ? Then this shouldn't be so hard to understand.

I said what I have to say, I can't explain it in an other way if you can't see it.

And you're not ignorant, far from it, but isn't this what makes science ? Exchanging of views ? Who has the right to say what is right and wrong ? I think I'm right on logical reasons and that's good enough for me. I do not need to convince you, you need to convince me otherwise.
But the same goes for you so there's a bit of a conundrum.
Perhaps we should think of it as not existing ;)

Wally Pip

Quote:

---

Do you believe in multiverses and reference frames ? Then this shouldn't be so hard to understand.

I said what I have to say, I can't explain it in an other way if you can't see it.

---

By bringing in the concept of the multiverse, I presume you are suggesting that potential existance is the same as actual existance because if something that potentially exists in our universe must actually exist in some other portion of the multiverse?

This I can understand.

However, it still leaves the fact that I can be free in this universe even if it means that I am restricted somewhere else in the multiverse.

In addition, it is conceivable (although far from a widely accepted view point) that the very notion of free-will is something that allows us to select the universe we actually live in (with every choice we make). If this is the case, then being free is simply a matter of choosing to be free. And it brings us back to my original point that what could have potentially been a restricition just doesn't apply because I chose the another option.

*sigh* a potential restriction IS a restriction simon.

Freedom is relative to your situation with all the actual and potential restrictions around. A restriction may not apply on you now but could in future.
IT STILL REMAINS A RESTRICTION.
If it applies to you then your freedom is limited and since bodily functions are essential to our survival, they pose limits on our possibilities, absolute freedom is not attainable.
Absolute means free of ANY restrictions, both mental and physical.
You could overcome your mental restrictions but not your physical.
If you choose to ignore the physical ones, fine, that's your right, but they remain. And they still are a restriction.

Once again simon : Freedom is relative and not absolute.
I've said it a million times by now.
That's my central point (and yours too).

Can't we agree on that ?

Wally Pip

There seems to be two different but interelated points of contention here.

Quote:

---

Once again simon : Freedom is relative and not absolute.
I've said it a million times by now.
That's my central point (and yours too).

Can't we agree on that ?

---

I agree with you but not because I think absolute freedom is a physical impossibility but because it is a meaningless concept. It would be meaningless to describe freedom in absolute terms even if it were physically possible.

However, if only for different reasons, we arrive at the same conclusion on this point.

Quote:

---

*sigh* a potential restriction IS a restriction simon.

---

Now, you seem to talking about restrictions in the absolute sense and (as I believe freedom is defined by our restrictions) I believe that to be a meaningless definition.

It only makes sense to define restrictions in (relative) terms. An individual is either free in pursuing the course of action they want to do or they are obstructed. In this scenario, how can a potential restriction be as valid as an actual restriction?

It is not the same (and I don't know how any people would agree with this notion). Potential is not actual. As I have said before, being run over by a car is not the same as being potentially run over. Every time I cross the road, I am potentially run over. Perhaps in some parellel universe I am run over but in this one, I am not.

Quote:

---

A restriction may not apply on you now but could in future.
IT STILL REMAINS A RESTRICTION.

---

I believe that something is not a restriction until it actually restricts. My arteries may be clogged with cholesterol leaving me with the potential for a heart attack that may happen sometime in the future. Still, I am not actually having a heart attack until it happens.

Thus, while a heart attack remains a heart attack, it doesn't apply to me until it applies to me.

The same goes for a restriction on my freedom. My freedom is not restrained until my freedom is restrained.

The very definition of "restriction" does not apply until my freedom is obstructed. A potential entity has no validity until it becomes actual.

Quote:

---

Absolute means free of ANY restrictions, both mental and physical.

---

You have already dismissed absolute freedom as impossible and I have dismissed it as meaningless so why belabour the point? The point is that we can be completely free.

We're not getting anywhere here.
I respect your views and theories but we're only ending up arguing about the same tired old notion : the nature of restrictions.

Keddie asked :

freedom is independent or ability ? In my view it is ability
Absolute or relative ? In my view relative.

That is my response to his questions. I've tried to lay out my views but ultimately the above is the bottom line.
If you arrive at the same, fine, if not, you have different views. Equally fine.
But let's stop running around in circles here ok ?

Point finale (french)

Kedaman also said:

Quote:

---

If you don't want to answer to these questions directly feel free to elaborate your own views

---

I choose not to subscribe to the choices he prescribed because I don't really understand them.

I answer Kedaman's original question, "What is freedom?" like this:

Freedom is an indefineable concept. We can only define that which restricts freedom. A restriction is an obstruction to doing something you want to do. Since the "self" determines what we want to do, it also determines our restrictions. The "self" creates restrictions by bringing us into conflict with the physical reality we find ourselves in.

Thus true freedom can be obtained by a realisation of that which restrains; the self. All that it takes to overcome self-restraint is to meditate on the self. Once we have focused on the self, we can move around it and be free.

:)

Right chaps, pack it in, we're leaving.
Cue keddie, the original instigator ....

:D

Simon
You argue that

freedom =
for each SOMETHING
WHO is not restricted from WHAT
and
WHAT = to do SOMETHING
and
will of WHO to do SOMETHING implicates WHO is not restricted from WHAT


fredom is thus relative to WHO, will of WHO to do each SOMETHING and WHO is restricted to do each of that SOMETHING

Wally argue that

freedom = WHO is not restricted from WHAT
and
WHAT = to do SOMETHING

freedom is relative to WHO, WHO is restricted to do SOMETHING, and SOMETHING

(Correct me if I'm wrong)
to summarise, Wally specify abilty of someone to do something
and Simon specify ability of someone to do anything that that someone wants

although you've choosen different ways of specification and relation, do you think it is conceptually wrong to say:


1. I'm free from debts
2. I have 3GB free memory on my harddrive
3. I free'd a tyre from my bicycle
4. tax free

Just some examples how how free is being used, would you define them in another way, or wouldn't you rather agree that you can specificate as much as you want, but theyre not part of the definition of freedom?

Kedaman

Quote:

---

1. I'm free from debts
2. I have 3GB free memory on my harddrive
3. I free'd a tyre from my bicycle
4. tax free

---

Of these four statements, I would say that 1 and 4 are declarations of freedom with respect to a particular constraint. The both assume the desire to have no debt/tax respectively. Thus, if you desire to have debt, you are not constrained by it and are free. The same goes for tax.

As for 2 and 4, I would say that they are have different meanings that aren't strictly anything to do with "freedom" as such.

For example, if you "free" a tyre from your bycicle, you assume that the tyre wants to come off the wheel. Since this is an absurd notion (in my book) then I think "free" has a different meaning in this context.

1
free from debts : I'm fully capable of using my money without having to pay back.
In regard to the pay back part : no restriction. Nothing is preventing me from spending all my money.
In regard to the amount of money. Restriction because I cannot spend more than I have.
This freedom is relative to the amount you have and amount you possibly have to pay back

2

3 GB free space : Same as above. Restricted to these 3 GB but within the 3 gig freedom of usage
This freedom is relative to amount free.

3

freed a tyre : has no bearing on your freedom. You can remove him or not. No restrictions. Has bearing on the tyre. Removed from the frame it can move in unlimited directions, not removed it can only move within the frame.
This freedom is relative to the movement array of the tyre for the tyre.

4

Tax free : Same as above. You can spend as long as your cash reserve allows it without paying taxes.
This freedom is relative to the amount of money you possess.


They are part of the definition of freedom.

Simon
okay, with tax free i meant price without tax (independence from) not on a specific person, I know you want, you want to stay to the constaints you have chosen. But you feel the need of another defition for those situations where free doesn't fit your specifications. Now what if you removed those specifications? It would result in that free would fit all situations where free is used, and thus you could have a more abstract definition for free, and as you know separation into fundamental concepts leads to less complex models.

Wally Pipp
Ok, that wasn't any problem for you, but can you say that "you are free" and thus omiting the parameter from what?

Kedaman

Quote:

---

But you feel the need of another defition for those situations where free doesn't fit your specifications. Now what if you removed those specifications?

---

I know what you're saying but I don't feel that expanding my definition of "Free" is the answer in this case. As you know, the English language is ambiguous and often combines multiple meanings into one word. It relys on context for the appropriate meaning to be divulged. I think this is one of those cases.

If you feel (as Wally does) that it is appropriate to apply one definition of "free" to all uses of the word, then we have a difference of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
Wally Pipp
Ok, that wasn't any problem for you, but can you say that "you are free" and thus omiting the parameter from what?

---

You could but that would mean that the parameters (read restrictions) are zero (non-existent). You could never omit the parameters in a relative framework. You judge things by other things and values.
There is no situation, other that death, that would answer to that statement.

Ok, thanks for you opinions, you've helped me in several ways :)

Now here comes the next question:
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...hreadid=145570
(i'm going to make some parallels later on)

Quote:

---

Ok, thanks for you opinions, you've helped me in several ways

---

Yeah, but not the ways in which we intended to help you, I bet... ;)