Though you had enough control to write down the fact that you have no control.

Automatic writing?

Even automatic writing supposes some mode of self-acting.

I was being sarcastic.
Sorry, I can't help it.

I was being relative.

Ironically, I guess the question is, can you help it?

Not without duct tape.

LOL! But that duct tape is an article of control.

Well yeah . . . it's one of my tools for smiting unbelievers. I never said I don't have any control. It's all you other zombies that have no control.

The power of duct tape I suppose. As to control, I never said you didn't. Also, zombie is such a harsh word. I prefer the term "living impaired."

Without zombies, where would science fiction movies be?

I am thoroughly enjoying this dialog. I am sure Bin had no idea of what a simple thought would lead do, regardless of the motivation behind Bin's exclamation. IMO, I don't think any of us were meant to have "that much" control over all that is manifested by our individual being. Furthermore I don't think, considering the "perfect creation we are" we were meant to consciously try and control who we are, but we have been forced to as a result of the fear of "alienation". One word at the wrong time can have "everlasting affects". No one wants to be alienated and we try so very hard to fit it even if it goes against our "best instincts".

I have racked my brain trying to determine what it is about us as human beings that compels us to feel a sense of, believe it or not "excitement", as we witness unfortunate occurrences happen to "other" people. If most of you are honest with yourselves you will agree this is true. When you are driving down he road and notice an accident ahead, it's not near as exciting to witness all involved are completely safe and alive, as it would be if there were a couple of eyeballs hanging on the fender. Be honest now. Why is that?

Just like ARI's example of poor Jack and Jill's tray mishap. It could be Jack, had the situation been reversed and he had been seated in the cafeteria, would have been one of those laughing spectators, and could relate to laughter, while Jill would have been one to rush up and offer aid to the "wreck victim's" as she felt an empathy perhaps due to an event in her own personal experience. The horror of the story is the "laughter itself".

It was the "popular" thing to do, not the right thing to do. Of course there were not only those who laughed, but there would have been those who followed the food as it went flying through the air to see if any of it could be salvaged. Ha. We are an odd lot.

It would be ideal if we could venture through this world with a lot less scrutiny as we are judged by others as they determine so very shallowly by noting only the cover, while never considering the content that lies beneath.

So I guess what I am saying we are trying too hard to control who we are and we shouldn't have to because in that scenario, when we do make a "wrong choice" in the presence of "our peers" we have a tendency to take it much too seriously and beat ourselves up as we exclaim, "I should have known better" but in the scenario ARI proposed, in the mind of Jill, it could have been construed as a matter of fate as she could have easily blamed God for bringing her such shame.

As ARI so astutely made us aware of all the "physical anomalies" that could have taken place requiring Lithium and God know what else to help young Jill's "troubled" mind, the horror of it could have been easily turned into a redeeming life experience had "no one" laughed and all had rushed to aid the "victim's". Talk about turning lemon's into lemonade.

William

For themselves.

There is a difference between Absolute Truth and Relative Truth.

A child is drowning in a pool next to me, so it is True for me to save him. It is not true for you because you are too far away.

Absolute truth is: If you see a child drowning, save him.

A Schitzophrenic may have a very different reality than you or me. For him it may be true that imaginary figures exist. But the Absolute truth is that they don't exist. They are created by his own mind.

When I ask "Do we have control of our actions?"

I am asking in the absolute sense, not in the relative one

You sure it was the twinkies? I blame the Cola! :poke-eye:

This defense is saying "He did not have control of his actions at the time and thus we cannot hold him responsible" But it would imply that the rest of the time he was in control.

It is instinctual to fit in... it's flocking instincts. The one who is not part of the group dies alone



Excitement is an effect of adrenaline which is produced in a confrontation or potentially dangerous situation.

But we are not really speaking about instincts here..

A machine can be programmed to do that, does it "control" anything?

In terms of real control, one must step out of the causal chain, otherwise they are not controlling anything, rather just playing a role in one giant all-encompassing algorithm.

but do not have control. The idea of control is relative, both in notion and in fact, though we belong to a causal chain (in essence an "all encompassing algorithm) there is the possibility for some manner of control.

But do we have control even though we may be automata? Descartes noted in Meditations on First Philosophy that for all he knew, the people in the streets could be "walking automata," though he eventually came to solid conclusions that he, (his mind and body) do exist and God exists. But in his answer, we do not focus on the physical proofs, but rather the mental. I think he and Spinoza both may be driving at the same concept. Perhaps the issue of control does not rest in any literal sense of physical understanding, but in the abstract realm of the mind. In the mind, the possibility exists for us to have "control," though this control is contingent on a higher power, whether it be God, fate, Karma, etc. So ironically, I do not entirely disagree with AtheistDeity notion that there could in fact be no such thing as control, only the manner of how control was dismissed.

I am a fan of Spinoza, although not well read enough to be anything more than a casual fan, and I largely agree with the sentiments that you have expressed.

In fact (I may be off base on this) but I think I expressed very similar sentiments in an entirely different topic:

In this thread dealing with property rights, I said:

"The thing is, in terms of human understanding and action, this subject (individuality and identity vs. a holistic view of everything), like that of determinism and free will, is quite impossible to deal with.

One thing we can work with is the fact that only people deal with property rights, and pretty much all people within our culture, pretty much all people period, have a common concept of identity (although some are more individualistic than others).

I guess this idea of identity between people is a little egoistic (and all of this is a little silly since I tend to wear the title of egoist since I follow Stirner and Tucker), but we can define property and ownership in the context of these identities, and not in the context of egoistic identity and thing."

Do you see the correlation, am I crazy?

I agree with his position that everything is best understood holistically (much like Spinoza's view, although I can just deal with nature, for lack of a better term, being everything without adding God), but that property rights need not be dismissed because of this, but rather understood in the terms of human understanding.

I branched into philosophy through political economy because correlating ideas like this really intrigue me. There are common undercurrents and it fascinates me when they make themselves apparent.

Very good :a-ok:


Lets see if you have control over your actions. If you wanted to turn off your computer, could you do it? If you wanted to touch your forehead could you do it? If you wanted to sing right now could you do it?
All of these things do not demonstrate control. They demonstrate you following a want/desire.

What does show control is:
If you wanted to use your computer could you turn it off? If you did not want to clean your room right now, could you do it?

Control is the ability to go against our desires when we decide to

The Twinky man may have wanted to assassinate some people and if he had taken control, he would not have done it. But he did not take control when he should have, and that is what should be determined in court.

Was it too difficult for him to take control?

For most of us, if we have the desire to kill someone, we don't do it. It is not a difficult task to be in control of this desire. But some desires are more difficult to be in control of.
Say a drunk college girl began flirting with you and wanted to go back to your house for the night. This may be a more difficult desire to say no to.

For a thug that walks by an old lady, he may be battling with weither or not he should kill her after he takes her money or not. Whereas the average human being will not even have the desire to take her money let alone kill her. So the fact that the Thug didn't kill her shows that he has control over his actions, but the fact that you or I didn't kill her does not show control because we did not overcome a desire.

But taking from Ludwig von Mises, humans can only understand these as the root of our actions.

We are left with an irresolvable conflict.

Binyamin Tsadik,

Going against desires could - in some way - demonstrate a measure of control. But to say that act of 'discipline" is control doesn't seem to follow. They're related, sure. But that's distinctly different than saying the one IS the other.

You bring up a good point, Bin. But if I'd place it in the perspective I have, I'd say: Overcoming desire is just one part of breaking out of the "causal chain" (as Mr Fight put it). There are a good number of aspects we'd have to overcome to call ourselves "In Control", as opposed to being in a causal loop; just reacting. Wow... I'm suddenly struck with the notion that we've covered this before.

And yes, it most-definitely has moralistic overtones.