No Human Action, It Is All Reaction

@boagie,

I started at the bottom and worked my way up(ish) so it was relevent when I started I swear. I know it's pretencious but I was using itallics I couldn't help it Very Happy

.

Degrees of Freedom.

Mental Freedom: The ability to comprehend freedom.

Only humans are equipped with the rationality to recognise when they are or are not free. This fundamental freedom is developed from birth, before we acquire consciousness we have no means by which to gauge our freedom because; consciousness manifests when an animal has such an understanding of its environment that it is able to comprehend itself in that environment, 'tis self awareness.

Personal Freedom: The ability to combat social unfreedom.

The ability of self awareness gives way to the ability of mental freedom; mental freedom is exercised in the same manner to give way to Personal Freedom. With the ability to comprehend freedom we can now begin- with Social Freedom first only, to combat unfreedom- the now recognisable state of not being free. Mental freedom is a tool to be exercised mentally and it is the same tool we use when we discuss 'what is freedom', 'how to be free', 'are we free' etc. This is another exercising of mental freedom and I will continue it by trying to predict the next degree of freedom, social, so that we can then see clearer how and when social freedom is obtained in order to plan for the next.

A question we must consider is, how is Personal Freedom exercised to give way to Social Freedom? Self awareness when exercised but only gave us the ability to comprehend freedom, and we are now using the same rationality plus comprehension of freedom to try and work out how to become socially free, that is the end, and that is what we are doing. It is politics. In that case we must be way off because no one is socially free yet.

Social Freedom: The ability to combat Environmental Freedom.

This ability must lead way to the next ability, Environmental Freedom (AKA free-will?) This ability is obtained via exercising personal freedom which is not yet 100% matured but, maybe some day we can start using clues from current politics as it developes to speed up the process. Maybe we can start now?

Environmental Freedom: The ability to freely exercise the will?

When we speak of free-will we refer to this area perhaps, the ability to maybe- more literally than expected, freely exercise the will without infringement from the environment.

Next Step A: If that was the case then maybe free-will is more fundamental than I expect and it resides in Social Freedom as well. Social Freedom could then be defined by when we manage to exercise our free-will without infringement from other Personally Free entities. Therefore; politics should not be deterred by claims that there is no way for us all to exercise free-will without infringing on each other. Simply because Social Freedom is inevitable and it requires us to exercise free-will without infringement from society. The only way to do this is to develop a society where there is no compromise of freedom from others for all, it would be a unified effort.

Next Step B: But also this whole area could be a mistake; Social Unfreedom I fear may be an unnecessary invention and that the real problem is nations living like settlements, encompassing all the people. There is a perfect settlement size; it is the one where every one can remember each other as so to develop a level of empathy. And as it is the settlements are far, far, far to vast to allow us to entertain the ability of Environmental Freedom, it obscures it with Social Freedom, an impossibility. In this instance Environmental Freedom could quite simply be developing the self-sufficient settlement which requires us to be closer to the perfect settlement population so that we can know everyone in order to be able to apply the logic 'to know all is to forgive all', then this understanding of Social Freedom would give way to the perfect working settlement, a true team, Environmental Freedom.

Universal Freedom: Transcendence?

I think this is where the free-will issues discussed in the thread involving, all human action being a reaction, would belong.

Dan.

@de budding,

de budding, Smile

:)Do you have a statement about free will to make, or, a question to ask? I think you need to consider the means through which you communicate, pick out one or two things from your considerations to form statements or questions.

@boagie,

I think what de budding is saying is that free will is not the power to will; but the power to deny. It is something I am a fervent defender of. The thing of it is that things exist as they exist and that, by our free will, can deny wat exists and so form our own image of reality and act upon that.

When separating forst order logic and second order logic one sees the same thing happening. FIrst order logic in psychology is what one would call consciousness, while second order logic is what one would call self-consciousness. First order logic is "existing" and merely reacting accordingly. Second order logic is the power to realise that what is happening is happening to that which the person defines as self (ego; det of definitions of self). By use of said definitions one decides what one would like to have happen (is in accordance with the ego; does not conflict with the definitions). Thereby one can deny what is happening and not take any action (partially of fully) and act confirming the defntions instead of to what is happening.

Free will: deni-all.

Smile

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

I think what de budding is saying is that free will is not the power to will; but the power to deny. It is something I am a fervent defender of. The thing of it is that things exist as they exist and that, by our free will, can deny wat exists and so form our own image of reality and act upon that.

When separating forst order logic and second order logic one sees the same thing happening. FIrst order logic in psychology is what one would call consciousness, while second order logic is what one would call self-consciousness. First order logic is "existing" and merely reacting accordingly. Second order logic is the power to realise that what is happening is happening to that which the person defines as self (ego; det of definitions of self). By use of said definitions one decides what one would like to have happen (is in accordance with the ego; does not conflict with the definitions). Thereby one can deny what is happening and not take any action (partially of fully) and act confirming the defntions instead of to what is happening.Free will: deni-all.

Arjen,

I think I am understanding you, but lets see. This sounds like a selection process, denial would be as inaction is, a reaction, the whole idea is of the necessity of the inescapable response to object. There may very well be a selective process from some self protective posture but, that would necessarily be a reaction to the stimulus in question. It was conceeded from the start, that there is indeed choice involved, in fact, one cannot chose not to reaction, for that to, would be reaction. So, if I am understanding you fellows properly, this ability to chose, is the rudder which one uses to steer ones ego, choice then is free will, don't forget denial like inaction, necessarily constitutes reaction. So Arjen, is there something I am missing? Sorry de budding, if I did a bit of a number on you, as a way of compensating for my own short comings.

@boagie,

Don't mention it sir,

To add to what you said Boagie; if we are going to conclude that choice is free will we now have some leverage by which to expand our freedom. Assuming a larger palette of choice equals more freedom, we could use our foresight and awareness of environment to work towards maximising our choices.
Or on a more existentialist note, we can work towards knowing our true, individual selfs better, and then we could recognise the true 'free' choice- the one the true individual in you would desire.

But if I didn't make it clear before, doesn't it feel like we are only dealing wit ha degree of freedom here? A more personal/mental freedom that doesn't deal with the problem of two people wanting to both stand on the exact same spot. One of them is going unfulfilled, a more physical/social freedom.

And thanks Arjen Smile

.

DAN.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

"The actions of man", the statement makes one think of autonomy, of separateness, independent from ones context, when nothing further from the truth could be stated. Just as biology is governed by the physical world in the changes it evokes, so to there is no human action there is but reaction, the world evoking a response in the form of reaction. One can chose among the reactions available to him, he cannot chose not to react, for even inaction to a stimulus is reaction. It is language like this,"Human Action", which structures our conception of the world and ourselves in it, and it is folly.

You know, I read this shortly after its posting and had to resort to thinking on it before replying. Looking back at the thread now, I see its tweeked others as well. Although the logic is sound, something struck me wrong and I had to "let it stew" for a while before realizing what that was.

I've concluded that this is correct since any action or decision/non-decision involves some sort of pre-existing stimuli (or basis) which would then necessarily toss the whole enchilada into the realm of "reacting". But this feels cyclical; almost a self-made assertion (wherein an argument is crafted such that in its predicate, its conclusion is reinforced; ala "What color was General Lee's white horse?").

Regardless of whether or not my commentary has merit, I'd nonetheless have to concur.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

You know, I read this shortly after its posting and had to resort to thinking on it before replying. Looking back at the thread now, I see its tweeked others as well. Although the logic is sound, something struck me wrong and I had to "let it stew" for a while before realizing what that was.

I've concluded that this is correct since any action or decision/non-decision involves some sort of pre-existing stimuli (or basis) which would then necessarily toss the whole enchilada into the realm of "reacting". But this feels cyclical; almost a self-made assertion (wherein an argument is crafted such that in its predicate, its conclusion is reinforced; ala "What color was General Lee's white horse?").

Regardless of whether or not my commentary has merit, I'd nonetheless have to concur.

Khethil,

:)Thanks for the affirmation, the premise does seem a example of the self-evident, but it is always good to hear it seconded.

@de budding,

de_budding wrote:

Don't mention it sir,

To add to what you said Boagie; if we are going to conclude that choice is free will we now have some leverage by which to expand our freedom. Assuming a larger palette of choice equals more freedom, we could use our foresight and awareness of environment to work towards maximising our choices.
Or on a more existentialist note, we can work towards knowing our true, individual selfs better, and then we could recognise the true 'free' choice- the one the true individual in you would desire.

But if I didn't make it clear before, doesn't it feel like we are only dealing wit ha degree of freedom here? A more personal/mental freedom that doesn't deal with the problem of two people wanting to both stand on the exact same spot. One of them is going unfulfilled, a more physical/social freedom. And thanks Arjen DAN.

de budding, Smile

:)Choice is not really free, one does not have the ability not to choose, it is in our relation to the world at large which this realization could prove transforming. The whole idea which is inferred by the term "Human Action", is a mutating meme or perhaps a virus, which alienates and enstranges us to our home, we make of ourselves aliens, and destructive aliens at that. It is the wrong headed way to be in the world, this false autonomy, this independence, this separateness, which is pathological to man and his environment, we are of the earth in a profound way.

@boagie,

Boagie and de budding, Smile

I think both of you think of other things when stating what "is". I think Boagie speaks of actuality. In actuality it is true that even if one does nothing a "choice" is made: the passage of time excludes certain things taking place no matter if one acts or if one does not act. De budding on the other speaks more in a potential way. In potentiality not choosing allows eveything to exist: because no path is turned to no paths lay behind. I reality both occor at the same time, but on different ontological levels.

Smile

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie and de budding,

I think both of you think of other things when stating what "is". I think Boagie speaks of actuality. In actuality it is true that even if one does nothing a "choice" is made: the passage of time excludes certain things taking place no matter if one acts or if one does not act. De budding on the other speaks more in a potential way. In potentiality not choosing allows eveything to exist: because no path is turned to no paths lay behind. I reality both occor at the same time, but on different ontological levels.

Arjen,

:)That is great, I knew there was something wrong, and of course it had to be everybody else----lol!! Perhaps do to your insights here we can be better understood by each other. This business of potential however, unless I am missing something, is an abstract which has nothing to do with reality. It is assume that with this, with chosing not to respond that that somehow inables the existense of infinite possiabilities, when in fact it just elimates one possible reaction. Is there something, somewhere we are trying to go with these considerations of infinite possibilities?

@boagie,

Well, the way I am an envisaging infinite possibilities is by means of the idea that we get to make, in any situation, 1 and only 1 decision. Selecting/choosing closes of all other potential choices other than the chosen 1 (Unless we have parralell dimensions acting out all possibilites Smile

). But that would be chasing a dragon, a search for the reaction that truly is not a reaction, truly nothing- leaving all posibilities open. But as I have learnt this is naivety on my behalf.

But why can't we be happy accepting the '1 rule'- that no matter what, we get 1 choice per situation and it cancels all other possibilities, by finding our freedom in the choosing, in the process of deciding what reaction will be the 1 (with existential conviction). But would this then be a choice? to think about the choice or to hesitate maybe? I don't want to fall into the same trap. But if I am not too wrong and we can quite freely speculate, or at least prepare for being in-situation via forsight, so when a decision does creep around we have a wider selection of reactions to chose from- including doing nothing. Or altenrativly we could free up the process more by making it obsolete, by defining ourselves (who we are, what we want.) better so that there is always a 'correct' (or at least more-correct) action, it then becomes habitual and therefore not so much of an infringement of freedom?

[quote]Choice is not really free[/quote]
Because no matter what, we can't escape choosing?
I think we could use existential conviction again to decide we want to choose. And further more we choose to choose because we see freedom by either making decisions obsolete or by increasing our options at the time. One ultimate choice, the acceptance or choice of choice.

I'm wrong aren't I >.>

Dan.

@de budding,

De budding, Smile

Try to realise that what you are doing is doubting. Doubting points to reason and to existance. Reason is for choosing; but choosing itself is denial. A choice excludes thing while existance is "all". Everything "exists". by reason you can come to know them while being self-conscious.

Consciousnessexcludes "knowing" because "knowing" is defined and definitions are boundries. Self-consciousness in that sense is denial.

Hope that makes sense Smile

@Arjen,

I'll try....

Am I doubting anything in particular?

@de budding,

de budding, Smile

:)My impression is that you have just built a theory around what is already the actuality. Your desire to come up with a choice which is no choice, it is an impossibility accepting the premise we start with. I am getting the feeling all three of us are branching off into areas of preference that the others are finding hard to grasp or perhaps, it is just I in my confusion, attributing the confusion across the board. What do you think? Where is it we all want to go with this thing? Is it, to find a way to escape the reality that we are governed by our context/ environment? That we are defined by context/environment? PS: Posted this before reading your most recent post Arjen. Surprised

"Consciousnessexcludes "knowing" because "knowing" is defined and definitions are boundries. Self-consciousness in that sense is denial."

:)Yes, it makes a great deal of sense to me, even the formation of personal identity [ and thus perhaps selfconsciousness] is denial, our identity created out of that which we deem as other. Identity is highly exclusionary or denying as in exclusions from the concept of self. Consciousness does not exclude knowing, it excludes knowing object as the self. "Thou Art That", Upanishads, involves the whole or the totality as identity.

@boagie,

De budding, Smile

You were doubting yourself. Thereby you are defining yourself; which is deni-all.

Boagie, Smile

You are on the right track, but consciousness does exclude knowledge becouse consciousness is "being conscious of what exists"; "all". Consciousness is insight so to speak, as opposed to knowledge. The more one focusses on the differences the more one knows, the more one forgets about the differences and sees that everything is "all-one", the wiser one is.

The universal law:

What you will focus on is what you will be become conscious of.

Hope that helps guys.

@Arjen,

Arjen,

Perception then must take the lead, for it is due to the perception of differences that the totality is not just a blur. One can over ride the common sense perception of reality, if there is adquate reason to do so, the problem is, the perception of the world of differences is a highly functional illusion. The perception of a wholistic reality has not proved to be as functional in the past, but, in the future, that may not be the case. At anyrate, consciousness as reaction fits nicely into a wholistic reality, "human action/s" do not.

@boagie,

Boagie,

Since when does reality need to be functional?

Anyway, try to make the difference between ontological levels:

Quote:

The perception of a wholistic reality has not proved to be as functional in the past

Belongs with the paradox of reasoning on perceptions.

Quote:

The perception of a wholistic reality

Is a paradox of empirics and transcendentality.

The problem is that to one can only understand what I mean by using reason (metaphysics). Understanding empirics or trancendentality are paradoxes in themselves. So, I am now asking you to form even greater paradoxes by following my words so as to discern the differences that can be made in your own paradoxes.

I just hope I am helping in stead of making things more difficult for you.

@boagie,

I was thinking at work for 3 hours (see attached notes Razz

) and writing for like 2 hours now to try an express what I was mulling over but, I just feel I'm going to confuse you guys more and pigeon-hole my self. So I ripped up the work and started fresh, here is a fresh start so far, I will continue when I get back from the shops .

________________________________________________

Human Action: The physical process of fulfilling Human Will.

Human Action is false statement because; Action is the fulfillment of will, meaning that there will always be a prerequisite to an action. Human Action implies a man stops, consider and then 'chooses' to act. This is not the case, a will develops and then we react to the will, an action is only a reaction to will, as stated in the definition above.

What are the implications of this on free will? Well for the will to be free we must control it some how surely, or at least be conscious of it. If the will develops of its own accord independently of conscious consideration where is the control?

A system of testing I developed at work today was this, name a verb (Dancing) a setting (Disco) and see how many wills are plausible as a prerequisite to the dancing in the disco.
Well maybe the dancer has developed a will to have a wife, so he has reacted by going to clubs and picking up woman.

Seems simple enough, so I started adding 'intentions'.

Verb - Drawing
Setting - Home Alone
Intention - To Show No One the Finished Picture.

Well a simple one is, that the drawer needs the process of drawing to relax, so he is reacting to stress.

Or

The drawer is practicing and is too shy of what he considers amateur pictures to display them. Well now he's reacting to fear- the shyness- a fear of peer review.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie,

Since when does reality need to be functional?

Anyway, try to make the difference between ontological levels:

Belongs with the paradox of reasoning on perceptions.

Is a paradox of empirics and transcendentality.

The problem is that to one can only understand what I mean by using reason (metaphysics). Understanding empirics or trancendentality are paradoxes in themselves. So, I am now asking you to form even greater paradoxes by following my words so as to discern the differences that can be made in your own paradoxes.

I just hope I am helping in stead of making things more difficult for you.

Arjen,

:)We shall see, as I stated earlier life/consciousness as subject presumes its object, in the same way one might anticipate an unknown food source in response to a great hunger, The functionality of reality is you might say, in the sitting down and favoring the meal, I would say, that the meal itself which is reality, is functional in the maintenance of the subject.

:)It is up to you Arjen, to make yourself understood, not the responsiblity of others to understand you. You just may not know, what you are talking about. You have some grand claims do you not?

@boagie,

What is it that is so grand that I am claiming Boagie?

--edit--
I want to add that I cannot help another to understand when they are in denial. That is something only the other can do. The other might be able to do so with help of my words, but not without action of the other; the action of not denying, not defining; accepting.

Philosophy Forum

No Human Action, It Is All Reaction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know