Jump to content

Does Anarchy Equal Freedom?


RainmanTime
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would really like to know if people think so.

 

I might be turning over a new leaf.

 

I learned about this concept from the Kent State protest.

 

Is there a Time-based model for what we define as anarchy?

 

And would one be able to verify that this is mathematically equal to "Freedom"?

 

Would Creedo think the same thing? Hmmm.

 

New/Improved RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Anarchy Equal Freedom?

 

Depends how you wish to define freedom ?

 

I used to have friends that were homeless. They mentioned that they were extremely free. They had absolutely no responsibilities and answered to nobody.

 

Can this really be freedom, or a different set of chains?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rainman,

 

(OPERATIONAL Domain) <--> (FUNCTIONAL Domain) <--> (PHYSICAL Domain)

If its strict anarchy you'll have to add:(TACTICAL Domain) <--> (STRATEGIC Domain) (LOGISTICS Domain) <--> (RE-SUPPLY Domain)

 

The situation would turn "tactical" in short order. Someone will have to strategically organize labor to supply and re-supply the tactical elements of the regional autonomous "non-government" cadres that form. ;)

 

Would this be actual freedom? Maybe - but it wouldn't be freedom from the fear of becoming dinner on someone's mess kit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OvrLrd & Darby:

 

Good feedback. Good points. The problem with making anarchy "work" is that EVERYONE has to think in relatively the same way, otherwise disorder and confusion are the rule of the day.

 

The only form of anarchy that can really work is in a population of 1.

 

I'd like the person who PM'ed me to share their thoughts here on how they would "make it work".

 

New/Improved RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making anarchy work 101 -

 

Step 1 ) eliminate all those who's preconceptions of culture, government, rule and class, do not fit into your new society

 

Step 2 ) eliminate all leadership roles, there are no leaders just a collective of responsible persons who won't do anything half-arsed

 

Step 3 ) eliminate all forms of jealousy and greed, for they have no place in an anarchistic society. There must be no fear, no violence, every individual is responsible for themselves as well as the whole of their community.

 

Step 4 ) laugh when you realize you've eliminated 99.44% of the population! Thats the only way this thing will work, unless you can reprogram a human being like a computer. Creedo?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom is a construct of the human mind as such it doesnt actually exist. Typically, you hear that freedom means you are not constrained by a set of external guidelines that limit what you choose to do, believe, etc... But you must realize limits exist no matter what. It is because of those limits that a person can never truely be free. Even in an anarchy where there are no imposed rules or regulations, freedom is still an illusion. For example, knowledge can definitely limit your choices. If you do not know something exists, you cannot pursue it or want it.

 

Consider the following hypothetical situation: You were born and raised in a biodome that is completely shielded from the outside world. No one in the dome knows of the outside and there are no means to leave the dome. It is a self sustaining biosphere and everyone in the dome has all the food/water and clothing they need. Are you free?

 

A person on the outside would probably say no. That the person in the dome isnt aware of all of the possibilies of existence. Their life is constrained to only the things that exist within the dome. A person in the dome would argue that they are free. They have the ability to do everything they know exists. Anyone on the outside can see that the dome inhabitants knowledge is limited and their options constrained.

 

Now take the person in the dome and place them outside. Ask them if they are free now. They would probably say, yes, I am free now. That I have much more options and am no longer enslaved and constrained by the dome existence. But are they really free? Arent they still constrained by limits? Their choices limited by their knowledge of their new existence.

 

I guess I am just saying freedom is a human concept. It isnt universally accepted. What one considers free can be seen as enslavement by another. In fact, freedom can be considered a sliding concept. The more choices and possibilities of existence that are discovered, the greater the freedom you feel you have.

 

Is the non-dome life somehow better than the dome one? Of course, there is no right or wrong answer to that as it is a matter of perspective.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya Ren,

 

Step 4 ) laugh when you realize you've eliminated 99.44% of the population!

And IMHO your number is even a bit low. In fact, if you can succeed in making "pure anarchy" work with a community population of even 2 or 3, you are doing very well indeed. But then how does that community interact with a non-anarchist society around it?So as an advocate for anarchy, how might the "nuclear" (or is that "anti-nuclear?) anarchist family work? How would Papa Anarchist relate to Mama Anarchist relate to Baby Anarchist? How would you distinguish between a functional and a dysfunctional family? :D

 

Thats the only way this thing will work, unless you can reprogram a human being like a computer.

What would happen if a technology was available to each of us that permitted us to actively re-program our personal DNA? Do each of us rightfully have total and complete FREEDOM to change our DNA as we wish? What might be the impacts that society would have to deal with? New/Improved RMT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do what your advocating in your thread, then you end up in the place of the Pleiadeans and other races, that want to be pure, ending up in genetic staleness.

 

They then have to travel to more primitive worlds and steal beg or barrow, primitive gene materials, in order to make their societies go.

 

I knew about you, that you had received a level of reprogramming from the SW eras.

 

This was contamination and by all rights, should be reported to your casemaster.

 

It really does show Ray.

 

However, what is amazing me and I think, but am not sure that this is Mendellion adaptive, is that your going through another rewrite now.

 

I would venture to say, that this might be a very extracted form Atlantian.

 

You have to watch yourself here, as the later era Atlantians, had lots wrong with them.

 

This was during the latter part of the existence of Atlantis and they did, not too nice of things, to captured slaves.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder about a lot of things, Dan...

 

Does watching this make you feel, like you, did something wrong.

Well does it Ray?

One of my passing wonders is: Why does Creedo have such a fetish for my forum character? I also wonder why it seems that Dan assumes there is a linear, bidirectional mapping between RainmanTime and Ray.Have you been messing around with your own DNA, Dan? ;)New/Improved RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi tt137:

 

Freedom is a construct of the human mind as such it doesnt actually exist.

I'm not so sure about this. In describing the physical dynamics of a body, we can define and measure the number of dynamical degrees of freedom that any body may exhibit. For example, a body which can only translate within a plane, or rotate within that plane, has only 3 degrees of freedom (two translational, one rotational). When we model aircraft and spacecraft, we produce dynamical models which represent Six Degrees Of Freedom (6DOF) of a body: 3 rotational, 3 translational. So I think freedom is a bit more than only a construct of the human mind.
But are they really free? Arent they still constrained by limits? Their choices limited by their knowledge of their new existence.

I think your example is simply showing us that, like all things in our universe, freedom is a relative measure. But just because something is relative to something else (our perceptions of what is "everything"?) does not make that something fictitious.
I guess I am just saying freedom is a human concept. It isnt universally accepted. What one considers free can be seen as enslavement by another.

Again, I do not think it is just a human concept, but rather a relative measure. For example: A dog can be tied to a stake in the ground with a 10 foot leash. It is not just a figment of the dog's (or your) mind that the dog's freedom is limited relative to the point where the stake is in the ground. It is a physically realizable measure.So I think when one considers the concept of "are we free?" we certainly must ask the follow-up question of "with respect to what standard?"New/Improved RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about this. In describing the physical dynamics of a body, we can define and measure the number of dynamical degrees of freedom that any body may exhibit. For example, a body which can only translate within a plane, or rotate within that plane, has only 3 degrees of freedom (two translational, one rotational). When we model aircraft and spacecraft, we produce dynamical models which represent Six Degrees Of Freedom (6DOF) of a body: 3 rotational, 3 translational. So I think freedom is a bit more than only a construct of the human mind.

I think you are mixing two distinct things. It is one thing to discuss degrees of freedom of an object but it is entirely different to discuss freedom as it pertains to the human condition.I take it as an axiom that everything that truely exists in the universe is of the physical world. Everything else either belongs to the mental or platonic mathematical world. Yes, there is physical freedom but that isnt the freedom we are talking about. Degrees of freedom or physical freedom is defined by the physical laws. We assume that these laws exist and are unbending. In other words, it is what an object or system is allowed to do based on the laws of nature. The physical freedom of a system can be repeatably measured. If it is under the same exact situation each time, it will react exactly the same. Freedom in terms of a human or sentient creature is defined by a mental connection that they associate with their environment or particular situation. It isnt something that can be quantified as there is no standard.

 

I think your example is simply showing us that, like all things in our universe, freedom is a relative measure. But just because something is relative to something else (our perceptions of what is "everything"?) does not make that something fictitious.

Yes, it is relative hence my term it is a sliding concept. In science for something to have any meaning you have to have an agreed upon standard. It has to be repeatable. This isnt the case for freedom, love, hate, and whole other plethora of topics. These things exist within the mental world and the mental world is a construct created by sentient creatures. It is the mental connection that they associate to something. If all sentient creatures ceased to exist, the mental world would as well. Love does not exist without sentient creatures. The freedom you are discussing in your original post also doesnt exist without sentient creatures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, knowledge can definitely limit your choices. If you do not know something exists, you cannot pursue it or want it.

But if you did, you would be free to do so.Freedom is not a human made conecept, it is perceived as human. The basic example being someone locked in a cell, and some one not. Simple, lack of freedom and freedom. So why pose pointless questions of what would the free person do that the imprisoned one can't. Freedom is both physical and mental you are right about that.

 

But...

 

Consider the following hypothetical situation: You were born and raised in a biodome that is completely shielded from the outside world. No one in the dome knows of the outside and there are no means to leave the dome. It is a self sustaining biosphere and everyone in the dome has all the food/water and clothing they need. Are you free?

A person on the outside would probably say no. That the person in the dome isnt aware of all of the possibilies of existence. Their life is constrained to only the things that exist within the dome. A person in the dome would argue that they are free. They have the ability to do everything they know exists. Anyone on the outside can see that the dome inhabitants knowledge is limited and their options constrained.

Think of people states 'freed' from dictatorships. History has shown that yes they don't know what to do with the freedom they now have, but in time they appreciate it and come to value it very highly. Your example also crosses into truth, as a principle, they people probably at some point did question, 'What was outside?', but were not told the truth, but a lie. Also, if no one were to tell them anything, neither truth not lie, then, human nature would compell them to investigate what lay outside.

 

But you must realize limits exist no matter what. It is because of those limits that a person can never truely be free.

Every argument must be rational, this is just pedantic. If you are gonna use ridiculous extremes to justify it then you will never be really appreciative of freedom. Freedom is earnt, through toil, whether it be war, or the construction of a space ship, freedom becomes greater as man advances and he can construct and accomplish more. Usually when one questions why can't I do this?It leads to scientific or technological break through, the 'what if?' will always make us more and more free.

 

GS

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if a technology was available to each of us that permitted us to actively re-program our personal DNA? Do each of us rightfully have total and complete FREEDOM to change our DNA as we wish? What might be the impacts that society would have to deal with?

A realistic subject that is sure to come about for all civilisations like-wise. Really this process is not far off and the current theories of 'resonance' are already enough to cause me to suspect that that day is far closer then most of us think.i think that 'Freedom', is a linear term for 'Free will'. We tend to think of freedom as something that lets us express our INTENTION.

 

When it is infact INTENTION that expresses the potential for our FREE WILL (some people would use 'freedom' here). And this will never cange.

 

So my personal response to your second quesion; As soon as the INTENTION is there, the freedom exists. And is why such potentials that you talk of - WILL occur. As it has done in the past.

 

(to your first post) Anarchy is one potential of INTENTION to exercise FREE WILL. As such is a symbol of freedom - although that may seem perverse to some. Many people have tried to raise the levels of Anarchy for deluded reasons. But from another angle however, maybe their reasons were not as deluded as they may first seem. Everything is Valid in a universe of Free Will.

 

For example, knowledge can definitely limit your choices. If you do not know something exists, you cannot pursue it or want it.

Exactly, As you last point clarifies, the INTENTION to persue it was not there. INTENTION exists on a deeper plane then INFORMATION. So its an interesting debate as to whether 'new' information through the five senses is only an outward prompt to information we already had access to at a deeper level.kind regards,

 

Olly

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom is a construct of the human mind as such it doesnt actually exist.

Most people will probably disagree with this regardless of any explaination (so i'll only bother with the statement); The Human Mind is the greatest construct born out of freedom that has ever existed. Rather then it being the other way around.Freedom in constuct of the human mind is one of the most fundamental personal freedoms that exist. There are genetic influences that is for sure (in some cases extreme genetic influences).

 

All humans have the freedom to construct their minds (ego personality - which is what this quoted statement refers to), As they please. Your perception of freedom being a construct of the human mind (and therefore not existing), is born out of how your personality percieves things/subjects.

 

Your personality was constructed [and still is] out of your own free will (and beyond that: INTENTION).

 

kind regards,

 

Olly

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are mixing two distinct things.

But are they really distinct? Or is it just a construct of your mind that is willing them to BE distinct?
I take it as an axiom that everything that truely exists in the universe is of the physical world. Everything else either belongs to the mental or platonic mathematical world.

What if a "new" level of freedom became known to mankind wherein it was shown that the universe is actually an equal balance between physical and aphysical phenomena? IOW, what if there is "more stuff out there" than what you perceive/know as physical?
Degrees of freedom or physical freedom is defined by the physical laws. We assume that these laws exist and are unbending.

And yet we are constantly improving on them (example" Newtonian mechanics modifed by Einsteinien energy). So we cannot REALLY say they are "unbending"... but rather that we are continuing to learn just exactly how these laws "work" and relate to one another.
The physical freedom of a system can be repeatably measured. If it is under the same exact situation each time, it will react exactly the same.

And "exact" is where the rub comes into play. The sensitivity of ANY system to initial conditions has certainly been shown (via Chaos theory and dynamics) to be far from linear, as you would suggest in this statement. A VERY SMALL CHANGE in some initial condition (accuracy in measuring exactness) can lead to a VERY LARGE CHANGE in the steady-state operation of the system. This is well known, and I am afraid that it counters what you state here.
Freedom in terms of a human or sentient creature is defined by a mental connection that they associate with their environment or particular situation. It isnt something that can be quantified as there is no standard.

But there ARE physical standards for freedom, as I have explained. So you seem to be quite firmly of the opinion that freedom is solely a non-physical "thing". While I am continuing to maintain that there are not "two different types of freedom", but rather ONE type of freedom that consists of BOTH physical AND aphysical components. Fair enough?
In science for something to have any meaning you have to have an agreed upon standard. It has to be repeatable. This isnt the case for freedom, love, hate, and whole other plethora of topics.

Is the ultimate goal of science "repeatability" or "predictability"? I ask this important question because what if results related to "freedom, love, hate, etc." are not repeatable simply because we do not yet have an accurate model for how they "work" across physical and aphysical dynamics? What if, some day, a better model of unified physicality and consciousness comes about that provides an increased PREDICTIVE capability, thus allowing such results to finally BECOME repeatable? This is the way the cumulative knowledge of science tends to work for us... our predictive models of "reality" (physical or otherwise) get better and better as time goes by. New/Improved RMT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rainman,

 

Is the ultimate goal of science "repeatability" or "predictability"?

I believe that the answer is - both.The experimentalist designs experimental models with the intent of receiving repeatable results under like circumstances.

 

Once the experimental results are published the applied scientist can apply the underlying science researched by the experimentalist to (hopefully) have some means of predicting outcomes under similar circumstances.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom is not a human made concept, it is perceived as human.

Of course it is a human made concept, there is no definite condition/state you can point to and say that that is what it means to have freedom. It is all about perception. Hence, it exists solely within the mental world. It is an idea.

 

Also, if no one were to tell them anything, neither truth not lie, then, human nature would compell them to investigate what lay outside.

I clearly stated in the hypothetical question that there was no way for them to leave. And that the dome was completely shielded from the outside world hence no way for them to get information from outside the dome.

 

Every argument must be rational, this is just pedantic.

You realize rational and pedantic are not antonyms? In fact, the best arguments are the ones that have a narrow focus. As they do not often complicate matters with extraneous stuff and personal emotional bias.

 

If you are gonna use ridiculous extremes to justify it then you will never be really appreciative of freedom.

How is recognizing that there are always limits something that is a "ridiculous extreme". This all goes back to freedom being absolutely subjective which is the point of my post. Limits exist even when you are not consciously aware of them.

 

Freedom is earnt, through toil, whether it be war, or the construction of a space ship, freedom becomes greater as man advances and he can construct and accomplish more. Usually when one questions why can't I do this?

So, you would say that the person in the dome wasnt free. Interesting. I honestly couldnt say. Again because it is a matter of perspective. How do you judge which is better? Is it the quality of life that their "freedom" grants? A person in the dome could have lived a much more fulfilling life than a person on the outside. The person in the dome has all the food and water they need. Their existence is shaped by what they know and all they know is what is within the dome. Does technology really give you more freedom? Yeah, you may no longer have to hand wash your clothes but you still have to pay the electricity and water bill. How are you going to pay that? Well, you will have to get a job. Most people today do seem like they have less free time than people in the past. So, has technology made us more free or has it made us more dependent? There are people who can no longer do math without a machine telling them the answer e.g. cashiers.

 

It leads to scientific or technological break through, the 'what if?' will always make us more and more free.

Really? Progess is the result of freedom? Or is it just curosity about the shackles that bind us then making use of them in creative ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a "new" level of freedom became known to mankind wherein it was shown that the universe is actually an equal balance between physical and aphysical phenomena? IOW, what if there is "more stuff out there" than what you perceive/know as physical?

I consider that nonsense. You can never detect the nonphysical because our senses are based on the physical. In order for us to sense something, it must leave physical evidence. But something being nonphysical by its definition doesnt leave physical evidence. The nonphysical can not interact with the physical because if it did it would be physical. Something that can NEVER be detected doesnt exist as far as I am concerned. And I do believe any other scientist would agree.

 

And yet we are constantly improving on them (example" Newtonian mechanics modifed by Einsteinien energy). So we cannot REALLY say they are "unbending"... but rather that we are continuing to learn just exactly how these laws "work" and relate to one another.

This just shows we have an incomplete picture of the fundamental laws of nature. But every scientist believes that there is some underlying principles that governs the universe. These principles do not change and if they do it is slowly and in a predictable way. They are the unbreakable laws. If scientists didnt have faith in this then they wouldnt bother experimenting and trying to understand. It would be a complete waste of time and energy to try to understand something if it is constantly changing in an unpredictable way.

 

And "exact" is where the rub comes into play. The sensitivity of ANY system to initial conditions has certainly been shown (via Chaos theory and dynamics) to be far from linear, as you would suggest in this statement. A VERY SMALL CHANGE in some initial condition (accuracy in measuring exactness) can lead to a VERY LARGE CHANGE in the steady-state operation of the system. This is well known, and I am afraid that it counters what you state here.

How does it counter anything I said. You are going off in left field here. You are taking the definition of freedom as implied in the original topic and changing it. You are looking at freedom as something that is physical. But I am telling you that degrees of freedom is very different from the term freedom applied to sentient creatures. We do not speak of inanimate objects being free in the sense of being free as applied to humans. My computer monitor has no freedom. Like I said, everyone can agree on how many degrees of freedom a physical system has. Freedom in terms of the human condition isnt a universal concept. It changes and it is just mental connection people apply to a situation.You have not given any physical standards for freedom. Your example of the dog being constrained within a certain radius by a chain isnt a physical standard. How long does the chain have to be in order for the dog to be considered to have freedom? Like I said, you cannot point to a given situation and universally say that is what freedom is. Freedom as a concept(which it is) is constantly being redefined and expanded upon by society and individuals. As such, it doesnt actually physically exist. It IS the MENTAL CONNECTION we associate with our environment at a given a time.

 

Is the ultimate goal of science "repeatability" or "predictability"?

These two things are connected. Without repeatability, we wouldnt have predictability. Science depends on repeatability in an experiment in order for us to develop a theory about how something works so we can have predictive power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom in today's society is the ability to supersize your value meal.

 

"Freedom" in my opinion is almost an abstract term. I have devoted my life to acheiving it in it's purest form. I refuse to be a slave to the extent of even by proxy. Still, if you wish to enjoy the benefits of technology (civilisation goes without saying), I would suggest just surrendering to the notion that some entity will always claim authority over you regardless of your situation and actual reality. To myself anarchy is the personal nonrecogition of authority. Anarchy only exists in the moments just following disasters until something asserts itself. Anarchy has never nor will it likely ever stay static as long as the condition is human.

 

I also think the use of terms such as these in physics itself should of never taken place. For one thing the true meanings of these words only relate to the human condition (the "bitterness" of iron?).

 

You, what do you own the world?

 

How do you own disorder?

 

Now, somewhere between the sacred silence:

 

sacred silence and sleep.

 

Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep,

 

disorder, disorder, disorder.

 

When I became the sun,

 

I shone light into the man's heart

 

When I became the sun,

 

I shone light into the man's HEART!

 

Toxicity - System of a Down

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can never detect the nonphysical because our senses are based on the physical.

Our senses cannot detect radio waves. Would you then conclude that radio waves are not physical?
You can never detect the nonphysical because our senses are based on the physical.

"NEVER" is an absolutist view in a universe that is clearly based on the relative. Furthermore, seeing how "NEVER" is about as useful as "infinity", I would question this:
And I do believe any other scientist would agree.

I question this because there is no scientist I know of dumb enough to use the word "never" when it comes to scientific discovery regarding what we know of our universe.
But every scientist believes that there is some underlying principles that governs the universe.

You seem awfully sure of yourself to claim that "every" scientist believes this. In fact, that would border on "faith" if they cannot prove it. Interesting.
These principles do not change and if they do it is slowly and in a predictable way.

And yet clearly there are things we CANNOT predict... so how can you so conclusively make this statement that they "never change" but yet when they do they are "predictable"?
If scientists didnt have faith in this then they wouldnt bother experimenting and trying to understand.

I think most (note: I did not say EVERY) scientists would bristle at you accusing them of "faith" that something is true. Most scientists are a lot more careful than you are painting them here.
It would be a complete waste of time and energy to try to understand something if it is constantly changing in an unpredictable way.

That is until some new bit of knowledge is discovered that helps us formulate a better predictive process. And I would think those scientists from our past who WERE able to discover means to predict something that appeared unpredictable would certainly NOT think their work was "a complete waste of time and energy".
How does it counter anything I said.

You made a claim that systems are repeatable in an "exact" manner. I countered that with known science based on non-linear theory, namely that systems with feedback loops (the vast majority of LIVING systems) are not "reversible" (to use a term from thermodynamics which also applies to system state repeatability).
You are going off in left field here. You are taking the definition of freedom as implied in the original topic and changing it.

Would you like to review the definition and get back to me on that, because I have certainly NOT changed it! In fact, why don't you tell me which definition you are accusing me of changing?
You are looking at freedom as something that is physical.

Incorrect. You obviously did not read, or fully comprehend what I wrote. I clearly postulated that it has BOTH physical AND aphysical aspects.
But I am telling you that degrees of freedom is very different from the term freedom applied to sentient creatures.

"You are telling me...?" Have I met the final authority on all things universal? :) So then would you also "tell me" that the concept of PHYSICAL DEGREES OF FREEDOM has absolutely NO relation or bearing on the aphysical feeling of freedom within a person's concsiousness? Is that what you are saying? Because I would think a person who is chained to a wall (i.e. a PHYSICAL restriction of his/her degrees of freedom) certainly WOULD have an impact of what their RELATIVE measurement of freedom is within their minds!
Like I said, everyone can agree on how many degrees of freedom a physical system has.

How much have you really studied science in this area? If you think this is true, then can you tell me how many degrees of freedom are inherent in the "N-body problem"? It is one that has stumped mankind.... well, forever!
Freedom in terms of the human condition isnt a universal concept. It changes and it is just mental connection people apply to a situation.

And because "mental connections" happen within a PHYSICAL thing called a brain/body, then you cannot rightfully completely divorce the PHYSICAL concept of freedom from the APHYSICAL mental state that represents it! I cannot see how you can possibly argue this point, since the ONLY place we know of that mental constructs are formed are within human, PHYSICAL brains! :confused: Unless, that is, you wish to postulate mental connections occurring in something aphysical, which as you have said you have no means to sense!
Your example of the dog being constrained within a certain radius by a chain isnt a physical standard.

Again, you are incorrect. I could easily call this "one dog chain", in much the same way we define an Astronomical Unit as the distance from the sun to the earth. I HAVE, indeed, defined a physical standard. What you just don't want to admit is that, like ALL things in our universe, it is a RELATIVE standard.
How long does the chain have to be in order for the dog to be considered to have freedom?

Now I see your problem. As this question of yours clearly shows, you are tending to think of "freedom" as a boolean state.... you either have it or you don't. That is EXACTLY what this form of question you have posed would lead to. I am saying that freedom is RELATIVE, based on an agreed-upon standard (which can, of course, change since there are no absolutes), AND that it has BOTH physical AND aphysical elements. Furthermore, I do not believe it is a discrete state, but a continually varying quantity that can be measured in any number of different PHYSICAL ways in addition to aphysical mental states. You want to say it is "completely mental", whereas I take a more balanced approach and say it is both physical and aphysical. Is the extremist or the mutually-integrative approach generally correct, based on the past history of science?
Like I said, you cannot point to a given situation and universally say that is what freedom is.

Of course, but that is because of its RELATIVITY, not because you think it is "only" a mental, and not a physical construct.
Freedom as a concept(which it is) is constantly being redefined and expanded upon by society and individuals.

Sorry, it can also be a measurement...by agreement amongst reasonable people. And in fact, those agreed-upon physical measurements (e.g. "one dog chain") can have a large impact on the mental construct of freedom within one's mind.
As such, it doesnt actually physically exist.

You could make the same argument for the physical distance we call a meter. Unless you are now going to descend into the nihilist view of "nothing means anything" (perhaps appropriate given our discussion of anarchy?), then why does a physical distance that we agree to call a meter exist, but measurements of a body's physical freedom do not?
These two things are connected. Without repeatability, we wouldnt have predictability.

Thank you, so it is both. I agree. So then that would mean this quote from you is incomplete, and could therefore be misleading in what you intended:
In science for something to have any meaning you have to have an agreed upon standard. It has to be repeatable .

So it is not JUST repeatability that gives science meaning, but also predictability, as you seem to agree. New/Improved RMT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that a concise definition of terms is necessary for any debate here in TTI. The question of Anarchy verses Freedom has evolved into a debate of terms...

 

What is Freedom? What is Anarchy ?

 

Everything will have limitations from a mortal point of view, so if one is to get anal about it, we are never absolutely free. We cant DO everything we desire...

 

If the question pertains to the absence of a formalized governmental structure, then anarchy may relate to not being limited by laws..or at least acting in complete disregard of them.

 

The dog on the leash...bah!!!!

 

Inane comment regarding Anarchy and Freedom....

 

Did Rainmans question really refer to this type of Freedom? A dog on a leash, or a man in a dome?

 

If I cant jump off a building and fly without the effects of gravity, am I free?

 

Come on....this kind of discussion becomes diluted and the original premise...becomes forgotten.

 

When the word anarchy pops up, I think of individuals causing destructon and mayhem. To upset any organized rule. To ignore the law and do as they please ... as set down per the law.

 

Just because they are doing as they please means that they have freedom from the parameters of accepted laws. This doesnt excuse them from limitations elsewhere.

 

Any society would fail under anarchistic ideals. Even if only three people, who would regulate any organized direction? To organize towards any direction would make anarchistic ideals null and void.

 

If you look at the condition of our U.S. Government today, a degree of anarchy exists. The condition brought about by a weak LEADER.

 

Remember when Ronald Reagan was shot, Alexander Haig took control until "they" figured out he wasnt the one who was supposed to be in charge. However, until they had the chance to think about it, they complied with his guidance and did as he demanded. He did accomplish things that needed to be done. A strong leader under the situation.

 

Hitler, a strong leader, took a small country in a horrid state and turned it into a military machine. I am not saying his INTENTIONS as a whole were good...but damn if he didnt accomplish alot in a short period of time.

 

His success was on his ability to organize and motivate. The people caught in his web of ethnic cleansing could probably tell us exactly what Freedom can be defined as with regards to humanity and/or the individual.

 

So do I believe anarchy to be a good thing or productive...absolutely not.

 

I believe our lesson here on this ball of dirt is on how to get along and work together as a team, solving the problems together...as one focused society.

 

Not as individuals following their own impulses for satisfaction of their desires, regardless of the impact on others they "use".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchy won't lead to freedom. It is still within the bounds of the captive.

 

To be truly free, you must be SET FREE.

 

And folks, for that, it takes someone outside the bounds of the captive.

 

A prisoner can't set another prisoner free. So the answers you are looking for won't come from yourself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...