Leo what do you mean by "we are puppets"?

[Will1125]

Last time on my last thread you said we are not free like we have no control on the dream and we are like puppets. 

I dont really understand can you explain more deeply please?

[Atb210201]

Well we are not free until we are free to do whatever the hell we want without any opposite force trying to stop us

So long as we cannot do whatever we want we are not actually fully free we are little free here and there

And maybe our "wants" is in the way of our full freedom itself

 

Edited September 16 by Atb210201

[El Zapato]

Me:  It can become a very nebulous and at the same time quite dense question: My feeling is that many people assume way too much when determining the level of freedom they can demand.  Some of us are truly misguided even.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/ch6-conditions-for-freedom.pdf

Conditions for Freedom A Few Theses on the Theory of Freedom and on Creating an Index of Freedom Andrei Illarionov*

The following text presents an attempt to formulate a theoretical basis for constructing an overall index of freedom in which partial freedoms, such as individual, civil, legal, economic, politic, and national ones, might be included as its composite elements. Introduction Freedom is understood as of two types: positive and negative.

Positive freedom is considered primarily to be the physical ability to do something, such as having physical control over ability, strength, resources, information, knowledge, technology, etc.

Negative freedom is primarily a legalistic concept dealing with someone’s rights, and involves the absence of subversion of a person’s rights by somebody else. Isaiah Berlin gave a good philosophical definition of freedom (the words “freedom” and “liberty” are being used here mutually interchangeably): *

Dr. Andrei Nikolaievich Illarionov is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity in Washington, DC, and President of the Institute of Economic Analysis, an independent economic think tank in Moscow, Russia, which he founded in 1994.

In April 2000, Dr. Illarionov was invited to serve as Chief Economic Advisor to the newly-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin. From May 2000 to January 2005 he was also Putin’s Personal Representative to the G-8. While serving in President Putin’s administration, Dr. Illarionov was the driving force behind the adoption of a 13 percent flat income tax, the Russian government’s creation of a stabilization fund for windfall oil revenues, and the early repayment of Russia’s foreign debt. Dr. Illarionov has co-authored several programs for Russian governments and has written three books and over 300 articles on Russian economic and social policies. He is a regular commentator on current events in Russia.

“… non-interference, which is the opposite of coercion, is good as such, although it is not only good. This is the ‘negative’ conception of liberty in its classical form” (Berlin, 1969). (The first definition of freedom.)

The rest of this essay is devoted primarily to developing a method for constructing an index built on negative understanding of freedom.

Human action The very existence of human action suggests the existence of its several elements: a human actor (the subject of human action), a human act (the action itself), types of human actions, property rights over objects involved in human action, rules about how to use (or not to use) property rights while engaging in those actions.

Human actors Actors are by definition human beings. Though the philosophy of classical liberalism insists that all people are born with legally equal rights, in real life different people in different societies, in different times, and under different circumstances do have different legal rights.

Those with different legal rights (capabilities) can be classified into a variety of different groups. People can be segregated by age (babies, children, teenagers, or adults). The number of rights they have tends to rise with age until it stabilizes in adulthood. People can also be divided by gender: men and women. Though modern societies recognize the legal equality of the sexes, historically in many societies men had more legal rights than women. People can also be divided by mental health: healthy or unhealthy. Mental illness has been associated with inappropriate or unacceptable behavior that has produced limitations on the affected people’s legal rights; they are often considered to be partially or fully legally incapable. People can be classified by their different social groups, including race, ethnicity, tribe, kin, language, religion, class, caste, profession, conviction, experience, etc. In different societies members of those groups may have different legal rights.

Throughout the history of mankind, one of the most important differentiating factors among humans is the level of property rights they possess over themselves (self-ownership)—in other words, the amount of personal freedom they enjoy. Specifically, are they genuinely free people, or servants, or serfs, or slaves, etc.? Even in the freest of modern societies, the amount of freedom that healthy adults do have might differ notably, depending on circumstances. Human action Human actions differ first of all according to the free will of a subject. Actions (as well non-actions) might be free or performed under coercion.

Conditions for Freedom

 For free actions there is an additional important criterion, namely, the existence or reward received in return for the actor’s action. The judgment about whether or not a reward received can be considered as equivalent (more than equivalent, less than equivalent, without even any reward) can be made only by a free person. Free actions can be divided into two kinds: free exchange (that is, actions taken according to free will, for which the actor receives something of equivalent value) or free charity (an action taken by one of one’s own free will, and for which one receives no reward). For actions performed under coercion (under duress), where the actor can exercise no free will, the issue of equivalence of the reward is irrelevant, since the ability to judge the value of resources received in return is something only a free person can do. The very existence of coercion automatically excludes the notion of equivalent or non-equivalent value for any actions performed under coercion. Therefore, any human action made under coercion may be called involuntary charity, even if the resources provided to that actor are comparable to those provided in a similar situation to a free actor.

Types of human actions

Conscious individuals can engage in three main types of action: thought, speech, and physical acts. There is a vast difference between the physical and legal ability (of an individual, community, society, or state) to coerce human actions. Physical action is the easiest one to control (limit, regulate, or direct). It is possible, but much harder, to control human speech. To control human thought is even harder (though not completely impossible). For example, with the development of education curricula, propaganda, brainwashing, and psychological warfare one can seriously alter the ability of legally free people to think and speak independently.

Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom

The decision-taking-centre-of-a-human-being (DTCOHB) is different in different circumstances. Though in the end a person’s decision is probably made by their brain, many decisions can be significantly affected by signals sent by different systems in the human body: respiratory, digestive, thermoregulatory, reproductive, etc. Human actions are performed according to a hierarchy of preferences. These actions take place in several main spheres that can be classified according to the importance of particular property rights for an actor. This importance may be measured by the “distance” of each particular sphere from the decision-taking-centre-of-a-human-being (DTCOHB).

 The crucial distinction between classes of different human actions comes from the amount of property rights an actor has, and an understanding of the borders between the actor’s property rights and those of other actors. There are four main spheres of human activity (security, personal, private, public), each with its own sub-areas. People have property rights (or freedoms) in each of them. In the security sphere, people execute property rights over their own bodies (self-ownership) that are strongly associated with their survival and reasonably good health. As a result, in many modern societies those rights are under no or very limited regulation. The most well-known exception is conscription imposed by governments and some quasistate organizations. In this sphere, property rights may be reflected in the right to life (i.e., freedom from homicide) and the right to use one’s own body (i.e., the freedom from physical intervention without one’s clearly expressed consent, including for medical reasons). In most modern societies, executing property rights in the individual security sphere is recognized as inalienable human right and needs no regulation. In the personal sphere, people execute property rights over their own bodies that are not necessarily intimately related to their survival or health. Such rights include the right to a choice of diet (i.e., freedom from a prescribed diet, such as from the prohibition of alcohol, drugs, kosher food, etc.); right to a choice of clothing; the right to physical movement (i.e., the freedom from illegal incarceration and from constraints or limits on an actor’s movement locally, or within state borders, or internationally); the right to consciousness and independent thinking (i.e., the freedom from imposed views, indoctrination, propaganda, religion, ideology, etc.). In many modern societies, personal rights are relatively recently recognized as inalienable rights, and therefore are subjected to either no or only limited regulation.

In the private sphere, an actor’s own property rights can collide with those of others who happen to be related to him or her either by common blood or by living in a shared household, or those with whom he or she has intimate relations. Rights in the private sphere include the right to non-coercive family relations (not intimate ones) (specifically, freedom from terror instigated by family members); rights over one’s intimate relations (i.e., freedom from rape, coercion, arranged marriage, permissions from senior and/or male members of the family, restrictions on gender, etc.). In some societies this sphere of property rights is heavily regulated. In the public sphere, an actor executes his or her property rights in areas where those rights meet (collide with) the property rights of others beyond the private sphere. Rights in the public sphere include rights to economic relations (i.e., economic property rights); rights on civil relations (i.e., non-economic, non-political property rights in a civil society); rights to political relations (i.e., property rights related to territory, including local, regional, national, and international polities). In all societies these property rights face very substantial and detailed regulations. The relative importance (and thus value) for an actor of executing his or her property rights in different areas (and therefore the subjective relative weights he or she gives to different rights in different areas) in the overall group of rights he or she has (i.e., overall freedom) is a subject of individual choice. Relative importance of particular rights tends to diminish in proportion to the increased distance from the DTCOHB, with the most valuable rights being considered in the security sphere, then in the individual and private spheres, then in the public one. Nevertheless, there are many exceptions to this rule....

 

[PurpleTree]

we are muppets 

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Will1125 said:

Last time on my last thread you said we are not free like we have no control on the dream and we are like puppets. 

I dont really understand can you explain more deeply please?

Notice that you have no conscious control over what the universe is dreaming.

Look at any object and notice that you have no control over its shape.

Look at your body. Notice, you didn't choose your body and you fundamentally cannot change it.

You live in a video game which you did not design.

Edited September 16 by Leo Gura

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You live in a video game which you did not design.

And yet, as you know better than anybody else, you DID design it all!.. before quickly storing the source code behind a locked vault with infinite deceptions and veils, and further giving yourself amnesia, to the point where it's more accurate to say that you did not design anything hahaha

[Ishanga]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Notice that you have no conscious control over what the universe is dreaming.

Look at any object and notice that you have no control over its shape.

Look at your body. Notice, you didn't choose your body and you fundamentally cannot change it.

You live in a video game which you did not design.

This is true, but the only control we have available to us is how we respond to it all, this is what makes Humans not like any other life on this planet and its totally up to us, dream or no dream we have this ability and that makes all the difference!

Edited September 16 by Ishanga

[Letho]

@Leo Gura I completely agree with you. But we still have free will. It's proportional to our level of awareness and there's no logical argument to refute that. There's scales of awareness across the animal kingdom (comparing the awareness of an ant to a border collie) and too, our human population (average awareness of a human compared to the highest, especially when the highest train their minds on meditation techniques that facilitate such). Determinism is so convincing, if we're not aware enough to be aware of how we're being convinced, then yes, its absolutely predetermined relative to the lack of pressure awareness has on that unfoldment of causality, or what becomes meta-causality in light of the reality of awareness mediating the truth or non-truth of free will. All in all though, if I were you standing back and looking at the animal kingdom inclusive of the human population from sitting on the moon say, it would be totally understandable why you'd reach the conclusion that humans have no control. Peace brother.

@Will1125 Leo's video where he introduces this subject of our lack of control is extremely good and deserves contemplation. I recommend re-watching some of his best videos on the subject. The more you contemplate his work from his unique position the more you will benefit from the insight he has worked to relay to you. 

[bambi]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Notice that you have no conscious control over what the universe is dreaming.

Look at any object and notice that you have no control over its shape.

Look at your body. Notice, you didn't choose your body and you fundamentally cannot change it.

You live in a video game which you did not design.

You change your tune alot. Half your posts are telling people they are God and they can dream whatever they want if the become concious enough. There where times you were saying you would be able to heal diseases and film yourself as a colourful bunny or something

Now you are back to standard spiritual paradigm it seems

[Sandroew]

@bambi I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that we are basically communicating in a few sentences each comment. You can only convey an eeny tiny bit of truth in each comment. It isnt common to come to a forum and leave well thought out 100 pages long answers and even if you did not a lot of people are going to read it. Its the style of communication thats a limiting factor here.

And then of course we choose to talk about the most advanced, philosophycal, abstract etc. themes in this style, so what do you expect at this point beyond confusion ? LOL

Edited September 17 by Sandroew

[Dodo]

On 16/09/2024 at 1:06 PM, Will1125 said:

Last time on my last thread you said we are not free like we have no control on the dream and we are like puppets. 

I dont really understand can you explain more deeply please?

Let me reveal the mystery 

 

[Leo Gura]

The whole challenge of life is that a human isn't omnipotent. You struggle against this core truth every day, and there is no escape other than death.

This is not news to anyone. Everyone knows this, just not so explicitly.

Life is all about learning to surf waves which are too big for anyone to control.

Edited September 17 by Leo Gura

[Ero]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Life is all about learning to surf waves which are too big for anyone to control.

There is something to be said about being a catalyst. Instead of 'control', why not 'steer'? Carnot 'steered'  Steam Power. Tesla was instrumental in the 'wave' of Electrification. Oppenheimer - nuclearization.  

Once a chain fission reaction is unleashed, little can be done to stop a wave so destructive as to 'surf it' . But under the right conditions, it becomes a source of energy.

By finding the underlying mechanisms of the complex system, one can learn to orchestrate the emergent phenomena without micro-managing. Who is to say we won't be able to surgically engineer tectonic movement or climate currents? There are those that strive to Tame the Chaos. 

 

[cjoseph90]

On 17/09/2024 at 3:39 PM, Letho said:

 

@Will1125 Leo's video where he introduces this subject of our lack of control is extremely good and deserves contemplation. I recommend re-watching some of his best videos on the subject. The more you contemplate his work from his unique position the more you will benefit from the insight he has worked to relay to you. 

Out if curiosity, what video were you refering to, about our lack of self control?

[Letho]

@cjoseph90 So many years back perhaps he even removed it. A good overlap: Nothing Exists But You | Solipsism | Actualized.org/Leo Gura. It was really thought provoking for me when I listened to this years ago in the car. Even though I don't agree with the philosophy or determinism outside of a deeper unification. Life is more about learning to have perspectivism while always trying to tune our consciousness radio stations to truth, which tends to lead us to some creative overlap between ideas and therefore one another as opposed to todays 'democra-right' that we see spreading more than the maturation of our views on democracy and the subsequent greater freeing of our creative intelligence. The way we cooperate ideationally can be a measurement then of how we do so socially. This thought experiment he does is such a great reflection of how valuable it is to engineer the imagination to master "Scenario-Simulation Artistry".

[Schizophonia]

On 17/09/2024 at 0:21 AM, Leo Gura said:

Notice that you have no conscious control over what the universe is dreaming.

Look at any object and notice that you have no control over its shape.

Look at your body. Notice, you didn't choose your body and you fundamentally cannot change it.

You live in a video game which you did not design.

Because with our level of consciousness, quantum leaps to the point of being able to materialize objects and such things are forbidden.
But we can and do still switch reality at a more subtle level, and I imagine in fact that we can switch to realities with ever higher levels of consciousness (even intelligence) and therefore control.

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

and I imagine in fact that we can switch to realities with ever higher levels of consciousness (even intelligence) and therefore control.

Yes but only if you drown in psychedelics or kill yourself physically (and I don't recommend either)

[Will1125]

I understand now, Leo is right. 

 

Edited September 26 by Will1125