The whole left right brained race thing

[TSA]

Your dog chooses human food, no doubt, because it prefers it over dog food. It eats it because of a desire to eat it. Free will is a choice free from desires, instinctual behaviors or any other bias. Your dog does not have free will.




Nor do animals have "freer will" because they have none at all.






For someone who claims "animals have freer will than us" I don't really think your in a position to show such disrespect to someone who already said he considers humans to be animals.

...and again with Poppa Wu?

Your still caught up on how exactly Ghostface Killah managed to create the universe aren't you?

SHEM HETEP

im not here to argue if animals have free will when i just gave you proof of my dog making a free ass willed choice between 2 things base on the free will to do so and it still wasn't 'enough' or whatever, but there's absolutely nothing humans do free from 'desire'.




animal isn't a way of acting, its a scientific classification of a complex organism with animal cells as opposed to plant cells.

humans are animals, you can be a fucking buddist monk, as long as you have blood your an animal, faggot.

it has nothing to do with free will, a god damn dead person doesn't have free will but he's still a dead animal.

[Face of the Golden Falcon]

im not here to argue if animals have free will when i just gave you proof of my dog making a free ass willed choice between 2 things base on the free will to do so and it still wasn't 'enough' or whatever, but there's absolutely nothing humans do free from 'desire'.

Proof? Your dog didn't have a choice of free will because it was/is driven by animal instincts and desires that it can't escape. But I already posted that and you still think you provided "proof" despite the fact that you're not here to argue a point that you are arguing. So if your not here to argue the point then don't post a half-assed attempt at proving that animals have free-will, freer will or whatever it is you think they have.

Humans have the ability, though rarely practiced, to act, 'free from desire'. This doesn't mean that they don't have the desire to do said thing, but they are able to choose whether or not to follow that desire. They able to detach themselves from their desires to make a decision. Your dog wont do this, it will simply follow the strongest desire.

But...whatever...your not here to argue this topic...or is it just that your not here to be proven wrong?

animal isn't a way of acting, its a scientific classification of a complex organism with animal cells as opposed to plant cells.

humans are animals, you can be a fucking buddist monk, as long as you have blood your an animal, faggot.

No one here is arguing against the fact that a humans physical make up is animal.

it has nothing to do with free will, a god damn dead person doesn't have free will but he's still a dead animal.

Yet we are the only animal with free will. What does this mean?

If you consider your self an animal that's fine, but what makes you identify the complex organism with animal cells, that houses your consciousness, as yourself?

...and everything after:
"it has nothing to do with free will..."
makes no sense what so ever.

SHEM HETEP

[Mumm Ra]

the complete inability for some folk to think outside the box or for themselves astounds me - like a child learning through indiscriminate imitation. But then again that's also an animalistic trait....

Golden Falcon is on point here, esp. with TSA's dog having free will not making any sense whatsoever.

since some are so in love with their dictionary, allow me to offer something from that book other than an animal being a collection of animal cells -

an⋅i⋅mal

   /ˈænəməl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-uh-muhl] Show IPA

4. the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person. 5. an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal.

8. pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.

when I tell a person I am not an animal, this is what I am talking about.

Obviously those claiming to be animals have these traits and are not really qualified to speak on what it is NOT to be an animal, though it's amusing to see them try.
Although NOT ALL humans (most tho) live according to the likes of an animal, ALL ANIMALS do. Because THEY ARE ANIMALS and cannot do anything other than base desires, like Falcon said.
Sure, ALL people have this within them. But when I talk about WHAT and WHO I am - it surely is not THAT.
Do I have a body composed of living cells? No shit sherlock.
Is that "I" that I speak of - that "I" that I would call my SELF and identify WHAT and WHO I am with - that collection of physical cells you call an animal? NO.
I am that which OCCUPIES the physical body and makes it conscious of being conscious, aka god.
And through this knowledge I am able to make changes to my being that would be impossible to one who identifies with an animal as WHO and WHAT they are - or that the host of likes, dislikes, desires, emotions, ect is WHO and WHAT they are.

If you consider your self an animal that's fine, but what makes you identify the complex organism with animal cells, that houses your consciousness, as yourself?

word

...this part of the spirit is composed of subtle electromagnetic energies that have the function of animating Man's life, especially the physical body. Hence, the name "animal spirit," or "anima and animus," as it was called in the Latin spiritual tradition. Our modern use of the term "animal" to denote the creatures that are thus identified is an example of muddled thinking. All things in this world are infused with this animating spirit. This agrees with the law of physics which states that all things are in a state of motion. The creatures that we call animals are simply those that allow the greatest expression to this universal principal. But it is of upmost importance to know that all things, minerals, vegetables, and humans, are ensouled by this animal, or animating spirit. To follow one's feelings and desires...to do it because you like it, and so on, is to identify with the animal part of being..[...]...One's emotions, cravings, and desires can never be guides to living, and what is correct.

- Ra Un Nefer Amen

all you cats thinking an animal is what you are - keep on thinking that way and see how it goes. No matter to me - just know that I am not in your category.

thank you and good night, PEACE

[whitey]

Your dog chooses human food, no doubt, because it prefers it over dog food. It eats it because of a desire to eat it. Free will is a choice free from desires, instinctual behaviors or any other bias. Your dog does not have free will.




Nor do animals have "freer will" because they have none at all.






For someone who claims "animals have freer will than us" I don't really think your in a position to show such disrespect to someone who already said he considers humans to be animals.

...and again with Poppa Wu?

Your still caught up on how exactly Ghostface Killah managed to create the universe aren't you?

SHEM HETEP

i disagree. you want to play fetch with your dog, your dog is tired and says fuck off basically. you, the human, are now dissapointed because your pet dog made a choice to not want to play with you.

dolphins play with each other in the ocean, its a fact. they communicate and actually do things for their enjoyment.

thats where humans thinking they are so high and mighty and everything else is just a lowly animal. we as humans dont even understand our brains full capabilities let alone every animals out there. im not saying other animals are little enstinens running around that just cant talk to us, but it doesnt mean they are just mindless drones messing about.

[whitey]

the complete inability for some folk to think outside the box or for themselves astounds me - like a child learning through indiscriminate imitation. But then again that's also an animalistic trait....

Golden Falcon is on point here, esp. with TSA's dog having free will not making any sense whatsoever.

since some are so in love with their dictionary, allow me to offer something from that book other than an animal being a collection of animal cells -


when I tell a person I am not an animal, this is what I am talking about.

Obviously those claiming to be animals have these traits and are not really qualified to speak on what it is NOT to be an animal, though it's amusing to see them try.
Although NOT ALL humans (most tho) live according to the likes of an animal, ALL ANIMALS do. Because THEY ARE ANIMALS and cannot do anything other than base desires, like Falcon said.
Sure, ALL people have this within them. But when I talk about WHAT and WHO I am - it surely is not THAT.
Do I have a body composed of living cells? No shit sherlock.
Is that "I" that I speak of - that "I" that I would call my SELF and identify WHAT and WHO I am with - that collection of physical cells you call an animal? NO.
I am that which OCCUPIES the physical body and makes it conscious of being conscious, aka god.
And through this knowledge I am able to make changes to my being that would be impossible to one who identifies with an animal as WHO and WHAT they are - or that the host of likes, dislikes, desires, emotions, ect is WHO and WHAT they are.

word

- Ra Un Nefer Amen

all you cats thinking an animal is what you are - keep on thinking that way and see how it goes. No matter to me - just know that I am not in your category.

thank you and good night, PEACE

what do you mean how its going to go?

ill tell you how its going to go. your going to live your life with your life on a pedestal like your not an animal because you have knowledge of self. then its going to go the same way i and every other animal on this planet has gone and will go. you are going to die and become worm food. just like everything else. because you are but one of everything else.

[Face of the Golden Falcon]

P.E.A.C.E and Blessings...

i disagree. you want to play fetch with your dog, your dog is tired and says fuck off basically. you, the human, are now dissapointed because your pet dog made a choice to not want to play with you.

No. The dogs choice was not free. It did it because it was tired, like you said, it followed its strongest desire. It always will. And don't presume the human is now disappointed because this is exactly what I am talking about. The human has the ability to respond in whatever manner they choose. This ability is not practiced very often by many people, but we do have it.

dolphins play with each other in the ocean, its a fact. they communicate and actually do things for their enjoyment.

THEY DO THINGS FOR THEIR ENJOYMENT...your words! Again acting of the strongest desire. When that dolphins hunger starts to outway its need for enjoyment it will go eat.

thats where humans thinking they are so high and mighty and everything else is just a lowly animal. we as humans dont even understand our brains full capabilities let alone every animals out there. im not saying other animals are little enstinens running around that just cant talk to us, but it doesnt mean they are just mindless drones messing about.

Who said anything about being high and mighty. Regardless, maybe we are high and mighty. This doesn't mean we are more important, simply that we have more responsibilities in the hierarchy of life. Understanding our nature will allow us to understand our responsibilities and take responsibility for those responsibilities.

SHEM HETEP

[Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster]

Wbat about dogs who jump into rivers or burning buildings to save their owners, going against the basic instinct for survival?

I am not arguing that humans do or do not have free will.

However, I am arguing that, essentially, every decision a human makes is based on some form of gratification.

Buddhist monks deny themselves and focus their thoughts and energy...But is it not essentially because they WANT to? If they didn't want to "achieve enlightenment" or "gain self-awareness" they wouldn't do it.

Different innate and external factors guide what gratification is for different people, and all people act accordingly.

Lucid said he put himself into various situations just to take himself out of his comfort zone......so?

He is only doing that because he WANTS to. That makes him feel that he is maximizing his existence. That is fine, but he is still an animal seeking gratification.

Whether someone wants to fuck, eat ribs, and listen to Kingpin Skinny Pimp or become intensely spiritual, the bottom line is that they are acting on their desire for gratification.

The only difference is that humans, as animals, have the most advanced brains.

[Mumm Ra]

that dog obviously has a very strong EMOTIONAL bond with it's owner - I mean it depends on them for food water and shelter day in and out.
just because someone WILLS themselves to do something, doesn't mean they are seeking gratification from or for it.
and you seem to be replacing the action of WILLING with WANTING thus implying they're seeking some sort of emotion out of it. Every action does not need to be a WANT.
plain and simple: humans can perform actions with absolutely zero emotional attachment involved - if they so choose. Animals cannot.
An animal cannot WILL itself to do something against it's emotions.

also - whether someone gets "gratification" from doing something is solely up to them. Some people do things because it's in line with universal law (if you recognize such a thing). No emotional rewards are sought.

[Face of the Golden Falcon]

^
You raise some good points Dan. I'm gonna try and delve into them a bit later on and see what I can come up with.

Can I just say that with the example of the dog, again, this is not the dog making a choice of free will. It is still acting on a basic instinct. That of loyalty. We all know and have no doubt observed that dogs are extremely loyal animals. Loyal to the point of going against it's basic instinct for survival? Yes, because like other animals, on the hierarchy of instincts, survival of itself is not the most important. Animals, as well as everything else in the universe were made as parts that make up a whole. In fact many "wholes" that make up larger ones and so on to form one. Animals show all the time that they are aware on an instinctual level of the symbiotic relationships that they have with other animals and things.

SHEM HETEP

[Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster]

that dog obviously has a very strong EMOTIONAL bond with it's owner - I mean it depends on them for food water and shelter day in and out.
just because someone WILLS themselves to do something, doesn't mean they are seeking gratification from or for it.
and you seem to be replacing the action of WILLING with WANTING thus implying they're seeking some sort of emotion out of it. Every action does not need to be a WANT.
plain and simple: humans can perform actions with absolutely zero emotional attachment involved - if they so choose. Animals cannot.
An animal cannot WILL itself to do something against it's emotions.

also - whether someone gets "gratification" from doing something is solely up to them. Some people do things because it's in line with universal law (if you recognize such a thing). No emotional rewards are sought.

You are getting into semantics here. I did not misuse any words. I used the word "GRATIFICATION" because I meant "GRATIFICATION".

Gratification can be physical, spiritual, emotional...anything. And every action people take is a result of seeking gratification.

Now, exactly what constitutes gratification can vary greatly from human to human...but the same can be said for animals. Different animals have different dispositions. Some love to play fetch. Some like to nap...

As far as your use of the words "willing" and "wanting", people will themselves to do things only because, on some level, they WANT to.

If you believe in universal law, and Im not saying that I don't, you behave in a fashion that you feel is in with it, then you are doing what you FEEL is "right", thus GRATIFYING yourself, doing what you WANT to do, regardless of your motivations or reasoning, which again, will differ from person to person.

[Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster]

^
You raise some good points Dan. I'm gonna try and delve into them a bit later on and see what I can come up with.

Can I just say that with the example of the dog, again, this is not the dog making a choice of free will. It is still acting on a basic instinct. That of loyalty. We all know and have no doubt observed that dogs are extremely loyal animals. Loyal to the point of going against it's basic instinct for survival? Yes, because like other animals, on the hierarchy of instincts, survival of itself is not the most important. Animals, as well as everything else in the universe were made as parts that make up a whole. In fact many "wholes" that make up larger ones and so on to form one. Animals show all the time that they are aware on an instinctual level of the symbiotic relationships that they have with other animals and things.

SHEM HETEP

Interesting thoughts.

Also, be reminded that I am not saying that humans do or do not have free will, as I feel that it is almost too difficult to define.

I am saying that, in my opinion, nothing separates man from other animals on a cosmic or spiritual level.

But perhaps the fact that man has a more evolved and complex brain allows him to be more "in tune" with these hypothetical spiritual and cosmic forces that guide "the many wholes" that make up the universe that may or may not exist?

Again, I do not claim to have a definitive answer, or that my views are "more valid" than anyone else's. I just think it is important to consider all sides

As far as spirituality, "god", and universal truths, I, personally, and complete unsure of exactly what I believe.

[Mumm Ra]

You are getting into semantics here. I did not misuse any words. I used the word "GRATIFICATION" because I meant "GRATIFICATION".

Gratification can be physical, spiritual, emotional...anything. And every action people take is a result of seeking gratification.

I would say ultimately everybody is seeking PEACE. This I couldn't deny. Spiritually speaking I don't see the state of ultimate peace as any emotion, or dependent on any material thing - but I (briefly) see it as the source/state of which all things came so everything seeks to bring themselves to the oneness of that state.
BUT
I don't think you can compare spirituality (especially when u know nothing of it) which can be seen as the returning of consciousness to this state of unassailable calmness (Zen/ Hetep/ Peace/ Nirvana) that is not dependent on any external thing - with the gratifying of desires and emotional drives that depends on externals that are under very limited control of the individual.

And when you talk about gratification - yes 99% of people seek that PEACE by gratifying the external stimuli that caused the disequilibrium of energy (tension) - but it's obvious to see this mode of going about life is not very reliable, and is seen as animalistic. I like to think this is what Wu-Tang is talking about when they say savages in pursuit of happiness....

If you believe in universal law, and Im not saying that I don't, you behave in a fashion that you feel is in with it, then you are doing what you FEEL is "right", thus GRATIFYING yourself, doing what you WANT to do, regardless of your motivations or reasoning, which again, will differ from person to person.

I don't want to go too far into that because there is no way we could agree - but if you recognize universal law there is no FEELING that you are right. It is law. So that quote is null and void imo.

I am saying that, in my opinion, nothing separates man from other animals on a cosmic or spiritual level.

But perhaps the fact that man has a more evolved and complex brain allows him to be more "in tune" with these hypothetical spiritual and cosmic forces that guide "the many wholes" that make up the universe that may or may not exist?

again I cant change your mind of whether such things are hypothetical or not....
but if they ARE true - wouldn't those qualities of man, being the only being to be in touch with such things, separate him on a spiritual level from all other creatures?? And wouldn't it allow him to act according to (or against!) these cosmic forces, UNLIKE AN ANIMAL that has no choice?

and remember I never would say I am SUPERIOR to an animal - rather I think they are infused with the same spirit all other things including I or a rock have. But it's more of a form and function thing. God is all things - humans just have the greatest capacity of expression of "god". Some happen to disregard their capacity and act like animals.

[Mumm Ra]

As far as your use of the words "willing" and "wanting", people will themselves to do things only because, on some level, they WANT to.

also -
I still don't see how the wanting to will something has to equate with seeking gratification 100% of the time. Maybe I'm missing something I dunno - I've lost a lot of brain cells as a young adult.
I mean, if we couldn't "want" to will something - there would be no action! A will without a force to manifest it is nothing.
So yes, obviously all people want to manifest their will. But their mode of wanting does not have to be in the form of satisfying an urge.
& so I still think the "want" in this context is totally different from a "want" stemming from gratification.
I could want to will myself to perform a completely selfless action, void of all emotion, and not be seeking to gratify any aspect of my being.

[Uncle Steezo]

bump.

[Mumm Ra]

hmm i remember this - this was fun hehe
always strange reading your thoughts from a year ago