Do Humans Really Have Free Will Or Free Choice?

November 26-2006


Do Humans Really Have A Choice Or Free Will? OR Why Do They Choose What They Choose?


I think humans do not have FREE WILL in a practical sense. What we have is really a choice, which may or may not be a free one at any given time.

Let me explain.

A new born baby comes into this world devoid of what society perceives as right or wrong.

He or she sees a lighted candle, and innocently via curiosity, reaches out to touch this candle or flame. Then he or she gets burned.

This experience is now filed away in the mind for future reference un-consciously.

So the next time that child or baby sees a lighted candle, he or she is less inclined to touch the flame, less he or she be burned once again!

This to my mind is "FREE CHOICE," based on some prior or learned experience.

Now Free Will is another factor that humans claim to have, but is simply the influences that the brain absorbs mentally. And files away these thoughts, observations, and personal experiences, and provides us with this data when the need arises, to act in any given situation.

For example:
A shackled slave cannot escape that situation easily without assistance from another slave, or some other person.

Nor can this slave 'Will' his or her freedom either!

These desires, have to be realized through actual removal from that situation physically.

Or escape from that situation physically.
And after so doing, the slave must feel that he or she is now free of that situation!

This to my mind is truly (Free Choice)!

Derryck S. Griffith.
New YorK City.
http://my.opera.com/BringBaka/
http://360.yahoo.com/derryck_sylvester
http://www.myspace.com/derryck_mimbari
http://www.hoverspot.com/Derryck-Mimbari
http://www.hoverspot.com/DerryckGriffith
http://thethingsthatmatter.blogspot.com/

I Smoked-But I Did Not Inhale:

Here is another one of those!

I SMOKED-BUT I DID'NT INHALE:


Rev. Ted Haggard admitted yesterday that he had summoned the escort to give him a massage in a Denver hotel room and bought methamphetamine from him.

But Mr. Haggard, one of the nation’s leading evangelical ministers, maintained that the two men never had sex and that he threw out the drugs without using them.

"I never kept it very long because it was wrong," Mr. Haggard said, smiling grimly and submitting to questions from a television reporter as he pulled out of his driveway yesterday, his wife, Gayle, silent in the passenger seat. "I was tempted, I bought it, but I never used it."

Derryck.

Freedom Of Speech Explained!

July 03-2006:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH:

Freedom Of Speech Defined:
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. And notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The US Constitution:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that:

* Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"):
* Prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"):
* Infringe the freedom of speech:
* Infringe the freedom of the press:
* Limit the right to assemble peaceably:
* Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Some Positive Aspects Of Free Speech:

* Admiration:
* Encouragement:
* Patriotism:
* Freedom Of The Press-Religions & Individual:
* Judicial:

Some Negative Aspects Of Free Speech:

* Name Calling:
* Insulting:
* Blackmail:
* Inflammatory:
* Inciting:
* Non-judicial:
* Dictatorship:

Why Do I Need Permission To Speak Freely?

Words like actions can evoke or induce acts or actions, that can be harmful or pleasant for the intended victim or persons communicated to. Without certain precautions or guidelines, free speech can be devastating to many, especially those to whom such intent was directed.

Governments with their established political apparatus over the centuries, have been able to control, limit, and direct the media, the commonweal, and other institutions on the preferred content of certain communications to the masses.

And the masses have also been dis-allowed in many instances, from voicing their concerns to the state, the government, and the political elected or appointed. Agitating for social-political and economic changes are considered political and radical issues in many political and cultural systems. So controls are legislated, or implemented to prohibit the volume, some sources, and frustrate those who use this means to get their messages across the political spectrum.

Others have also used the media to defame, blackmail, or indulge in libelous comments (vocally-directly, and indirectly) at their victims, inducing grievous psychological and mental injury to their victims. That is why legislation is necessary to stipulate what is acceptable speech at Public forums, the Media, and Press.

How Could We Safeguard Free Speech?

Safe-guarding free speech is an ongoing struggle in several cultures, especially those where free speech was never historically allowed. And encouraging the masses to agitate for legislation for the right to 'Free Speech' publicly, via the media and the Internet, is still dangerous in countries like China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and some or most Islamic countries, and dictatorships.

But in the political democracies of the western hemisphere, this right is less challenged. Even though with the arrival of the Internet, this new technological divide that brings cultures the world over, much closer is seen by many politicians as harmful.

Some strive to limit access, or prevent the free exploration of this technology. While some Internet providers are assisting the state with requests for information about their clientele, thus creating fear for confidentiality.

Derryck S. Griffith.
Educator-Advocate & Blogger.