Are We Free Or Just Manipulated

[Harbringe]

We all like to think we are self aware free beings but there are those who know that freedom is just a perception and are very skilled at the manipulation of those perceptions . Some call the people who work such manipulations the Illuminati or the New World Order and what or who they may be or be called we all have this sense in this day and age that things are being done despite what we would choose or wish .
The following video lays forth a case that we are not free and shows how the tools of manipulation are used . It will blow your mind , so after it does ask yourself do you feel your free or manipulated .

 

[Vagrant0]

I would say that the answer to the question really depends on what level you are talking about.

 

On the Micro level, we make most of our own choices and are free to conduct our own lives as we each see fit within the limits of our own physical, social, or economic domains.

 

On the Macro level, there are forces at work in the world (just as there always have been) who sway our opinions with words or actions but which usually has little effect on the Micro level beyond changing the extent of the domains which are open to us.

 

Beyond that, it doesn't really matter what you call those forces at work on the Macro level since they are likely all trying to maintain power over their own relative spheres or expanding their own influence into other spheres. Additionally, it is also likely that these groups are well aware of what conspiracy groups are out there, know what information to fabricate or leak, and how to pull the right strings so that these groups still manage to serve their purpose.

 

 

Except... If there really were people controlling things from behind the curtain, dictating the course of human history, or whatever... You'd expect that any group with that much power, who has been doing it for as long as they supposedly have, would simply be doing a better job.

[HeyYou]

I would say that the answer to the question really depends on what level you are talking about.

 

On the Micro level, we make most of our own choices and are free to conduct our own lives as we each see fit within the limits of our own physical, social, or economic domains.

 

On the Macro level, there are forces at work in the world (just as there always have been) who sway our opinions with words or actions but which usually has little effect on the Micro level beyond changing the extent of the domains which are open to us.

 

Beyond that, it doesn't really matter what you call those forces at work on the Macro level since they are likely all trying to maintain power over their own relative spheres or expanding their own influence into other spheres. Additionally, it is also likely that these groups are well aware of what conspiracy groups are out there, know what information to fabricate or leak, and how to pull the right strings so that these groups still manage to serve their purpose.

 

 

Except... If there really were people controlling things from behind the curtain, dictating the course of human history, or whatever... You'd expect that any group with that much power, who has been doing it for as long as they supposedly have, would simply be doing a better job.

That would depend on what their motivations were. A good world war is useful for population control after all.

[KakeiTheWolf]

The concept of free will and action is a complex paradox: we both have and do not have it.

 

On one hand, there is technical free will. No such thing as coercion exists, even if physical elements force us into action. We cannot be forced to do something of our own volition, it is a choice on either the conscious or subconscious level (rarely the superconscious). Merely, there are convincing arguments. If you hold a gun to a man's head and tell him to do something, you do not guarantee cooperation. The man can choose to say no, and forfeit his life. You only presented a convincing argument; you can lead a horse to water but you can not force it to drink. In this, we have free will, that we can choose to do as we wish and think as we wish; our thoughts are our own.

 

On the other hand, we don't have free will, really. Everything is predeterministic; given the same information and stimuli in any iteration of simulations, we will always make the same choice, as our brain is wired to reach conclusions based on information, stimuli, and evidence, and duplicate circumstances produce duplicate results. For example, say a man is walking down a sidewalka, and is stopped by a man, showing definitive proof that five minutes later, the man will cross the street and will be killed by a car that will run into him. This particular man is wired with survival responses that mean that he will stop at that street crossing until the car pass. Were he not given this information, he'd go about his immutable day plan, and he would be run over, because nothing would tell him not to cross. Now, if he stops, a different person will cross, and they will die in his place. Given the information, this would always happen. Our brains lack, in the truest sense, spontaneity; they only respond to information and direction. In a predeterministic world of reductionist order, this is an inevitability.

 

Are we free? Yes, because we have volition. Are we manipulated? Yes, because we don't define the natures of our hard-wired brains.

[Vagrant0]

 

That would depend on what their motivations were. A good world war is useful for population control after all.

 

Actually, not so much... Atleast not in the modern era. Maybe once upon a time when the death toll of a single battle was well over 20,000 it worked well as a population control, but with modern weapons, machines, armor, fewer combatants actually end up dying. Meanwhile what you have instead is a much greater cost for the conflict, more destruction to buildings and cultures, and on almost all accounts are worse off than when you started.

 

Meaning that if we suppose that there is some group of controlling bodies out there, the only war which makes any sense fighting is one which goes against those groups' collective interests.

[WarRatsG]

There are many ways to interpret free will. There's a story about a man who acquired paedophilic tendencies as a tumour in his brain developed, which were entirely out of character considering he had been happily married for decades - following surgery these thoughts disappeared with the tumour.

 

In my mind, free will can be seen in 2 ways: subjective or objective.

So one can interpret free will in the Sartre philosophy, humans being "condemned to freedom". Choice is neither a pre-requisite nor outcome of existence; rather existence is freedom. At any time we are free to choose or not choose between infinite options, instant to instant.

Or, one can look at free will as just another factor in our decision making process, a mere step in the many interweaving algorithms that make up who we are. Given the exact same initial conditions, the outcome will also be the exact same - in the same way, the level of restriction and coercion can be looked at as simply another of those conditions.

 

In the subjective sense, free will exists and is always infinite. Even under coercion or physical restraint, you can still make choices as to your intent. Whether or not you can actually carry out your will on the world is irrelevant. The only limitations of what options you have are the ones you place on yourself.

In the objective sense, it does and it doesn't exist. Since decisions can be interpreted as what is essentially an equation, with each input giving a specific output, then any choice you make is basically predetermined. You aren't really choosing, just processing. However this equation is made up from many variables, most of which can be influenced by our experience. As such the equation, and thus our decisions, can be manipulated.

 

 

Personally, I feel that these 2 ideas aren't mutually exclusive. I believe in free will, and I believe that our decisions are the sum of all the choices ever made by everyone everywhere.

[HeyYou]

There are many ways to interpret free will. There's a story about a man who acquired paedophilic tendencies as a tumour in his brain developed, which were entirely out of character considering he had been happily married for decades - following surgery these thoughts disappeared with the tumour.

 

In my mind, free will can be seen in 2 ways: subjective or objective.

So one can interpret free will in the Sartre philosophy, humans being "condemned to freedom". Choice is neither a pre-requisite nor outcome of existence; rather existence is freedom. At any time we are free to choose or not choose between infinite options, instant to instant.

Or, one can look at free will as just another factor in our decision making process, a mere step in the many interweaving algorithms that make up who we are. Given the exact same initial conditions, the outcome will also be the exact same - in the same way, the level of restriction and coercion can be looked at as simply another of those conditions.

 

In the subjective sense, free will exists and is always infinite. Even under coercion or physical restraint, you can still make choices as to your intent. Whether or not you can actually carry out your will on the world is irrelevant. The only limitations of what options you have are the ones you place on yourself.

In the objective sense, it does and it doesn't exist. Since decisions can be interpreted as what is essentially an equation, with each input giving a specific output, then any choice you make is basically predetermined. You aren't really choosing, just processing. However this equation is made up from many variables, most of which can be influenced by our experience. As such the equation, and thus our decisions, can be manipulated.

 

 

Personally, I feel that these 2 ideas aren't mutually exclusive. I believe in free will, and I believe that our decisions are the sum of all the choices ever made by everyone everywhere.

I don't think that is necessarily the case...... Given the circumstance: I need to go to work. Under your supposition, I would drive the exact same route every day. Now, more often than not, yes, that would more than likely be the case, but, what if I am tired of that particular bit of scenery one day? I would take a different route......

 

There are many permutations of any given situation, where we can exercise choice. Someones MOOD would be sufficient to alter their response.

[Harbringe]

I would say that the answer to the question really depends on what level you are talking about.

 

On the Micro level, we make most of our own choices and are free to conduct our own lives as we each see fit within the limits of our own physical, social, or economic domains.

 

On the Macro level, there are forces at work in the world (just as there always have been) who sway our opinions with words or actions but which usually has little effect on the Micro level beyond changing the extent of the domains which are open to us.

 

 

The whole point of the experiments shown in the video (many which were micro level) was to show how those things learned in the micro sense could be utilized to acheive macro purposes . In Walter Littmans book the whole purpose of manufacturing consent is about manipulating the micro to acheive the macro , it had one caveat that those who were being manipulated could not be aware that consent was being manufactured for them. Edward Bernays a psychoanalyst who came up with the WW1 slogan of "Making the World Safe for Democracy" came to that by studying Americans on a micro level , determining what it was that made them tick individually , what it was they would respond to and about 90 years later those same determinations and methodogies (Spreading Democracy "Edward Bernay's') mixed with the fear tactics of George Creel (Murderous dictator , WMD's) were employed in the lead up to the second Iraq war. In fact these very forums and no doubt on occassion you yourself had to deal with the fallout from these manipulations . I joined these forums in the fall of 2010 and despite reports as early as 2006 that there were no WMD's , despite US media admitting they dropped the ball on the whole WMD issue (cause there were none) , and finally despite the very politicians like Blair/Bush/Powell admitting there were no WMD's (claiming faulty intel) which we now know in some cases were outright lies , despite all this we still had people on these very forums vehemently defending the position that there were WMD's as late as 2011/12 . So were these people acting out in a micro sense or macro sense , were they free or were they manipulated and is there really that much of a disconnect between the micro and the macro as you seem to imply.

 

After all the purpose of manufacturing consent is to make it appear (perception) that the consent is of the individuals (micro) making and that they are to be unaware that it has been manufactured for them . For you to make that disconnect between the macro and micro says that its working.

 

There is an old saying "the best slave to own is the one who does not know he is a slave" and from everything thing I am seeing about the world we live in , it seems those in power are taking that maxim to heart and are actively seeking the means of employing it.

[Ghogiel]

Depending on your definition of free will, eg being able to consciously make a decision free from determinism. Besides it being physically impossible it's also physiologically so too. It's something else besides conscious mind that is calling all your shots. It just feels like you are making decisions but it's already happened before you are consciously aware of it. Without even getting into determinism you're about as able to ever make a conscious decision as you are to will your heart to keep beating during a heart attack.

[WarRatsG]

 

Given the exact same initial conditions, the outcome will also be the exact same - in the same way, the level of restriction and coercion can be looked at as simply another of those conditions.

I don't think that is necessarily the case...... Given the circumstance: I need to go to work. Under your supposition, I would drive the exact same route every day. Now, more often than not, yes, that would more than likely be the case, but, what if I am tired of that particular bit of scenery one day? I would take a different route......

 

There are many permutations of any given situation, where we can exercise choice. Someones MOOD would be sufficient to alter their response.

 

I get where you're coming from. That said, when I say the exact same conditions I mean it in the most literal sense - ie no additional experience since previously making a decision. Obviously this is entirely hypothetical because it would require a "rewind" sort of time travel, but if you did rewind someone and they lost their memory of all future events, they would repeat their decisions exactly. I agree that mood is a factor. Everything is. Anything you can perceive or have ever perceived is a factor, whether it originates internally or externally.