Education is very important to me. I think it actually makes people better. I think it's one of the few hopes humanity has. But I was thinking about another side the other day while studying from my Database Processing text book.

This book is dry as hell and a lot of people in my class have trouble reading it. You know, full of information you only hope you'd never have to learn. But I am learning it anyway. And somehow, I'm reading and understanding the concepts and key ideas with ease. Why? It's certainly not an innate ability. Oh that's right, I've learned how to read stuff like this in my last two years of high school, doing the cisco curriculum, whose material is the most painfully tedious stuff you can study. It will seriously make you cry.

But why am I subjecting myself to this shit? (palindrome intended) I guess you could say that I'm delaying gratification, enduring the pain, whatever, because I know that it's ultimately worth it. In fact, that is why I'm doing it. But I'm also doing something else. I'm conforming. I'm volunteering my brain to the author of the book, David Kroenke, and letting him alter my internet of neurons. Freedom of thought is the only freedom I have and I'm thoughtlessly hand it over. His unwanted thoughts are reproducing themselves in thousands of students everywhere. If they can get me to do this, I wonder what they'll have me doing next, now that they have their foot in the door.

Did you want to talk about something or just get that off your chest? You didn’t really give anyone a place to jump in, you didn’t ask a question or give an opinion to be opposed. I don’t get it.

((Apendaprew)))...right, if you were one of my students (i'm no teacher though), you'd impress me with your insights!

Of course, in so-called edcucation we ARe being indoctrinated, make no mistake.
We are being 'fit in' to the prevailing paradigm. Based on science it claims Nature is 'dead' and that we are merely biochemical machines and consumers (check out 'Edward Bernays "the manufacturing of consent" and Thomas Szasz).......

So, yeah, when we read the literature they assign to us on the curriculum is designed to 'form' your opinion. All of it is orthodox. you wont find much heretical shit!

you are to be a good student, but hard--so as to cope with the brutal business world. to make profit and to consume consume consume, and not to question ...ESPECIALLY the prevailing paradigm

Freedom of thought can never be taken away. If you allow your mind to be conformed to any given idea, realize that it is your allowance of it, and therefore your freedom in allowing it that is making it happen. If your thoughts are conformed, it is done so by free choice, and your free thought remains. Although, I can think of a few instances in which free though, and free will are taken away, for short periods. Instances like, drunkenness, or any moments of delirium are such cases. ;)

Uhhh.... dry? A Database Processing text?? Imagine that!
Anyways.... no, you're not conforming. The information you're taking in isn't simply being etched onto your brain; you are actively processing it. The 'raw data', so to speak, is not merely being transferred. It is also being rewritten, transliterated into your system. When you read something, regardless of its nature, part of you changes it, for good or ill. What is really happening here, is that the information is being conformed.
:-)
Niiice.

Usually when I'm studying, I liken it to a game of tetris. First, you pick out the information, analyze it, see where it fits in with your existing schema, and plug that sucka in.

Thanks, Glaucon, I know what you mean, but some information isn't malleable enough to conform. You gotta do that for it, which requires thinking in a different way. HIS way. But it's not really his way of thinking. It's the standard way of thinking, which is ruthlessly logical. After a while, it becomes my way of thinking.

palindrome intended

Am I just dumb or is there not one in your paragraph?

this shit

For a little while, I did my best to try to contradict what I read as I went along. It's tough. I get a little afraid that my education will indoctrinate me and I'll lose my individuality. You see it happen to all sorts of people. Everyone, naturally, has to think that their field is correct. They become blind to flaws in it. You see in psychology, economics(how many socialists come out of University of Chicago?), and plenty of other stuff. Sometimes it takes outsiders to come up with really innovative, creative stuff.

I've opened my mind up now. It makes learning easier, but it's best to stay skeptical and independent. At the moment, I've got a socialist Sociology prof.(big surprise), feminist History teacher, Buddhist Political Science prof, and Kantian philosophy teacher. Nothing wrong with any of that, but they put their obvious spins on the information. So do the texts that I read.

What's interesting here is that noone has yet to mention the fact that there is no such thing as information without bias.
The question is, can you see the information behind the bias?

There may be no information without bias; the question is whether the degree of bias is something that should be endorsed, regardless of the "good" views espoused by say, Marxists in an English department.

Although, I can think of a few instances in which free though, and free will are taken away, for short periods. Instances like, drunkenness, or any moments of delirium are such cases.

Weird how the relinquishment of free will can have the effect of making you feel free. An example, getting drunk will make you free to say things you ordinarily wouldn't.

Wait a second. Could you explain why drunkeness and delirium would have the effect of taking away free will?

Further, can you explain why the concept of free will is a religious and not scientific construct?

apendrapew,

I suppose to answer your question I might need to clarify what is meant by "free will." The will (free or otherwise) is the attraction for a thing to act in a given way (a very simplistic definition, I know). A non-free will is attracted to act in given was by virtue of its nature. That is, it acts the way it does because that is how it was designed to. Therefore, anything that may act in a way contrary to its design may be said to have free will. However, what is this action based upon? If it is a forced action, then it cannot be said to be free. What about if it is an unconscious action? I think this is the crux of the meaning of free will. If one is unconscious, can he be said to be acting freely? I think not. Ergo, free will can only be had by the conscious mind. Furthermore, that conscious mind must be rational, and able to choose between possible actions. Anything that acts upon instinct, without making a rational decision (even making the decision to "follow that instinct") may not be said to be acting freely, or freely willing that action.

So, what is free will? As far as I can tell, free will is the attraction of a conscious entity toward a given action based upon its rationally choosing it.

SO, why would drunkenness and delirium constitute occasions of lacking of free will? It is simple. When one is in a state of delirium, or drunkenness, rationality (and even perhaps consciousness) aren't entirely in order. Therefore, one may be said to be acting out of a state of irrationality when in such states, and hence not freely choosing the actions that they do. One may experience a sense of freedom while in such states, but freedom from what? I would say that the freedom experienced does not pertain to will, but rather other things, such as freedom from pretensions, or freedom from prejudgements, etc...

neoclassical,

Why should I explain something I never claimed? Free will is a concept held by many religious people, and theologians. Free will is also a concept held by many philosophers. Free will may also be a concept held by science. I am an advocate of non-contradiction between the various fields of study. Therefore, free will may be a religious concept as well as a scientific construct. If so, I believe that it is a bridge that may help to close the gap between the two truth-seeking functions. I call them truth-seeking functions because each seeks truth in its own way, one logically, one intuitively, each being a separate function of the brain.

This book, Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm) may be of interest in the "free will" debate.

Therefore, anything that may act in a way contrary to its design may be said to have free will.

A person suffering from delirium certainly isn't acting according to his design, but isn't acting out of free will either. But your statement can easily be fixed. Therefore, anything that may act in a way contrary to its design and learned behaviors may be said to have free will.

This shit- a palindrome.
Nice.

I'm volunteering my brain to the author of the book, David Kroenke, and letting him alter my internet of neurons. Freedom of thought is the only freedom I have and I'm thoughtlessly hand it over.
Freedom of thought so easily 'handed over' was no freedom at all- you've always been owned.

To wit- your future is your jail cell. Good Luck!

Edit:
Neoclassical:
Further, can you explain why the concept of free will is a religious and not scientific construct?
'cuase religion has cooties.

This shit- a palindrome.
Nice.

I know. Terrible. I think I've become dyslexic in college.