In another thread I have mentioned how years ago it occurred to me that a fundamental attribute of self-animated life forms was the desire for self-determination.
I considered it at the time and even now as being our most driving force and primary motivator in all that we do and learn.

It is the purpose of this thread to test certain loosely held postulates concerning self-determinism.

1] That: the degree of self-determinism determines the degree of personal freedom.
That the greater ability we have to determine our own action the greater our sense of personal freedom is. [Thus degree of free-will]
2] That: the self-determinism of others automatically impacts on our freedom by default.
A negative example: A building is built by someone self-determined to build it. This building obstructs access to other self-determined beings to the land that the building was built on. Thus the self-determined actions of others can restrict the freedom of others.
A positive example: This computer I am using is the product of someone else’s self- determination and has enhanced my ability to express my self-determination thus providing tools that empower my self-determination.

3] That: self-determination is a “right” as such given by a natural necessity of all life forms. Not a “right” given by others but a “right” achieved purely by being existent.
It is there fore not a right that can be removed or otherwise mitigated by others but only hindered or obstructed, or enhanced.

In a pseudo religious context, the book of Genesis talks of the taking of an apple in the Garden of Eden from the forbidden tree of knowledge by Adam and Eve. Against Gods wishes it could be said that Adam and Eve asserted their birth right of self-determination by declining to follow Gods requirement that they not eat from the tree.

It could be said that it was their self-determination that provided the motivation to eat the apple. That by eating from the tree Adam and Eve gained a greater ability to determine their own individual futures even though it came at a cost.

So it could be suggested that the desire for self-determination is what separates humanity from God. So is it any wonder that the Church has been strong in it’s attempts to control the population with it’s dogma and conditioning? Attempting to reign in humanities quest for self-determination.
That is our fundamental nature to pursue self determination instinctively, that it is our biological necessity, that by our very physical nature we are separated form the God of most mono thiestic religions. That religion was created to control our rampant desire for self- determination.

The main question I wanted to ask and hopefully see discussion on is :

Is self-determination a naturally driven birthright or a subjectively conditioned right?
Is it actually possible to oppress self-determination so that it is no longer evident in people in any way?
History would indicate that oppression of self determination ultimately leads to revolution and war. Is self-determination a fundamental attribute of all self inspired animated life forms that exists beyond conditioning?
Care to discuss?

Quantum Quack:

Are you basing this argument on actual free-will, or just the assumption that we can actually be free, regardless of whether we can or cannot?

Possibly I may have confused by not being more specific.
Self determination itself is not so much a right of birth but the deisre to pursue it is.
Freedom is only achieved by pursuing it and is not an innate given nor is it ever an absolute.

An individuals pursuit of self determination [ freedom ] is inherant in all self animated lifeforms.

Yes, but once again: Does this imply a libertarian conception of free-will? Or can it work within a deterministic system?

Yes, but once again: Does this imply a libertarian conception of free-will? Or can it work within a deterministic system?

Ahh! I see...

Yes I am using a fully detrministic setting as a backdrop to my question.

For example:
The body we are born with is determined by genetics and later to conditioning.
The house we live in was built by some one elses expression of his self determination which ws in turn determined by others etc etc...

So self-determination is only existant in a sea of determinism.

In a way I guess I am approaching the issue of free-will from a deterministic perspective.
We have a fully determined existance.
We achieve our freewill by self determining as much of the determined existance as possible.
It is our quest for self determination that is actually a quest for free will or freedom of choice.
We are born with out choice as babies our existance is fully determined by our dependancy on our parents and society. As we age we achieve a greater ability to determine our own future thus our own present.

At no times is free will [in absolute] evident however a degree of self determination is.

So rather than confront directly the issue of free-will I am attemting to understand the desire for freewill. [self determination]

So self-determination is only existant in a sea of determinism.
Self-determinism is NONexistant in a sea of determinism.

Self-determinism is NONexistant in a sea of determinism.
care to elaborate?

A determinist system is, by definition, devoid of free will.
Everything you will do has been determined by the laws of the universe and by the actions of those around you and before you.
Without free will, how do you have self-determination?
If it IS truly a strictly determinist system (which I do not believe) then self-determination is an illusion at best, and even that illusion was determined by your surroundings as there is no such thing as actual thought.

By very definition, the two can not co-exist.

A determinist system is, by definition, devoid of free will.
Everything you will do has been determined by the laws of the universe and by the actions of those around you and before you.
Without free will, how do you have self-determination?
If it IS truly a strictly determinist system (which I do not believe) then self-determination is an illusion at best, and even that illusion was determined by your surroundings as there is no such thing as actual thought.

By very definition, the two can not co-exist.
actually I agree with what you are saying One_Raven.
The thread is not attempting to argue that self determination equates with free-will but actually equates with a degree of freedom. I am treating the two concepts a separate issues.

It is also true I think that my own self determination effects someone elses and so on.....self determination meaning choices that I make regardless of the conditioning that has promoted those choices. The decisions do remain mine even if they are a part of a determnistic picture.

I am contending that it is inherant within all self-animated lifeforms to pursue as much self determination as they can. Even if agreeing to live in a determined environment like a society etc they still do so by choice and acceptance of the degree of freedom they appear to have.

So in a sense self detrmination is a pseudo free-will and not actually a free-will.

For example I choose for various reasons of conditioning to take a walk to the local shopping center. To buy food which is also a biological necessity.

I choose to travel down a foot path that was placed there by the determination of a local government. I choose to use their determination as a way of getting to the shops. I could have driven a car that was designed by someone else and paid for by the money I earned whilst also working for someone elses determination on a road that was constructed and goverened by the determination of others.

As I walk along this path another person is coming in the other direction and decides to block my way for reasons that are malicious. I determine my course of response and promptly leave the path and pass him on the median strip [ grass verge ]. and so on and so on.....

So it is how I determine my reactions to the determinism of others and how much proprietry or self ownership of my decisions that determines the degree of self determination I have, thus the degree of freedom I have.

I don't think anyone, even the most staunch free-will apologist, would argue that your decisions are influenced (a big difference between influenced and determined) by your surroundings. And your surroundings, of course, is influenced by you and others.
Just as the limitations to your freedom is directly dependent upon the limits of freedom of those around you.
I think all of that is clearly inherent in a non-determinist system, and don't take any issue with that at all.

What I did take issue with was what I quoted.
"So self-determination is only existant in a sea of determinism."
I understand the point you were trying to make, that free-will is inherently limited by the effects of the free-will of those around you. What I take issue with, however, is your choice of the word "determinism" in teh statement, because determinism negates free-will. To say we have a determinst system, say that all of our actions are entirely determined by our surroudings, rather than being influenced by them. That is the whole base of the contention between the free-will and determinist camps.
You have one or the other.

Ok I can see where my terms can be causing confusion....

to help clarify let me ask this:

I am driving down a highway and ahead on a straight stretch the police have blocked the road and are forbidding persons from driving on. Is this police decision determining my immediate choices or are they influencing them?
It is true I think that the police have determined that I can no longer go where I wanted to go. Is this considered as influencing my choice of direction or determining my choice of direction?

Influencing.
You can ram the barricade.
You can go elsewhere unspecified (the cop didn't arrest you and take you somewhere against your will - he isn;t telling you where to go, just where not to go)
You can sit there and do nothing.
You didn't have to go down that street that day ANYWAY.
Even if he DID determin your direction (say there was only one other direction to go) he still isn't determining your actions. You can shoot him if you want to. He, along with societies rules, laws and norms (along with many other factors) is influencing your behavior.

Think of it this way...
You are walking through the woods and come to an impassible gulch.
Does that gulch determione your course of action? No.
It influences your course of action by making the path you wanted to take a difficult (or impossible) one. You STILL decide for yourself what to do next, but all your past expereineces and your current physical surroundings limit those choices both realistically and artificially.

But would you say that you have after observing your predicament determined for yourself which action you may take? Even if that decision is influenced by past conditioning and environments?
Could you say that someone else has determined your course of action or are you determining your course of action in that moment?

Assuming that at that moment of decision you are alone?

I would say that I determined my course of action by my own freee-will and self-determination, not without outside influences.

I would say that I determined my course of action by my own freee-will and self-determination, not without outside influences.

Without picking up on the issue of Free-will I agree....

You have self determined by what ever means you have at your disposal your course of action.

Now the question comes back to the topic which is:

Is the desire to self determine our future course of actions inherant with in all self animated life forms. And does our success at doing so determine the degree of freedom we achieve?

Is it mankinds desire to enhance it's ability to determine it's future an inherant birth-given driving force that can not be removed but only oppressed or enhanced?

In my police road block scenario it could be said that they have oppressed my self determination by placing an obstacle in the path of my desire. [ even though they may have done so to protect my best interests - which is unknown to me] Therefore reducing the choices I have to choose from.

Is the desire to self determine our future course of actions inherant with in all self animated life forms.
I don't know nor do I think anyone can know.
People always try and determine what animals are thinking, and they simply can't know.
I mean, it is hard not to anthrompomophosize (sp), of course, but it all empty speculation.

And does our success at doing so determine the degree of freedom we achieve?
Our success at doing what?
Does our success at determining our future course of action determine the freedom we achieve?
Isn't that just saying the same thing twice?
"Does our success in getting laid determine our success in bed?"

Is it mankinds desire to enhance it's ability to determine it's future an inherant birth-given driving force that can not be removed but only oppressed or enhanced?
I'm not so sure.
Properly applied systematic abuse can take a LOT out of a person and different people have different thresholds and levels of resolve.

In my police road block scenario it could be said that they have oppressed my self determination by placing an obstacle in the path of my desire. [ even though they may have done so to protect my best interests - which is unknown to me] Therefore reducing the choices I have to choose from.
I agree.

In another thread I have mentioned how years ago it occurred to me that a fundamental attribute of self-animated life forms was the desire for self-determination.
I considered it at the time and even now as being our most driving force and primary motivator in all that we do and learn.

It is the purpose of this thread to test certain loosely held postulates concerning self-determinism.

1] That: the degree of self-determinism determines the degree of personal freedom.
That the greater ability we have to determine our own action the greater our sense of personal freedom is. [Thus degree of free-will]
2] That: the self-determinism of others automatically impacts on our freedom by default.
A negative example: A building is built by someone self-determined to build it. This building obstructs access to other self-determined beings to the land that the building was built on. Thus the self-determined actions of others can restrict the freedom of others.
A positive example: This computer I am using is the product of someone else’s self- determination and has enhanced my ability to express my self-determination thus providing tools that empower my self-determination.

3] That: self-determination is a “right” as such given by a natural necessity of all life forms. Not a “right” given by others but a “right” achieved purely by being existent.
It is there fore not a right that can be removed or otherwise mitigated by others but only hindered or obstructed, or enhanced.

In a pseudo religious context, the book of Genesis talks of the taking of an apple in the Garden of Eden from the forbidden tree of knowledge by Adam and Eve. Against Gods wishes it could be said that Adam and Eve asserted their birth right of self-determination by declining to follow Gods requirement that they not eat from the tree.

It could be said that it was their self-determination that provided the motivation to eat the apple. That by eating from the tree Adam and Eve gained a greater ability to determine their own individual futures even though it came at a cost.

So it could be suggested that the desire for self-determination is what separates humanity from God. So is it any wonder that the Church has been strong in it’s attempts to control the population with it’s dogma and conditioning? Attempting to reign in humanities quest for self-determination.
That is our fundamental nature to pursue self determination instinctively, that it is our biological necessity, that by our very physical nature we are separated form the God of most mono thiestic religions. That religion was created to control our rampant desire for self- determination.

The main question I wanted to ask and hopefully see discussion on is :

Is self-determination a naturally driven birthright or a subjectively conditioned right?
Is it actually possible to oppress self-determination so that it is no longer evident in people in any way?
History would indicate that oppression of self determination ultimately leads to revolution and war. Is self-determination a fundamental attribute of all self inspired animated life forms that exists beyond conditioning?
Care to discuss?



I don't think this is a productive way of looking at the matter.

As soon as we focus on an individual being and its properties, we are implicitly assuming this being exists separately from other beings. Then we think a little further, and we see that it doesn't really exist all that separately from others, so we come up with a cunundrum like "Each being exists separately, yet non-separated from other beings", which is just a lot of nifty-sounding bollocks, sorry.

The whole problem, as so often, is in how we define the identity of a being.

Well, you know what happens here, just look at the "What does it mean to be human?" thread ...

There was a film I saw recently called "A wrinkle in time" in which it showed a society ruled by "IT" All children in this society were only allowed to bounce a basket ball or any ball at a certain rhythm, any one caught using a different rhythm was detained for re-conditioning. It was of course an exagerated parody on the suppression of freewill. But I would also call it a parody on the oppression of self determination.

I see freewill and self determination as similar but would like to suggest that self determination can exists quite easilly in a deterministic universe where as freewill as such may not.
I guess I am attempting to negoitiate the difficulties of discussing free-will by using self determination instead.

But most importantly which I think is being missed is that it is the DESIRE for self determination that is the focus and not just the self determination itself.

In that we desire to be as self determined as possible.

I see freewill and self determination as similar but would like to suggest that self determination can exists quite easilly in a deterministic universe where as freewill as such may not.
I would like you to explain how that could be.

In a deterministic universe, everything you do is determined for you.
You have no choice in the matter.
Even your thoughts are controlled by everything you see and know, and you have no actual thoughts of your own.
There is no spontaneous actions.

Please explain how self-determination can exist there.

This fully determined universe is also able to be determined by our choices as well.
So the question really boils down to who determines the most.

If I had the power to create a society on a distant planet am I not making a relatviely significant act of determination even if my actions were influenced or determined by my past etc....

This fully determined universe is also able to be determined by our choices as well.
No.
If things were fully determined (strict determinist system) you would have no choices.
That's what makes it determinist.

Quantum Quack,


But most importantly which I think is being missed is that it is the DESIRE for self determination that is the focus and not just the self determination itself.

In that we desire to be as self determined as possible.

... and are constantly frustrated at seeing how the world doesn't really care about us, and neither does our own body care much about our desires (you just can't change the fact that you have to poo every now and then, and that you eventually get into trouble if you eat too much sweets and so on), and moreover, not even our mind cares much about our desires because ever so often, it brings up some old tormenting memories -- all this just at the wrong time! Dang it.

So if we insist on being self-determined, we make a compromise with that which we can change, and that which we cannot. And which is which? This is often imppossible to tell.


As for the desire to be self-determined: Desires aren't reliable. We naturally have desires that come and go. Some of them we think that we MUST satisfy, and when pursuing a desire that we think we MUST satisfy, suffering may occur.

If a person, in order to gain a sense of personal integrity and freedom, is to insist on their desire to be self-determined, if this person will think "I MUST be self-determined", you better prepare a few packs of Prozac for them.

So, to conclude: The first downside of your concept is that the desire for self-determination is not reliable, because it is merely a desire. The second downside is that clinging to a desire will eventually end up in suffering.


I think you are after something else with your concept of self-determination, but this something else is made moot when explained with the concept of self-determination.

This fully determined universe is also able to be determined by our choices as well.

So the question really boils down to who determines the most.

If I had the power to create a society on a distant planet am I not making a relatviely significant act of determination even if my actions were influenced or determined by my past etc....

No. To be able to say who determines the most, you have to know the whole. Which you don't, so talking about majorities or minorities as pointless.

Its only the question and curiousity thats drives us, motiovation and determination are false. You jsut gotta do it like NIKE says which is the best statement of all time. Jsut Do It