Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

clark · 2002-10-25 09:56:48

Nida, what are you trying to prove?

Cindy said:

Men are still the overwhelming majority in decision making, writing up of laws, etc.; tell it to them.

This statement is basically denying the role of women in shaping modern day policies and laws. Women, contray to what you may think, make up 50% of the electorate. They are courted by politicans from both major parties as a constutiency group- i.e. they look to meet the needs of women as a group.

The peace time draft was reinstutited in 1980 under Carter. Do you even know who Carter is?

To expect the benefits of this nation, yet not demand the same right and responsibility to be a part of the defense of the nation that provides your liberty is an insult to you as a woman, and a glaring inequality to me as a man. Why are you, or Cindy, or any other woman satisfied with being told that you cannot do this thing? It says you are weak, and a shrug to me telling me to take it to the men who instutited the system is evidence that you simply do not care about the obviouys inequality. So why should I or any other man care about the inequalities you suffer?

Woman were allowed to step up to the plate the day they were given the right to vote. They have protection to exercise this right (granted by the 19th ammendment) under the 14th amendment. So I fail to see how women are being "kept down".

This whole victimization attitude undermines the womans movement- you have rights, act on them- otherwise, be greatful for what the enlightened men give you.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-25 15:35:15

The mind is what the brain does.
Prove it. You have your theories, others have theirs. The issue is not so open and closed as you are suggesting.

Clark:

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (F-MRI) scans of peoples' brains are revealing more and more details about how our brains work. Researchers give people different mental tasks to perform during the scans and researchers are thereby able to determine which brain regions are involved in processing those tasks. This research is leaving less and less room for the proposition that the human mind is a supernatural or metaphysical entity. Eventually, the proposition that "the mind is what the brain does" will seem like something that has always been an accepted truth, and the concept of the soul be regarded as a historical curiosity.

And science marches on... And sometimes science steps on people's toes and cherished beliefs. Sorry.

Scott

clark · 2002-10-25 16:08:47

Researchers give people different mental tasks to perform during the scans and researchers are thereby able to determine which brain regions are involved in processing those tasks.

How does mapping which portions of the brain are utilized to process information establsih that our "mind" is merely a function of our brain? How does this research account for the effect of focused consious cognition in remapping neural pathways?

This research is leaving less and less room for the proposition that the human
mind is a supernatural or metaphysical entity.

Then it obviously should be able to determine how the electrical impulses within the brain begin, and it should also be able to reinstutite electrical activity within the brain to get it functioning if it ceases for some reason. Can it? Has it?

Where does intital electrical impulses begin? How are they generated? How are they continusoly generated? What controls the modulation of the electrical impulses?

The mapping of the human mind will lead us to understand what effect certain neural pathways have on our perception and how we think- but you are suggesting that it is determing where thought originates from. I don't see the evidence.

Eventually, the proposition that "the mind is what the brain does" will seem like something that has always been an accepted truth, and the concept of the soul be regarded as a historical curiosity.

Spoken like a true behaviorist- still questing for their grail.

Please explain how this research accounts for the documented influence of the mind over physiology?

Please explain how any of this research can account for why some actions occur without any type of incentive or irregardless of the punishment associated with it?

And science marches on... And sometimes science steps on people's toes and cherished beliefs. Sorry.

I am sorry Scott, but I don't think you are being completely open in assesing the current state of information on this subject, and you seem to be letting your own belief in the powers of behavioral manipulation to guide your conclusions.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-25 18:30:12

Clark:

You have posed many good questions about how the human brain functions. However, I see no reason to get into an discussion of neurochemistry. You are a supernaturalist and I am a naturalist. No amount of data about the functioning of the human brain is going to convince you to become a naturalist.

During the last few centuries, we have learned that Earth orbits Sol, Luna orbits Earth, and that all three of those bodies are approximately spherical. These simple facts were once violently contested but today there are few people who seriously believe that Earth is flat and at the center of the Cosmos.

During this century, we will learn much more about human consciousness and behavior. This knowledge will slowly seep into our culture and transform our understanding of ourselves. Supernatural propositions will not be rejected, they will simply become obsolete and begin to gather dust. And God will retire and move to Florida. Have you ever considered moving to Florida?

Scott

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-25 22:56:51

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Scott G. Beach, than are dreamt of in your philosophy!

(With apologies to the author! )

Palomar · 2002-10-26 11:23:15

otherwise, be greatful for what the enlightened men give you.

*Are you including yourself in this statement, Clark? Are you suggesting ::all:: men are enlightened, i.e. that it's a gender quality?

By the way, it's not "greatful" -- it's "grateful."

Now be grateful that I corrected your spelling.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-10-26 12:02:35

*I think your analogy is very befitting.

As for what response you're likely to get...be prepared to be tagged as "hostile." Of course, the tagger is ::never:: guilty of being hostile.

--Cindy

Edited By ecrasez_l_infame on 1101243138

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-26 12:13:40

Most of your law maker's are MEN, even today.

Nida:

Anthropologists use the term "androcracy" to describe a society in which men dominate the political system. They also theorize that androcracy is based on sexual dimorphism.

Scott

clark · 2002-10-28 09:22:34

So I'm a supernaturalist now am I? I have found that I need not identify my particular beliefs since everyone else seems better equiped at categorizing my beliefs. Now that I have been pigeon holed into being a "supernaturalist", perhaps you might explain what one is. I mean, if I am going to be one, I should probably know what else it is I am supposed to believe... LOL. Is it easier for you to discuss ideas on their own Scott, or do you prefer to discuss the people who discuss the ideas?

You have posed many good questions about how the human brain functions. However, I see no reason to get into an discussion of neurochemistry.

So to my well posed questions, you capitualte and then claim that no amount of evidence will change my mind? I might suggest that ANSWERING my well posed questions would go a long way towards showing me the validity of your beliefs, since that is all they are, and demonstrate the factual evidence that undermines my hypothesis. But then, Science dosen't have the answers, does it.

I posted good questions about the brain, becuase I have some idea how it works- which is at least as good as any to forma basis for understanding the mind-brain relationship. And you're as far off as any other who has tried to put me into an X category.

During the last few centuries, we have learned that Earth orbits Sol, Luna orbits Earth, and that all three of those bodies are approximately spherical.

We also thought the universe was made out og "ether", and women want their fathers "penis" and all men want to get back into the womb of their begining... there is jusas much bogus belief as real. You can show me how the earth orbits the sun, but you sure as hell can't show me the where or how brain functions begin, or how it continues to perpetuate electrical activity. I am not denying the role of the brain, or even behavior psychology upon individual in relationship to cognitve functions- however, I do believe there is enough evidence, and enough questions, tha establish a cognitive role of the mind, seperate of the brain that is able to influence the brain and body. Otherwise those psychologists and psychiatrists might be able to better predictate human behavior.

Thanks Cindy for the spell check, looks like women do make good secretarie

I'm trying to prove you're a male chauvinist pig but you're proving that yourself, really good too, I might add.

Yeah, I'm a male pig... that's why I say things like women should be allowed in m,ilitary combat, women should be drafter as well as men, women should go to mars (but shouldn't be the firs person on mars JUST because she is a woman)... Of course I'm a male chavunist pig according to you- you're acting like a beserk feminist who obviously feels slighted for a lifetime of oppression that YOU'VE never had to deal with. Poor you.

Yeah I know who Jimmy Carter is, nice guy, builds homes with Habitat for Humanity.

Way to know your history. He was also the President that reinstutited the peace time draft when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. But oh yeah, he builds houses too. Your father must be proud.

Women weren't allowed to vote in your nation until 140-or-so freakin years after the nation was founded.

So women have been able to vote for close to 100 years... Seems the women folk can't quite get their act together- I mean the Civil Rights movement happened in 65- and African Americans have been making huge inraods into the politcal, economic, and social instutions of this country.

And so women can vote since the 1920s in America, good, but your stupid if you don't know that some law's are made WITHOUT a popular vote.

Question to you Nida: As a woman, are you not allowed to use the court system in order to seek justice regarding a wrong commited against you by the state, in any form? As a woman, are you not legally protected to recieve the same compensation as any other person doing the same job, and if not, can't you seek legal recourse to resolve the situation? As a woman, are you denied loans or financial aid? Are you aware that women make up the largest percentage of secondary education? Are you aware that 10 women are running for govenors in various states? Are you aware that a myriad of laws have been instutited into the workplace all so women (anf others) do not feel threatened, or feel persequted? Is the government telling you what to do with your body? Can you start a carrer or is your only option to raise a family? If you want both, do laws exsist that allow you to keep your job, and still have your children? Is time off for your family enshrined in law? Do men make all the decisions for your personal health? Are you allowed to own property?

It wasn't an EVEN PLAYING FIELD for women for ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY until just the past FEW DECADES.

And? Were you even alive a few decades ago? You weren't when Carter was pres.o it seems that lately, women are doing pretty well for themselves. So what are you complaining about?

Would you say the same crap here against BLACKS, that you say against women?

Have I? What a silly question and actually shows you to be an instigator- how is this neccessary, and I am sickened that you would try to characterize me by throwing racial bias into this. What have I said against women? Other than my wonderment at a statement offered by someone else- it was rather flippant, but why should I care about ineaulity suffered by another if they do not show me the same concern?

Oh stupid black people, yeah it's THEIR OWN FAULT they're not even-steven with whitey, yeah they can vote now; no, it DOESN'T MATTER that whites are richer & have more
rep's in the gov't, more white legislators & law maker's, it doesn't matter that blacks, like women, WEREN'T allowed to vote until almost 140-or-something years after the nation was founded, nope --- the black man should be in gratitude to the white man for "the enlightening"

Do you feel better now? Anyway, I never said any of that. Are you talking to me, or the voices in your head?

What a prig you are. Whites & blacks, men & women, are NOT equally treated in your nation; whites & males still get PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

Hmmm. Are you from this nation? Have you ever lived anywhere in this nation at any time? When and where? If you are nto from this nation, and have never been here, how can you speak with any kind of authority about what is is like here? There are areas that are as you say, but there is also large areas of the USA vastly different from what you say.

I am guessing you are young and filled with a lopsidded picture of the States, without any kind of knoledge about what laws exsist and how life has changed here. It's not your fault Nida, I don't blame you- you're obviously a little kid still learning. Good luck... maybe ask a boy to explain some of the harder parts for ya

Earthfirst · 2002-10-28 11:15:47

I see how it is dont even facy me a replay, well then if you are so smart can debate what is the meaning of life? or how about If a metor hits mars and no one hears it(we cant hear because we are othe earth) did that metor ever exist or even hit mars. Just like if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it did it ever exist that kind of thing.
If you just want to talk to your brittish frenids that fine with me do it on your own forum that you start your self!
It just a matter of common crudisy. :angry:
Just kidding a little

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-28 11:43:27

Clark:

You assert that the human mind functions independently of the brain or any other physical structure and I therefore regard you as a supernaturalist. In contrast, I hypothesize that the human mind is a function of the human nervous system, especially the brain. This is a naturalistic proposition. I am a naturalist and you are a supernaturalist and I am not going to try to convince you to give up your supernaturalistic belief.

You wrote, "Science dosen't have the answers, does it." Science does not have answers to all questions and it probably never will. Scientists do not hypothesize that the human mind functions independently of physical structures. Scientists do not use supernaturalistic explanations to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Scientists accept the gaps and are, in general, comfortable with uncertainty. In contrast, many non-scientists are not comfortable with the uncertainty gap and prefer to fill it in with supernaturalistic assumptions.

Scott

clark · 2002-10-28 12:05:03

You assert that the human mind functions independently of the brain or any other physical structure and I therefore regard you as a supernaturalist.

Where do I assert that the mind functions independantly of the brain?

Quite the contrary, I would suppose that the mind, in a form that we might perceive it, is incapable of functioning independant of the brain. That said, what precesily allows a clump of specialized fat cells to work in conjunction to produce directed focus of attention, or something more aking to what we commonly call "thought"?

All of science is mute to this question.

I will readily agree that the shape and form of the brain will constrict, or free, depending on structure, the manner in which thought is directed or produced, however, where does the thought originate?

Frontal lobes? Well, we can exsise portions of that and we still end up with soemone "thinking"- yet devoid of personaility. We can exsise the hypothalmus and destroy any opportunity for memory to form, yet thought exsists. We can exsise the motor control pathways, and yet language is understood and individuals can still be seen to be possesing faculties capable of thought.

In contrast, I hypothesize that the human mind is a function of the human nervous system, especially the brain.

I belive a true hypothesis, since your cannot be proved, would be that the exsistence of the human mind is predicated on the functionality of the human nervous system and especially the brain. What you seek is to prove what the human mind is, and there is no evidence, nor test for the hypothesis, that currently exsists to answer that question.

Science does not have answers to all questions and it probably never will. Scientists do not hypothesize that the human mind functions independently of physical structures.

Yet you offer us information as though evidence exisited that proves your hypothesis, the truth is, they have mroe questions now than when they began. I am not saying you are wrong, you're just jumping the gun.

Scientists accept the gaps and are, in general, comfortable with uncertainty. In contrast, many non-scientists are not comfortable with the uncertainty gap and prefer to fill it in with supernaturalistic assumptions.

There is enough of a gap exsisting that renders any assumption about the role of the mind-brain relationship as to be meanigless.

AltToWar · 2002-10-28 13:30:15

The Mind is an Illusion. The Mind is an artifact of the human-centric universe. The mind is on par with the Soul or Spirit. It is a perception, and not much more.

Intelligence has long been thought to be a human-only characteristic. Not because we have proof, but because that is how we percieve it.

In fact, the Human-centric world view has been aggressively defended for quite some time.

Copernicus was ridiculed by his scientific peers because of hei Heliocentric solar system theory.

Galileo was found "vehemently suspected of heresy" and ordered to house arrest and refused the right to publish any works.

For decades astonomers used a heilocentric based calculation to predict the positions of the planets, while refusing to believe this was actual;ly the case. The accuracy of the helocentric mathamatics was attributed to some unexplained anomoly. The ides that the earth was not the center of the universe was absurd.

Why was it so hard for Humans to come to realise that their planet was not the center of the universe, even when ovrwhelming evidence continued to stack up aginst it?

We should learn from their mistakes, and realize that any thories based on human 'specialness' should be suspect.

When it came to intelligence, we deemed humans to be the special, single owners of what we know as intelligence.

Yet every time we defined what exactly intelligence is, we found that were were not the sole owners of intelligence. Instead of allowing other species to be granted the title of intelligence, we instead re-defined intelligence in a way we hoped would exclude them.

It was argued that humans are esspecially intelligent because we use tools. Opps, dolphins and primates use tools all the time. Even some birds use tools.

Instead of allowing several species to be inorporated in our specialness, we redefined inteligence to require language. Opps, Apes can learn american sign language.

Well, perhaps apes can learn sign language, but only humans are bright enough to use abstract symbols and understand syntax. Opps, apes can do that as well.

Why is it that we are bending over backwards even to this day to define humans as 'special'?

We are unable to define inteligence in any ligitimate, quantifyable way; yet we continue to use it as the banner by which we are the rightious dominators of a planet.

Perhaps if we finally get it though our heads that we are not the center of the universe we can honestly and earnestly look into what makes us what we are and where we fit in.

clark · 2002-10-28 13:56:53

Perhaps if we finally get it though our heads that we are not the center of the universe we can honestly and earnestly look into what makes us what we are and where we fit in.

Perhaps it is us looking earnestly into what makes us what we are, and where we fit in, the exception.

If anything, the modern mind is not a boon to evolutionary development- the absract thinking, and the other myriad of problems that result from higher cognitive functions leads the human to form sub-optimaly and requires biological development of hard wired solutions to help the "mind" cope.

Split personality is a good example- here we have the brain developing alternate thought pathways to develop a mechanism for an individual to cope with a stressful situation- this allows the brain and body to keep functioning beyond mental paralysis. This is the effect of the brain on how the mind can think- yet we also see instances, say in extreme danger, where the consious mind supress all instinctual responses to deal with stress- it overrides the brain and nervous system functions to operate- the mind overcomes the limitations of the brain- otherwise we would all freeze up like deer in headlights.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-28 16:28:24

Clark:

You wrote, "I would suppose that the mind, in a form that we might perceive it, is incapable of functioning independent of the brain." This is a naturalistic supposition; you are a naturalist, not a supernaturalist.

When the ancient Egyptians embalmed a corpse, they extracted the brain and discarded it; they did not know the function of the brain. Today, in most modern jurisdictions, a person can be pronounced dead if he is "brain-dead." This standard of death is based on our current understanding of the human brain.

You wrote, "That said, what precesily allows a clump of specialized fat cells to work in conjunction to produce directed focus of attention, or something more aking to what we commonly call 'thought'? All of science is mute to this question."

Science is not so mute on this question as you think. I enjoy watching public television series such as Nova, Scientific American Frontiers, and Nature. The programs in these series have included the results of studies of how animal and human brains work. One program focused on the work of a physician who studied the intellectual deficits of people who have received brain injuries. By these studies, he was able to formulate hypotheses about which brain structures perform which brain functions. These hypotheses can then be checked using functional magnetic resonance imaging scans of a person's brain while the person is performing various intellectual tasks.

Studies of transparent critters such as sea slugs have yielded interesting data about the neurophysiology of learning. Researchers can squirt a bit of water at a slug to condition its response to another stimulus. As the slug's behavior changed in response to this conditioning, the researchers can see changes in the slug's nervous system.

You wrote, "There is enough of a gap exsisting that renders any assumption about the role of the mind-brain relationship as to be meanigless." I disagree and I suggest that you get into the habit of watching the very enlightening programs on public television. It's "Mind Altering TV."

Scott

clark · 2002-10-28 16:37:31

You wrote, "I would suppose that the mind, in a form that we might perceive it, is incapable of functioning independent of the brain." This is a naturalistic supposition; you are a naturalist, not a supernaturalist.

So now I am a naturalist! LOL. Make up your "mind", or should I say brain?

I disagree and I suggest that you get into the habit of watching the very enlightening programs on public television. It's "Mind Altering TV."

Okay, I will watch more TV. LOL.

I believe I now understand, thank you Scott for a wholly enlightening and entertaining discussion. I for one have learned something valuable here today.

Goodluck and godspeed to the Brain that is Scott

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-28 18:15:15

Okay, I will watch more TV. LOL.

Clark:

If you think that watching Nova, Scientific American Frontiers, and Nature programs is something to "laugh out loud" at then here is an alternate suggestion. Read "Molecules of Emotion: The Science Behind Mind-Body Medicine," by Candace B. Pert. Ph.D. And read Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence." I have read both of these books and I believe that you would enjoy reading them.

Scott

Bill White · 2002-10-28 21:36:39

Additional reading suggestions:

All recent books by William Calvin & Antonio Damascio, both of whom I have flogged for before.

Calvin's The Cerebral Code proposes a mechanism for brain function based on ultra-fast Darwinian processes.

As far as minds not being "real" - are hurricanes real?

Even if "minds" are merely the ephemeral consequences of organic molecules interacting in a unique manner, they remain as "real" as hurricanes which are the ephemeral consequences of swirling currents of air.

Add homeostasis to swirling ephemera - and voila! - a lifeform!

Palomar · 2002-10-28 22:53:17

The Mind is an Illusion. The Mind is an artifact of the human-centric universe.

*How can the mind be both an illusion and an artifact? Doesn't the word "artifact" denote something which has had existence? Existence and illusion are concepts contradictory to one another, are they not?

Just wondering; these are :::sincere::: questions. I'm not sure I want to get into any long-winded discussion. I'm just interested in any response you'd care to give, AltToWar.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-10-29 05:25:54

*How can the mind be both an illusion and an artifact? Doesn't the word "artifact" denote something which has had existence? Existence and illusion are concepts contradictory to one another, are they not?
Just wondering; these are :::sincere::: questions. I'm not sure I want to get into any long-winded discussion. I'm just interested in any response you'd care to give, AltToWar.
--Cindy

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=artifact

Main Entry: ar?ti?fact
Pronunciation: '?r-ti-"fakt
Function: noun

2 : a product of artificial character (as in a scientific test) due usually to extraneous (as human) agency

Roughly 'artifact' means human creation. Not nessicarily a phisical one.

AltToWar · 2002-10-29 05:31:03

Perhaps if we finally get it though our heads that we are not the center of the universe we can honestly and earnestly look into what makes us what we are and where we fit in.
Perhaps it is us looking earnestly into what makes us what we are, and where we fit in, the exception.

Are you sure Dolphins or Chimps dont do this themselves?

I know of a few people who have never had thoughts like this cross their mind, does that place them in the other catagory?

clark · 2002-10-29 06:48:13

You know what, I want to apoligize to you Scott. I'm sorry, my comments were unneccessary and unproductive. Thank you for your reading suggestions, as well as your suggestions for public television. I will have to look into these, perhaps it will allow me to understand where you are coming from, which ultimetly, what you are trying to do.

However, I am going to have to say I agree with Bill, which he has so elquoently summarized. If our minds are merely a function of our brains, then for all intents and purposes, that would be the closest thing we can realize, given this limitation, as an independant mind.

Do we have souls, which some of your comments touched on Scott, is an entirely different matter that is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. While the jury is out to lunch on wether or not we have an eternal portion of something residing in us, there can be no doubt that the physical manifestation of what we perceive to be the mind is predicated on the exsitence and functioning of a brain- however, I choose my words carefully- my statement does not preclude the possibility of something beyond our perception.

Are you sure Dolphins or Chimps dont do this themselves?

Perhaps they do, I don't know. i don't think so though.

I know of a few people who have never had thoughts like this cross their mind, does that place them in the other catagory?

And THAT is ultimetly the danger in creating a classification that establishes what is *special* about humans- it can be used to exclude other humans. However, humans who do not exercise this at least have the capacity for this act. It is doubtful that Chimps or Dolphins have the capacity for introspection. But then, maybe they do.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-29 15:38:48

Clark:

You wrote, "While the jury is out to lunch on wether or not we have an eternal portion of something residing in us..."

In a previously message I referred to you as a naturalist. Your reference to the jury being "out to lunch" makes me wonder whether you would feel comfortable in the category "methodological naturalist."

In an article titled "Monkey Business" (The Sciences, February 1996) Eugenie C. Scott wrote, "Methodological naturalism simply requires that, in trying to explain any particular observation or experimental result, an investigator may not resort to miracles. It is the frame of mind that all scientific workers adopt on the job, and centuries of progress has shown its value. Philosophical naturalism asserts that the material world is all that exists -- that there is nothing supernatural, no God or gods, no creator, no creation. Many people with science backgrounds describe themselves as philosophical naturalists, but many do not." Ms. Scott is the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, which is located in Berkeley, California.

A methodological naturalist's jury on supernatural entities (gods, souls, etc.) is "out to lunch." In contrast, a philosophical naturalist's jury has brought in a verdict: "Bull...oney!"

I feel most comfortable in the category methodological naturalist. Do you?

Scott

Earthfirst · 2002-10-29 22:11:43

You people say that that I rant much compared to you people I just a beganer. Some of those post must of taking hours to write out, its seem to me the you people have a lot of free time and a lot on your minds. Not to add to your burdens but here something to discuss the Chinese space program, I hered that they have plans to orbit a person around the earth. With such loftity goals as sending man missions to the moon and to mars. If the free wrold does not get off its but and claim mars by having people on, the chinese could get there before use and claim it for them selfs alone. Then there would be no debate about you would have a commumst dictors runing Mars no matter how much you think democracs work. You have to have people that belive in on mars in order for it to be free. Worest yet what if both chinese and westerners colinaze mars than you would get a marin cold war that could heat up mars with nukaler war. That not the kind of terrifroming we need, destorying man next fronteir. Its just another reason to get get support to colization mars. If we dont do it they will, thankful the chinese are just getting started weer we where 40 years ago. But with acess to modern tech and history as a lesson it wont take long be fore we are sharin orbit with chinese space crath. That could lanch props to mars and eneventally a collonist. Lets not laet a another could war happen on mars. I have not seen any one talk about this possiblity happening although be it very real. The russians would are on are side on lets use there experince to bet the chinese!!!!

AltToWar · 2002-10-30 00:25:20

paragraphs are your friend!

In the end, Mars will be the same here as on earth.

The people will be as free as they allow (and sometimes demand) themselves to be free.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-25 09:56:48

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#27 2002-10-25 15:35:15

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#28 2002-10-25 16:08:47

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#29 2002-10-25 18:30:12

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#30 2002-10-25 22:56:51

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#31 2002-10-26 11:23:15

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#32 2002-10-26 12:02:35

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#33 2002-10-26 12:13:40

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#34 2002-10-28 09:22:34

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#35 2002-10-28 11:15:47

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#36 2002-10-28 11:43:27

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#37 2002-10-28 12:05:03

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#38 2002-10-28 13:30:15

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#39 2002-10-28 13:56:53

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#40 2002-10-28 16:28:24

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#41 2002-10-28 16:37:31

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#42 2002-10-28 18:15:15

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#43 2002-10-28 21:36:39

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#44 2002-10-28 22:53:17

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#45 2002-10-29 05:25:54

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#46 2002-10-29 05:31:03

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#47 2002-10-29 06:48:13

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#48 2002-10-29 15:38:48

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#49 2002-10-29 22:11:43

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#50 2002-10-30 00:25:20

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

Board footer