Yes, I agree. We should try to reflect on all the lines, and not take any of them for granted, or believe them immovable. — WerMaat

I think that this is easier said than done. Actually, it's probably the most difficult thing to do and one of the easiest things to say.

Granted, that's probably a rather simplified approach, but I think that this type of in-group/out-group categorization actually explains a lot of human behavior.
What makes it complicated, is that today a lot of different groups and organizations try to appeal to our "pack" feelings, in order to gain our help, obedience or solidarity. the family, the employee, the sports club, the nation... — WerMaat

And I think this is why it's hard to do. We want so badly to be part of something, and yet being part of something, accepting it completely, is accepting falsehoods. Finding the truth is literally soul crushing, because finding out something that invalidates a sacred belief absolutely destroys us.

There you go, you've summarized all of philosophy in two sentences. We can shut down the forum now. — T Clark

Oh, and we still have so much work to do. The actually difficult work, drawing the lines.

Well, I was sort of joking, but then the idea of genetic lines appealed to me, as you can see later in my post. — T Clark

DNA is just a chemical compound. It's our imaginary lines that clump it all together.

For a long time, I was intrigued by how things work at the atomic level. I still am, actually. Atoms, the bonds they form, the molecules they become, how they never actually touch. Everything in the universe could theoretically be just atoms instead of the larger things we invent. If we wanted to, our boundaries could be individual atoms. I don't know if that would be useful, but it would be the most accurate way to look at the universe.

When I first read your post, it seemed too broad. As I said earlier, it basically covers everything people ever wrote or spoke or thought. All of human mental output. It's all just drawing lines. — T Clark

Do you still think it's too broad?

If that is the general consensus, I'll draw my lines a bit shorter next time.

I'm not sure we have any choice. It's what we do. You can argue where the lines should go, but humans are line-drawing animals. — T Clark

This is a good point. There has to be lines, but there are a lot of places we can choose to draw them. I think I was going for "If we don't want one to exist or it doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't have it". That probably should be clarified.

All lines restrict us. — T Clark

Before editing, I said "Is a place really restricted from us if we didn't want to go there in the first place?"

The answer upon closer examination (by me) seems to be yes. It's our own desires restricting us.

Generally speaking, I don't think wolves do much line-drawing. Or maybe the lines are more likely to be genetic with them. — T Clark

It probably just wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that a biologist would say that. Wolves might draw lines, but I couldn't tell you, I'm not a wolf.

Well, we do sometimes, often. Eventually always, although I guess some of our lines are genetic also. — T Clark

I think this part of my writing came from frustration caused by the speed at which we do change. If a categorization becomes so vague as to be useless, it should be changed, and in the example of species, that happened long ago.

Well written and well thought through. I only have a few thoughts right now: — T Clark

Really? I wasn't really sure how well this would be received. Regardless, I've been thinking about it for a long time now.

This is an interesting view. Less intelligent animals do it, so that’s what we should be aiming for? Is this what evolution has led us to? — Possibility

I think it's more accurately put as, Less intelligent animals do it, so that's why we do it. If something works, and better than anything else, that's what you do.

I often wonder why we find value in pursuing such transient notions of ‘happiness’. Things that might help an organism survive make an organism ‘happy’ for such a short amount of time. In case you hadn’t noticed, ‘survival’ as a life goal is a rort. Like Sisyphus, it’s a fruitless exercise. ‘Nobody gets out alive!’ — Possibility

We find value in happiness because it makes us feel good, and we want to feel good. If dying made us feel good we would want that. However, natural selection favors those who survive, and therefore a reward is given when we do.

I think you're on to something about the duration of the happiness we sometimes get, but that isn't always true. People who enjoy being married and having kids are usually happy with that for a lifetime.

As for survival as a goal, that wasn't exactly my point. We live for the enjoyment we get out of things that make us survive, not the actual surviving. I don't think anyone should care about getting out alive, they should care about what they get out of life.

We’ve been working so hard to maximise our power, influence and control because we think it helps us to survive, but we’re never really successful at that in the end, are we? Even if you consider ‘survival’ value as either population or total mass of a species, we’re still outdone by the ants, of all creatures. — Possibility

I would say humans and ants are equally successful. Every ant does as it is driven to do, and I'd assume they're driven to do it by their tiny brains. Humans do much the same.

The problem I think most people ignore is this- we have changed our world faster than our bodies can adapt. I think an example would explain this best. Let us compare these two groups of people

1
A small group of humans wanders the savannah 50,000 years ago in search of food and water. Since this has been the goal for millions of years, they have adaptations that allow them to be very hostile towards prey or competitors. It doesn't work all the time, (sometimes they get killed) but it never hurts them to have that aggression

2
A small group of humans are working on computer terminals somewhere deep in an underground bunker in the modern day. Suddenly, red lights start flashing and sirens start blazing. An all out nuclear strike is heading toward their nation and it's up to them to decide what to do next. Anger flows through their veins and in a last resort to get revenge, they ensure that no one, not the victims or the aggressors,(or even bystanders) get to live.

I'd imagine in both cases that aggression felt good. It feels nice, at least for a while, to get revenge or release some pent up anger. However, in the second case the aggression also caused death.

Now, another example

1
The same group from the first example above has a member who excels at throwing spears. All of the children look up to him and the elders respect him. This makes him happy until he dies.

2
The same group from the second example above has a member who goes to a chess club on the weekends. He doesn't always win, but he's pretty good and has made some good friends that bring him happiness until they day he dies (maybe in a nuclear holocaust).

The things that make both of them happy are survival oriented. If you have friends and people who respect you, they will help you in times of need. I don't think it's a coincidence that this makes them happy.

So, if the goal is to be happy, and survival brings us happiness, but the things that made us survive then are not the things that made us survive now, what do we do? I think that is the real problem.

It’s time to recognise that we’ve been climbing a ladder that goes nowhere. We think the only things that matter to me are what is valuable to me, but that’s not quite correct. Because I can recognise that something matters to me because it’s valuable to someone who’s valuable to me, even if that something holds no value in itself for me. — Possibility

And what of the things that matter to those who aren't valuable to you?

It isn't that anything matters objectively. We choose what matters and what doesn't.

To go back to your comment before-

This is an interesting view. Less intelligent animals do it, so that’s what we should be aiming for? Is this what evolution has led us to? — Possibility

You are right, for what it's worth (to us) we are more intelligent than other animals. (by our own definition, of course.) However, we can't forget that the only thing that makes us unique is the intelligence. We have all of the same desires and even some of the same instincts that they do. We share a majority of our DNA with every plant and animal on Earth. Biologically speaking, we are animals.

But it is that intelligence that I think can save us from the problem stated above. With everything we know, everything we have learned, we have to adapt ourselves, and doing that will bring us some happiness, I think.

You can't prove that anything matters because the universe isn't human. It doesn't put metaphysical labels on things like "importance" or "value". There is only matter, energy and whatever else out there we may not have discovered. However, things do have value to us, and so I think we should have those things, because the universe won't (or can't) miss them.

Haha, yeah. I guess I do like the guy. I mean, if you value a better future, then he's doing his best to ensure one for the human species. — Wallows

I think I've always had trust issues though. There's a scandal about everyone just waiting to happen.

Well, depends on the condition. For some psychiatry can't even address, such as autism. Others like schizophrenia are difficult to treat residual symptoms, such as negative one's. — Wallows

Medication for mental stuff has always seemed so hit or miss though, and most of the time they just cover up symptoms. I think it's best to always eliminate a problem at the source.

Yeah, it's definitely transhumanism... What do you think more about transhumanism? — Wallows

If we want to become truly more than human, I think we first need to become a post-scarcity civilization, meaning essentially that we have so much of everything that everyone can have as much as they want. I think that if we want to accomplish that we have to both limit the size of our population and develop the necessary infrastructure to collect the vast amount of resources in our solar system.

The reasoning behind all this is to prevent the creation of an underclass as I mentioned before. Speaking with historical hindsight, I think most people can recognize that while having a caste that does the dirty work is nice for those on top for a while, that doesn't last. People will only take perceived injustice for so long, and not being a superhuman when your neighbors or friends are can definitely be seen as injustice, whether we're only distributing such luxuries as they're deserved or not.

I think the main problem with transhumanism is this. If we're going to become more than we are now, we have to take everyone (who wants to come) with us or risk disaster via civil unrest and war. I just don't think that will ever be feasible if the price to ascend is higher than the potential returns for investors, politicians, and billionaire tunnel boring businessmen.

First, one has to applaud Elon Musk for making this possible. It takes a genius to be able to manage The Boring Company, Tesla, SpaceX, and now Neuralink, along with SolarCity lumped into Tesla as of recent. There's also his OpenAI which he no longer manages (There's gotta be some limit to this guy). — Wallows

While I'm admittedly impressed by all of the things he's pulling off, I don't know the guy. Not saying you're doing this here, but people do like to idolize him. Doing great things like this should be considered normal instead of god-like.

Now, what nobody realizes about Neuralink is that it stands to make the ENTIRE chemical-based psychiatry movement as redundant. — Wallows

To be fair, I don't think chemical-based psychiatry was that effective in the first place. From outrageous prices for medication to the unpredictable results, I think it's probably best we have an alternative.

After, the grand potential to treat these conditions, Musk then is setting his eyes on enhancing existing brain activity, which is uncharted territory in the medical field. — Wallows

I think humanity as a whole has begun a great shift away from a "category" based view of the world in which things fit into nice little compartments into an "interdependence" view in which all things are connected and borders are difficult to distinguish if not impossible. A brain might be studied by a biologist and a computer by a computer scientist, but who studies a neural link? In the end it's all just matter and energy interacting, and our boundaries break down.

All in all, there are some ethical issues to this latter task, that I think will be looked over, eventually in my opinion. — Wallows

I'm kind of afraid to venture into the ethical issues because in a world where people can be more efficient, things change dramatically. It's hard to decide what is wrong or right for a world you can't possibly imagine right now.

For the matter, I do plan to become one of a number of early adopters of this technology given my own issues with dealing with psychosis, depression, and anxiety. I might perhaps wait until v.3.0 or such to avoid any kinks or some such, as I am highly involved in the nootropic and transhumanist movement. — Wallows

If I were to align with any ideology exclusively it would probably be transhumanism. It just makes sense that if given the tools to enhance ourselves that we should. I had to look up what nootropic meant, and from the two sentences I read on it I'm not really convinced. It sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure the stuff works, that's all I mean.

As for adopting, I think it would be impossible for me not to since I'm planning to major in CS. It'll probably be hard to get a job working with computers if you aren't as fast as everyone else.

Oh yeah, did I mention that this opens up an entirely new field into human communication and the language of thought between two people with said implants?? Pretty insane stuff going on here. — Wallows

This goes more into what I was saying regarding to ethics. If this catches on and becomes affordable enough for average people, a lot of things are going to be antiquated fairly quickly. This also brings up the idea that a non-enhanced underclass may emerge. I think this can be considered a bad thing, because all ethical issues aside, an underclass is always more trouble than it's worth.

We need to hope for a better future, but I'm not sure that "meeting our every desire" is going to accomplish this. — Izat So

What makes a future "better"? If it isn't us living as happy as possible as sustainably as possible, what is it?

Today's "leaders" are exploiting our need for social acceptability in terms of our consumer status or distracting us with plastic hearts, pumpkins and inflatable Santas or promising us convenience with plastic bottles and megatons of disposables. So far we're wrecking the planet producing, distributing and discarding piles of stupidly packaged tacky merchandise, most of which we don't need. — Izat So

Something is only a distraction if it distracts from something. I don't think the evil lies in the act inherently, it lies in the intention. Owning a factory that produces holiday decorations sold at reasonable prices so that people can have a little fun doesn't seem bad to me. Producing holiday decorations while ignoring the long term effects of your industry on the environment so that those in power can keep a docile population distracted from acts they would normally find repulsive does sound bad to me.

I think it's correct to say material things make us happy. Evolutionarily, it makes sense that having many resources would help an organism survive, and things that help an organism survive make an organism happy. Of course, holiday decorations aren't going to help you fight off wild animals or collect food, but they are certainly a sign of status. Even less intelligent animals collect objects for no other reason than to climb the social ladder.

As for pollution, I think the main reason we don't recycle literally everything and shoot what we can't into space is that efficiency gives average people time to think. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that we can make all of our current industry sustainable, or even move it off-world later down the line. (maybe you disagree with the idea of space colonization, so if you want to discuss that, you can just send me a PM. I don't think it ties into the discussion enough for us to go off on a tangent here). I think we can do these things, but I don't think we will if things keep going as planned. It leads back to the control idea. We come together for social acceptance, that need is inevitably exploited by leaders because of our desire for wealth, the leaders tell lies to reinforce our desire for social acceptance.

None of this is to say that anyone is actually even acting with evil intentions. I think everyone is just doing what they think is right. Good or bad don't really factor into it, I think we just created and developed civilization too fast to evolve alongside it. We're intelligent enough to create civilization, but our instincts haven't gotten to the point that they can be beneficial instead of detrimental. Fear of other tribes and what lurks in the shadows is useful when you're a hunter-gatherer, but it'll hurt you when negotiating with other nations over trade laws and ownership of territory.

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not, the universe will still exist. — SimonSays

The answers people give when asked, "why do we continue to exist" have always intrigued me. I struggled with it myself a lot when I was younger. It is in a way, the first and last existential crisis everyone deals with.

I look at it like this: There may be no "objective" in life, but I do like feeling good. I like to wake up in the morning and feel like what I'm doing is benefiting the human race as a whole. I can't feel that way if I'm dead. I can't feel any way if I'm dead.

If the universe doesn't care about us, I think we shouldn't care about it. Understand it, manipulate it, control it, for sure, but care about it? Why?

I think a fundamental part of our psychology is the need for someone/something to care about us. The need for this in our lives has been exploited by various leaders for thousands of years. In a sense, the facade we construct that is a universe that cares about us is a main component of civilization. A nation doesn't truly die until people stop believing the sweet lies they've been told by it.

I think we could completely bypass this problem by giving ourselves meaning through our strength. We are intelligent enough to build and invent things that make us feel good. Our meaning is to use the laws this universe obeys to meet our every desire. After that our meaning is to meet our every desire. There are no lies involved in doing this because we can only meet this goal by telling and living the truth.

1, Freedom to eliminate waste.
2. Freedom to inhale air at any given time (provided it's necessary.)
3. Freedom to pursue the blue bird of happiness (restrictions apply: you may not catch it. You are only allowed to pursue it.)
4. Freedom to wear five pairs of shoes at the same time on either of your feet.
5. Freedom to assemble little electric cars that come in a kit.
6. Freedom from religion.
7. Freedom to attend school
8. Freedom from needing to learn Calculus and French Irregular verbs.
9. Freedom to establish personal boundaries, personal restrictions, and place control on others.
10.Freedom to sew up buttons when one falls off. — god must be atheist

Sounds like you have most of those already depending on where you live.

By the way, you can catch the bird, you just can't keep it as a pet.

Listen, while I'd love to discuss religion and capitalism with you guys, I know for sure that doing it publicly on this thread will blow us too far off of topic. I know you're very adamant about your respective positions, and I know they definitely overlap with the topic, but it would be irresponsible of me to let this devolve into pointless bickering. If you would like to start a group discussion via PMs, that would probably be ideal.

People may disagree, but what do people tend to do in practice? Typically people act as if there is no god in the moment and repent later. A belief in god doesn’t free one from being human.

If Jesus was real and did say that, I honestly think that he was right. It is beneficial for us to be nice to everyone. That isn’t what happens though.

Or else why does it make real sex seem less exciting? — Maureen

I think you need to do some field research. I think It'll make more sense to you then. If you aren't willing to do that, I'd explain it to you like this: you can see anything you want, at any time you want. Mankind has used its knowledge of the universe to create a mechanism for its pleasure greater than those that came before.

Can anyone prove/disprove that language can never remove ALL confusion? — TheMadFool

I think that confusion in our language is more to blame on what we do as humans and less with what language consists of.

I think above someone mentioned a "machine language" in which a computer makes sure that every word has only one meaning. However, the computer can't anticipate future inventions or cultural changes. That is incredibly important if we're trying to make a completely clear language.

Take sarcasm for example. To be completely clear, I won't be using any sarcasm in my next paragraph.

Language isn't context sensitive and doesn't need to evolve to fit our changing world. Furthermore, words are all distinct and never have similar meanings that can be interchanged either on accident or on purpose. Authors never utilize these things as they are impossible.

Smart-assery aside, I think I do have a decent point somewhere in there. That being that if you want your "perfect language" tailored by machines to last very long, you have to both be ready to run that same program, again and again, to make sure your language isn't drifting off course and becoming imperfect through use and/or it being added to.

A truly perfect language needs to be ready for use, otherwise, it's just a code that no one will ever use. There are a lot of things language is used for, but I would say that looking at the arts is enough for what I'm getting at. Art isn't going away as long as our brains think patterns and colors look nice. Therefore, if you want a language to be used, at least making it work for literature would be a good start. I think that's where the problem begins.

Without misinterpretation, most works of literature with relatively deep meaning can't be translated. These are entire concepts that you can't translate into your "perfect language". Concepts you can't make up new words for because they are subtle and only make sense to the proper person in the proper context.

I think you're on the right track if you're looking for perfection, but keep in mind that unless you're creating a simple trading language used so that merchants don't offend their foreign customers, you have a long way to go. Just keep in mind that if you want to maintain your perfect language past a few minutes, it will require maintenance, and if you wish for it to be compatible with other languages at all, you need to find a way for concepts that only exist in the context of confusion to translate perfectly.

Of course, I'm not one to say that either of these things is impossible. I tend to think even more impossible-seeming things are possible. Or maybe you never intended for these things to part of your language. Actually, if that is the case, this perfect language would solve the problem.

What do you consider a debt to society? — Cris

The support your parents give you (monetary or otherwise), the positive influences others have on you, and anything else along those lines. You could also acquire debt by breaking laws that protect against actions that are generally detrimental to society.

Generally, I think this is the debt that keeps us all together. If someone loves and appreciates you, you're compelled to give back.

Being debt free while not being homeless and walking everywhere. — Cris

Does debt just mean being in the black, or does it entail social debts to people that have helped you and debt to a society that assists you in maintaining your standard of life?

So what would you consider a threat? Obviously anything with hostile intent, but I think it's more culturally context sensitive than that. If you're a fat neckbearded manchild threatening to cut people in half on the subway with a katana, you'll be laughed at, but if you're a samurai in Japan during the 1400s, your threat might be taken more seriously.

Of course, those are maybe a bit too obvious as examples, but similar things do happen every day between people who experience the same culture. I remember plenty of edgelords in my school days that made "threats" they never intended to follow up on but got in trouble anyway. Not that I don't think they deserved trouble, but I also know that they were too cowardly to actually fight anyone.

The OP question is what it means to have freedom. — Possibility

I haven't been following what you guys are discussing exactly, but feel free to discuss whatever you like. I assure you I don't mind.

Freedom is accepting the world as it is and making the most out of it. — Emma33

I got another response pretty similar to yours but a lot more complex in wording.

Like parcour, it helps to interact with everything not as an obstacle to avoid or overcome, but rather as a potential partner in achievement. This often means adjusting our plans to accommodate, even in the midst of executing them. We lose our sense of freedom when we fail to understand how a relationship has the potential for achievement from multiple perspectives. — Possibility

Is this kind of what you're getting at?

Ultimately, I think it means that I would have to have an indubitably certain consciousness that I am my own creation. For only if I know and directly experience that I am my own creation can I legitimately be held to be responsible for all my actions and all my omissions. — charles ferraro

Hm. What if you completely transformed yourself into something else? Something more desirable and completely unrecognizable? Would that count as "being your own creation"?

Freedom, as I understand it, is the absence of coercion. So it’s more a duty each of us have to refrain from coercing others. — NOS4A2

How do you do that? I understand that realistically it's impossible to never coerce anyone, but what do you think is the best way to coerce people the least?

I had this idea that positive liberties were more preferable, but, that negative liberties were all that a person has to level an argument with. — thewonder

How do you decide what is a positive liberty and what is a negative one?

Thoughts can be considered no more property than your body can. Interestingly this links nicely to the subject. — 420mindfulness

Is your body not considered your property? Isn't a major theme of slavery the fact that you don't own your body?

You are truly free in the choice to share or not share this part of you with anything outside of yourself. — 420mindfulness

I don't see how that means you don't own the thoughts you have in your head. Thoughts are unique in that you can share them without losing them. I think that's really the only distinction.

I would consider them so. Not in the traditional sense, of course, since thoughts can be transferred between individuals without the originator losing ownership, but they are something you can “have” per se. While a new car or house or boat is something you own and can refuse to share, thoughts are, by our very nature, meant to be shared, and if you try to be selfish and keep your thoughts to yourself, I think you will quickly go mad.

But they are still your thoughts — 420mindfulness

Ownership is a sort of freedom, yes, but the less you own the less freedom you have via ownership.

I am not, I suppose you could say nobody chooses to exist is more appropriate? I mean you personally do not make a free choice. The same with your physical looks (body mods aside).
My point was more that choice is denied, taking freedom with it. — 420mindfulness

Then we're in agreement then. Freedom is lost, but it isn't inherently wrong to remove freedom.

But you are still completely free to imagine only what you can imagine. That cannot be controlled by any other person. — 420mindfulness

I think that what you can imagine can be influenced somewhat. In George Orwell's 1984, the government is actively seeking to change the very being of language to make imagining any form of freedom impossible. Now there is, of course, some unclearness as to if something like that is even possible, but I would say that depending on where you grew up, your culture (created by others) definitely influences what stories you enjoy or can even conceive of on your own.

Speaking of 1984, if you haven't read it I recommend it. It seems to be so important to the discussion that the first person to respond referenced it.

Freedom's always going to be particularised, if we're always in a state of freedom, that sense of freedom becomes politically irrelevant regardless of its ontological richness. Freedom should always be thought of as a political/social/cultural direction of development rather than equated with any existing state of affairs. Freedom which is gained needs to be defended.

We're always on the precipice of greater freedom, or losing it. — fdrake

I guess then we're left with the original question then, "What is freedom to you". There are so many different directions we can develop in and I'd be hard pressed to say that only one is correct.

Freedom - the conditions under which autonomy may be expanded and maintained. — fdrake

This seems to imply that freedom cannot be permanent, that eventually, we will hit a wall and not be able to expand our autonomy.

No one can be truly free since no one chooses to be born. We are fettered by reality, and at least whilst we live; are unable to escape it. — 420mindfulness

Does this mean you are an antinatalist?

This means that to me the only true freedom we can have is of the mind. Our deliberate thoughts. The monkey mind can be quietened and you can cultivate a peace in which your mind is free, endless and yours. — 420mindfulness

But then again, you can only imagine what you can imagine. Reality seems to limit the broadness of imagination.

Yet how can one ponder it without revealing their feelings about contemporary nations that exist today, for comparison of a New Nation? — Michael Edwards

Maybe you’re right, in that to start a discussion you need to first state where you stand. However, I wanted to avoid influencing the answers of others as much as possible. It probably didn’t work.

Yeah, I think I may have misread. It might have been later at night, sorry about that. Even so, I think it’s hard to know when you’re being influenced versus when you are being impeded.

All of that assumes you know for sure that 2 means what we think it means. All I’m saying is that 2+2=4 certainly seems correct, and absolutely everything we currently know points to it being correct, but we don’t know everything. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you can come to a seemingly logical conclusion that is false because you don’t have all of the information.

That being said, if people believe that the Earth is flat, I think they should be able to believe that, but they shouldn’t be considered right unless they can effectively convince a majority of the population. After all, if the situation was flipped, wouldn’t you want the benefit of the doubt? If you don’t have it, the truth may never come out. Or both sides are wrong. At the end of the day, the only reason we pursue science at all is that we wish to know. If people really believe something insane, I welcome them to prove it, and if they make a convincing argument while also disproving the current working theory, I don’t think jumping ship is shameful.

I understand your reluctance to dismiss possibilities - I’ve been there. But all of science points to process as the underlying reality of our universe. This means that, despite thousands of years of denial and wishful thinking, we do NOT live in a static world. And the sooner we accept this reality and find a way to ‘roll with it’ rather than try to ‘control’ everything, the sooner we will achieve this sense of freedom we long for. To continue to believe we can put the brakes on the universe and make it first conform to our desires and then remain in that state is precisely what prevents freedom, not what contributes to it. — Possibility

Which is why I support "rolling with it". The only place that our views differ is in the possibility the future holds. I think that if we find ourselves in a time and place in the future where creating a static world habitable to us is possible, we should surely do it. If anyone in the present says that they know we for sure can or cannot do this, they must surely be lying. No one knows enough about the universe to say that for sure. All we can do is live with the present and use all we know to make the future better than the present.

So where you would say-

we do NOT live in a static world — Possibility

I would say-

we do NOT live in a static world (presently)

Those of us who are informed certainly do know that incompatibilist free will does not exist. — luckswallowsall

None of us can see the whole picture. A good rule of thumb is to go with what seems to make sense at the time, but be willing to change if the evidence says otherwise. I just can't help but think that completely ignoring a possibility is detrimental.

So do you genuinely believe that the first method is realistically achievable? — Possibility

To put it frankly, I don't know. We've pulled off some pretty ridiculous things in the past that just seem normal now, so I definitely think it's possible. I wouldn't put all of my money in it ever happening though. I think it's probably ideal, but if it isn't possible, I wouldn't be too disappointed.

Why is the second approach ignored? — Possibility

Because the first choice is a large upfront investment but by nature requires no upkeep. The second choice requires constant upkeep because you must constantly negotiate with your environment until you die or reach the first option. The second approach definitely seems more practical right now but I think it's natural to want to work towards the first one. And if the second method makes the first impossible (via restricting our actions so that extinction would result from making our way toward the first approach). then I suppose we just have to settle with negotiating with the universe.

It requires us to have achieved independence and autonomy, as well as have our path to success already cleared. — Possibility

Perhaps something like this could be possible near or after the heat death of the universe (if we’re right in predicting it would happen anyway). I recall some speculation that we might be able to siphon Hawking radiation from black holes and live off of that for a while or even forever, so maybe a path to this kind of freedom would be to hold out until we can do that. Or collect all of the energy and matter in the universe and keep it in a controlled system, but assuming that the universe expands infinitely and faster than we can catch up, that might just be impossible.

Why is that? Is it because you are then aware of where you can and cannot go as you set off? When you’re blindfolded, you can initially feel free - perhaps even more free than in the same position not blindfolded - but only until you wish to move or do anything. — Possibility

Like parcour, it helps to interact with everything not as an obstacle to avoid or overcome, but rather as a potential partner in achievement. This often means adjusting our plans to accommodate, even in the midst of executing them. We lose our sense of freedom when we fail to understand how a relationship has the potential for achievement from multiple perspectives. — Possibility

So there are two approaches to freedom then, one where you eliminate anything that can hurt you and then put on the blindfold, and another where you use your obstacles to get where you want to go?

Freedom is the ability to exercise any activity that doesn't impede upon anyone else's freedom. — Pelle

Well, I can imagine some grey areas, but it is for sure a definition.

Freedom is choosing to grow unimpeded by others, that does not mean not being influenced by others. — Brett

But what of the subconscious? Even subtle gestures can influence how you live your life without you even knowing.

Sure they will. Comparing a sweet cake to a salty cake, will give insights in to cake creation.
But it won't really influence a Garash recipe, will it? — Shamshir

But what if what we learn about a sweet or salty cake helps us make a better Garash?

That has more to do with cuisine than cakes, though. — Shamshir

The big picture I suppose. If we maintain our metaphor, what we know about cooking effects cakes, and what we learn about cakes influences what we know about cooking. Nothing is free from outside influence, especially arbitrary categories that we invent for ourselves.