geordief

Just in that (if they are composed of,in the main the indigenous population )they represent that population to the extent that they are a part of it. So ,if 2%(?) of the population are Hamas fighters then they represent the population to a very small extent. But if we suppose that some 50 % of the population approve of Hamas then that body (and Hamas itself) could well be said to be representative to a greater degree. That is what I had in mind when I used the term "representative" I meant it in a way that there were various different strands of representation throughout the population and not that Hamas had any legitimacy(it may have had at the time of the last elections but that legitimacy has imo run its course Even so I understand that (,whether or not they are free to express it without consequence ) it seems that Hamas has a lot more support in the general population than I am happy with. I would be very ,very happy if that was not the case but I fear it may be so.

I have been wondering for a while....are the Hamas fighters all local Palestinians or are they largely foreign fighters? I had always assumed the latter but it is now looking more like they are genuinely representative (and repressive) of the local population (although I assume there must be some foreign fighters amongst them)

Yes that's right.My mistake(hadn't worked out what IRL stood for to be honest -over here that is the acronym for Ireland)

If that action occurs when all the choices have been resolved ,where is the time and space for that to happen? I don't think it does. I think it is the onrushing choices beyond them (in the immediate future) that "force our hand" They physically make the "decision" of choice taking for us and we sit "god like" amidst our mental processes looking down or sideways and approving in retrospect.

Would the frequent observation that children and us all, perhaps) need boundaries to develop be an illustration or consequence of that underlying condition? Again the observation that we need to be open minded but not to the extent that our brains fall out?

It makes sense but I don't think that that would be an engrained attitude amongst people -at least amongst people who appreciate that to see the whole picture you have to see both sides. I suspect that that is what we all learn early on but we choose (oops a choice word to use in a free will thread )to forget it when it becomes inconvenient. Actually ,come to think of it ,the question of (trying to) see things from the other's point of view is probably a far more important question than wondering whether free will exists or determinism rules and ,in this thread's question is there any practical or social consequence to the potential resolving of the issue.

I don't follow. I put the "and vice versa" in to fill things out and because it was obviously necessary. But I don't see what double standard is in there. Can you try and explain "my" idea to me?(I freely admit to being easily confused -especially by anything to do with relativity) (I might have an idea of the double standard you have in mind -is it the one where we criticise others for behaviours that we find ourselves able to justify in ourselves - common or garden hypocrisy?)

I had the idea a few months back that everything was determined (about me) in your frame and everything was free will (about me ) in my frame. And vice versa.

In absolute terms,I agree. We all have choices** but they are all competing against one another and so none of them are "free" until an action is taken. Then they appear to be free as the particular "last standing" choice is the "king of the heap" **if there was only one choice that would presumably be the antithesis of what we might call "free will"

Not quite sure what was in my head when I posted that.Maybe this would be an example of what I had in mind. When you form a close attachment to another person , that (in your ,and in all likelihood in others') minds defines who you are. It is a commonplace to hear said that when such a person is lost then a part of the person is lost too. Again ,Stringjungky gave up smoking some 5 or more years ago and those who try to motivate people like him to quit an addictive habit often (I think) say that you have succeeded in your change of behaviour when you identify in your own mind as a "non-smoker" I quit some 30/40 years ago but I don't meet that criterion and still miss the habit ,especially the offering of a cig to a friend or a stranger. If you give me a clue ,perhaps I could think of a counter-example?

Can we draw a line between our motivations and our identity? Is our identity something that we construct post facto? Is there a difference between how we experience our identity and how we model it (or another person's identity)? Are you still off the smokes?

Are we one person in the first place?(at any one time or otherwise) If we have overlapping areas of identity, then that must muddy the waters.

Mrs Doyle says "ah go on"

Not me.(Just working out what a DV is.) Don't see Swansont getting them a lot. I think Israel needs Net. et als' monkeys off their back but the only reason they can't is likely that the Palestinians prefer them to to more accommodating/sane alternative and so don't give an inch(with the result that the Israelis turn to them in the voting booth)

Sausage rolls?

I got it too. Thought the response was funnier though.(a soupçon of Poe face?)

Yes.I have difficulty** following the arguments made in this and other threads and so sometimes I like to take simple scenarios and imagine how they might play out in conditions that are easier to imagine in physical everyday terms. Could we imagine an episode of Startreck where Capt Kirk comes across a civilisation in the Bismarkia Galaxy where the population is under the impression that all individual decisions have to be assessed by a central decision processing system before they are allowed to be acted upon? That would make their society very unweildy but might confer some advantages. Obviously one of the more nubile star farers on board the Space ship could be caught prisoner whilst investigating the planet and would have to be extricated somehow ,possibly by some kind of a mind hack where the decision making process of the captors was temporarily short circuited by some fancy piece of equipment and so onto the next episode. I think that might be the implication of the OP ,to find practical applications for philosophical questions /dilemmas **because of my poor reasoning abilities.

OK

Bruce Almighty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Almighty Or does the extrapolation make no sense to you?

Would that be material for a Jim Careyesque film where instead of being omnipotent the main character learns that he or she is not responsible for their own actions? They would have to convince their company that this was the case -and that it applied to them too(because he had seen the light and was 100% aware of this) Are their situations where mundane interrelationships would change as a result of 1,2 or more people being on board? Would people ,perhaps carry chips on their person to indicate to their companions whether or not a likely action would be carried out faithfully by the individual involved (if external circumstances did not intervene to much? Rather like medium range weather forecasting...)

Some kind of a book,play or collection (?) about her later years coming out I think. They played this version of Pete Seeger's song whilst discussing her on the radio with the author.

Might need a bit more than that if you are Trump.

Was he wearing boots? Could be why he drowned .

Back to the drawing board (you are running rings around me) Unless we are talking about a Glass Onion class of the Concentric Universe.

In the Concentric Universe.