What’s your definition of free will?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Greta wrote:
but I expect that at some stage, somewhere, someone will risk inflicting enormous unnecessary pain on their AI.
I am afraid so, Greta. Already sentient animals are being treated like machines.This goes for back street breeders of dogs to canned hunt farms to cruelty to geese with diseased livers.
Socialist
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Togo1 »

Belinda wrote:Togo1 wrote:
Experiments also show that we tend to ascribe decisions by other people to enviromental factors, and our own decisions to internal factors. :)
Togo, by "internal factors" do you mean that we tend to ascribe our own decisions to a free will sort of thing, or do you mean that we tend to ascribe our own decisions to indigestion or lack of sleep sort of thing?

By "environmental factors" do you mean indigestion or lack of sleep sort of thing, or do you mean there's a policeman coming ,or a spider in the bath sort of thing?
My apologies! I got that the wrong way around... It's the tendency to assume other people's actions are the result of their personality, ability, or other qualities of them as a person, while our own actions are driven largely by enviromental factors. Just do a search for Fundemental Attribution Bias, or the older term, fundamental attribution error.

I'm not sure how relevent it is to free will, though, since I suspect it's more a bias around explanations.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Felix »

It's the tendency to assume other people's actions are the result of their personality, ability, or other qualities of them as a person, while our own actions are driven largely by environmental factors. Just do a search for Fundamental Attribution Bias, or the older term, fundamental attribution error.
Sounds like a symptom of low self esteem.... the eco-devil made me do it.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Togo1 wrote:
Belinda wrote:Togo1 wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)

Togo, by "internal factors" do you mean that we tend to ascribe our own decisions to a free will sort of thing, or do you mean that we tend to ascribe our own decisions to indigestion or lack of sleep sort of thing?

By "environmental factors" do you mean indigestion or lack of sleep sort of thing, or do you mean there's a policeman coming ,or a spider in the bath sort of thing?
My apologies! I got that the wrong way around... It's the tendency to assume other people's actions are the result of their personality, ability, or other qualities of them as a person, while our own actions are driven largely by enviromental factors. Just do a search for Fundemental Attribution Bias, or the older term, fundamental attribution error.

I'm not sure how relevent it is to free will, though, since I suspect it's more a bias around explanations.

I read about fundamental attribution bias. Thanks for the advice. Good old W---a!

Isn't much of arts , and much if not most of humanities education aims at reducing or eliminating the bias as described? Do you agree? Religion too aims to eliminate the bias as described:-

Luke 6: 42

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.


Free will enters into the bias as what governs volition. Unbelievers would attribute volition to natural reason and natural human kindliness : do you agree?
Socialist
User avatar
LogicReasonEvidence
Posts: 33
Joined: November 9th, 2014, 7:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dan Dennett
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by LogicReasonEvidence »

I've given this question a lot of thought in the past & have even presented a 'For' presentation in a debate regarding it's existence (which I won!) To start with let's look at your statement line by line before I define what FW might be:

In a world where everything is predetermined, your will would have been chosen by fate, so free will cannot exist here.

This is essentially like saying everything is inevitable so everything must be set in stone in advance.

In a world where everything is random, your will would be chosen randomly, so free will cannot exist here.

There is a problem with using the term 'random' because it's supposed to mean absolutely no hidden variables i.e. Things happen for absolutely no reason at all, but what could that actually mean? Randomness is something we can often measure e.g. Rolling dice & see what results come up in the long term & calculate any given probability of a potential result but dice aren't truly random. Dice fall as they do because of Newtonian forces determining the fixed out come from precise predetermined criteria & that can't be random although it may seem to be if the system determining the result can't be measured accurately enough to predict that out come.

In a world where everything is chosen by chance, your will will depend on chance, so free will cannot exist here.

'Chance' seems like the same idea in your preceding sentence but of course there is no 'chance' in the way Newtonian physics pans out. It's fixed & therefore not chance at all. Quantum mechanics is often invoked as an alternative to the Newtonian option because many people see it as 'free'. The criticism of this outlook is it is often said to miss the point that quantum phenomena - phenomena at the tiniest scales - operate in highly bizarre purely mathematical modes. Dice may seem to give a double six outcome on an average of once every 36 throws (6 x 6) & by & large indeed they do but the result is still down to Newtonian forces being the determining factors not maths as such despite the fact that mathematics can be mapped onto predictions accurately if a large enough sample of rolls occurs & the one in 36 probability of any result has a chance of panning out in the bigger picture if you make predictions based on ultimate probabilities. But 'chance' doesn't 'choose' a result it merely maps potential results in the bigger picture. If I toss a coin we may say chance 'chooses' a 50/50 probable answer of either heads or tails but what is that really saying in a specific case as all cases are of course specific not general. It means nothing & it means nothing at a quantum level either. i.e. If quantum mechanically we know there's a 50 / 50 chance of A or B happening it's meaningless to say 'chance' makes either A an outcome or for that matter 'B' because chance isn't a determiner it's a framework used to guess what seems most likely. Although in common parlance 'chance' is a very commonly cited cause for many events it is nothing of the sort. It's essentially a placeholder term we use in the abscence of anything better than a guess at the Newtonian scale (because no chance at all determines Newtonian events) or at Quantum scales although it is often cited to be such but that's simply for the want of a better explanation & we have no explanation which can be proven to be true in Quantum Mechanics. Yes there are models available such as the Many Worlds model or the Copenhagen Interpretation model but a model isn't a reality merely something which seems to map an 'unknown' with some level of accuracy.

At this point I will suggest another model for the operation of what we model (i.e. what we call) free will. It is essentially genuine intelligence. But what could genuine intelligence mean? Earlier I mentioned in response to the statement: In a world where everything is predetermined, your will would have been chosen by fate, so free will cannot exist here. to which I replied This is essentially like saying everything is inevitable so everything must be set in stone in advance. But there exists a word in the English language which is the alternative to inevitability. That is evitability. It's not a word we often hear if ever yet it does exist. It refers to the evolution of genuine intelligence i.e. In a situation where an agent such as ourself intelligently imagines options one might perform as responses to a given dilemma. Some of the options or perhaps one is better than others. For example if I have a dilemma about whether to cycle to work or drive or get a bus there's probably a better option out of those three. Perhaps I'm getting unfit & over weight so cycling is best as it gives me exercise keeping me physically fitter & also saving me money. If that's the case & it is intelligently perceived as such I have no choice but to do it! - Now that statement might be read as a nullification of the free will concept but the interesting question is: is it really? This is what philosopher Daniel C. Dennet calls 'Free will worth wanting' i.e. A mode of behavior which to all intents & purposes equals free will & is the only meaningful definition worth having. What's the point of any alternative? For instance, in the example I gave it may seem to be meaningful to assert 'But you could choose to drive to work by your own free will even though you need the exercise.' This is missing the point. If you're genuinely intelligent & can therefore see (or mentally model) the real advantage of cycling to work you really couldn't want to do the lesser option. - Well actually it's a bit more nuanced than that: if perhaps you compromised & walked to the bus stop for a bus ride to work instead of driving. This may still be fairly appropriate to your health & finances & therefore also a free choice but less so -basically because freedom isn't all or nothing but relative to appropriateness if we can agree there is such a thing as appropriate action & I would argue there is.

Appropriate action is action which we can philosophically think of as 'free'. Any temptation to consider inappropriate action as also a free choice is in truth missing the point. Why want to do something genuinely inappropriate? For example we may like the convenience of driving to work every day instead of cycling but if this convenience actually does result in illness or perhaps an early death we cannot intelligently prefer it we can only unintelligently prefer it assuming one desires a longer healthier happier life & I'd argue that in most scenarios a genuinely intelligent person does. Sometimes what may seem like inappropriate action is in truth appropriate. For instance the artist Salvador Dali wished to impress his girlfriend Gala so she would marry him. To do this he turned up at her door covered with animal excrement - not generally a good move for impressing the ladies! At least not unless you intend to become a very successful & famous surrealist artist like Dali & he did therefore Gala agreed to marry him! - This is an interesting example of understanding that free will worth wanting may sometimes be very different from what we may expect it to be! Genuine intelligence frees us to understand what this option as a future action could be: an evitable not inevitable event. Animals do not possess language as humans do therefore they cannot imagine with real sophistication complex options for action in life. For this reason animals cannot be thought of as having developed sophisticated free will but many (not all) humans do.

Going back to the subject of Quantum Mechanics it could also be argued that rather than the two potential modes of behavior being determined & undetermined -both of which nullify free will in the more conventional sense of 'could have done otherwise' -the actual modes are in truth: determined & chosen. This is borne out with good evidence in very strange results from quantum entanglement experiments where the viewer of an entangled quantum event quite literally chooses the outcome merely by being involved in the experiment & examining the result. That result is chosen every time. Always! If you aren't familiar with quantum entanglement this scenario may seem far fetched but it isn't, it is a scientific fact & one which can only be explained by ditching the concept of indeterminism & replacing it with choice. To understand how this peculiar conclusion can be drawn watch the following video about quantum entanglement to see how choice plays an unavoidable part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN6nvePWkzU

Everything that happens boils down to a quantum foundation with which we are entangled. It is not at all far fetched to suggest that the empirically demonstrable results of observing quantum phenomena are in some way actually chosen by us. Those choices are free whenever they map on to genuinely intelligent i.e. appropriate behaviors. Imagining such behaviors as anything other than free will is to totally misunderstand the value of having the capability to act appropriately. After all, what else could one sensibly wish to do other than act appropriately? If - like Dali, you sort of think 'inappropriate' acts are appropriate & indeed they are -like covering oneself with animal excrement, sometimes jut sometimes such actions are appropriate & therefore essentially 'free'. Warning: Many 'rebellious' personalities think they are being free in similar ways to Dali when in truth they are really acting inappropriately & are therefore just as puppet like as any conformist may be. In fact it is possible that conforming may sometimes be considered as being free.

I will give the final word to Neitzche on this subject:

To redeem what is past and to transform every 'It was' into 'thus would I have it' - that only do I call redemption!

Note: For anyone who is still unconvinced free will exists please refer to the Schooler experiment to be found in this YouTube clip at 37:10 in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hsfuf16P9A
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Atreyu »

Not a bad post, LogicReasonEvidence.

While my position is that Man does not have 'free will' as it is ordinarily defined, there is something quite true and relevant in your post, and I give you full credit for it. And it is thus:

If people had 'free will', then indeed they would always choose the most 'appropriate' action. You are quite right that people cannot truly choose self-destructing or unreasonable or stupid actions.

But given the fact that, in life, we see people in fact succumbing and not generally doing what is 'appropriate', shows us that Man does not have this elusive 'free will'. Your very post is actually a strong argument against Man having 'free will', for if we take your definition and do even a cursory analysis of human behavior, we will find that it does not apply....
User avatar
Dan_1985
Posts: 98
Joined: February 2nd, 2016, 10:06 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagarjuna
Location: China

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Dan_1985 »

As I attempt to explicate in my post, "Is 'free will' an oxymoron", I don't believe a 'will' can be 'free'. It just doesn't make sense.

One can not be 'absolutely' free, as you point out in your logical arguments. 'Freedom' is, after all, a relativistic term, so it would be a mistake to expect to find an absolute freedom of 'will'.

It would make more sense to ask how we can become as relatively free as possible.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Dan_1985, you are dazzled by the noun form. There is no such thing as choice such that choice takes any predicate. Choosing is a behaviour . 'Choice' is a confusing noun which has spmewhat determined that we reify what does not in fact, exist.

Similarly with 'will'.A will doesn't exist therefore it cannot take predicates such as 'is free' or 'is determined'. I say "doesn't exist", By this I mean that a will has no anatomical correlate.A will has a physiological correlate if we must use the word 'will'. Willing is a process as digesting food is a process. One may say "My digestion is good". "My digestion" does not refer to an organ such as the intestine or a digestive enzyme it refers to a process or perhaps a state of health.

As a process , will is what some people believe can trump any and all reasonings. This utterly supernatural trump card is what we argue against when we say that Free Will doesn't exist.

Your argument for evitability is an argument for relative freedom and power to choose among many alternatives as is conferred by reason; it's misplaced as an argument for a supernaturally acausal substance.
Socialist
User avatar
Dan_1985
Posts: 98
Joined: February 2nd, 2016, 10:06 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagarjuna
Location: China

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Dan_1985 »

Belinda, it seems we have the same understanding, so I'm not sure what the issue is here; but I hope you can bring me to further clarification.

I agree that there is no anatomical correlate nor any irreducible referent whatsoever for any 'will'. I don't believe there is any sensible claim or argument for 'souls' (if this is what we're getting at). Like you say, it only makes sense to use the term 'will' or 'choice' to refer to a process, which isn't a thing in-and-of itself and which lacks any true referent in the phenomenal world. This being the case, any freedom we would like to think we enjoy can only exist in relation to the constraints of the process, and this is what I refer to as 'relative freedom': Not an 'absolute' freedom which exists in-and-of itself unconditionally, but a relative one which exists in relation to its causes and conditions (which constitute the 'process').

So, you see, I am not arguing for an ineffable referent of 'will' or 'choice', or supernaturally acausal substance.

Is there anything I am missing here?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Dan_1985 summed up:
So, you see, I am not arguing for an ineffable referent of 'will' or 'choice', or supernaturally acausal substance.
You are not missing anything as far as I'm concerned, and we agree.
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Londoner »

PhiloJ wrote: I will now explain why free will cannot exist whit this definition.

In a world where everything is predetermined, your will would have been chosen by fate, so free will cannot exist here.

In a world where everything is random, your will would be chosen randomly, so free will cannot exist here.

In a world where everything is chosen by chance, your will will depend on chance, so free will cannot exist here.
In such worlds, no things at all can exist.

They are all holistic descriptions. If 'everything is predetermined' then no thing can be distinguished from other things. For example, a table would not exist in itself, it would just be an aspect of the things that determined it, just as those determining things would be aspects of other determining things, until we have included everything in the universe as being the table.

Likewise random-ness and chance (I do not understand what it meant by 'chance' in this context). If everything is 'something', then it isn't anything in particular. It is like saying that 'all the universe is porridge'. In that case, nothing is not-porridge so 'table' means 'porridge' and so does very other name.

However, I do not think such descriptions are helpful because there are differences between particular things. I am different to a table in many ways, and my having will is one of them.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:
I am different to a table in many ways, and my having will is one of them.
Hello Londoner. Do you have volitions when you're asleep? When you are dreaming? What causes you to have or not to have volitions? What is lacking in a table compared with a living mouse that the table wants nothing and the mouse wants to run to safety?

Regarding differentiating one object from another at any given time, the objects in question must display a degree of duration before you or I can attribute any integrity whatsoever to them. Duration must be a parameter which you and I have in common with the objects in question before you or I can compare degrees of duration. Therefore man is the measure of all things, and there is no measure which is beyond time.
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Londoner »

Belinda wrote:Londoner wrote:
I am different to a table in many ways, and my having will is one of them.
Hello Londoner. Do you have volitions when you're asleep? When you are dreaming? What causes you to have or not to have volitions? What is lacking in a table compared with a living mouse that the table wants nothing and the mouse wants to run to safety?

Regarding differentiating one object from another at any given time, the objects in question must display a degree of duration before you or I can attribute any integrity whatsoever to them. Duration must be a parameter which you and I have in common with the objects in question before you or I can compare degrees of duration. Therefore man is the measure of all things, and there is no measure which is beyond time.
I do not know exactly what is meant by 'volitions'. When I am asleep I seem to have some sort of emotional reactions to my dreams; I like or dislike them, so I would say I can have volition in the simple sense of wanting things to be other than they are.

I do not really know what is going on in a mouse's head, but I would think it can also imagine that things are other than they are. I certainly can; my idea of myself is not restricted by my physical situation. I may be seated at my computer but I am also aware that I could go and make myself some coffee. I do not think this is true of the table. I think that if we completely described the material condition of the table we would have fully described the table. I do not think that is true of us.

I think that how we differentiate between objects -or group them - is up to us. No way is more correct than any other, how we do it depends on our purpose, except that when we do it we need to be consistent. My argument is that the OP does so in a way that excludes free will, but applied consistently it also excludes everything else too.

My position is that if we do differentiate things in the world, like mice and tables and us, then these things we have differentiated have their own characteristics. They take a role in the normal understanding of the world; they have a nature and affect other things in the world according to that nature. Our nature includes being able to imagine things as being different to how they and that affects how we behave. This feature of humans does not seem in need of some special explanation, any more than the hardness of tables, or the mouseiness of mice.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:
My position is that if we do differentiate things in the world, like mice and tables and us, then these things we have differentiated have their own characteristics. They take a role in the normal understanding of the world; they have a nature and affect other things in the world according to that nature. Our nature includes being able to imagine things as being different to how they and that affects how we behave. This feature of humans does not seem in need of some special explanation, any more than the hardness of tables, or the mouseiness of mice.
Hi Londoner. Is the hardness of tables and mousiness of mice then independent of the mind that thinks of tables and mice?
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Londoner »

Belinda wrote:Londoner wrote:

Hi Londoner. Is the hardness of tables and mousiness of mice then independent of the mind that thinks of tables and mice?
Not in the sense that it is a function of the way I have differentiated and named those objects. My notion of 'table' includes hardness, but I might have equally chosen to lump tables into a more general category of 'furniture', in which case some sorts of furniture are soft. As I wrote earlier, that is our choice. We pick the description useful for a particular purpose.

On the other hand, the table remains what it is. By calling it 'furniture' I do not make it become soft. To say the table exists is to say that it is not me. I push against it and it resists, whether I want it to or not, that is what I mean when I say it is hard.

But that isn't true of me; I do not sense my own being as if I was an object; I cannot push against my own mind and find a fixed set of properties. I may become aware of a thought, but as soon as I do I have distanced myself from that thought. So I cannot grasp 'myself' in the same way as I grasp the table.

In other words, even if we did say that things like the hardness of tables and everything else was mind dependent, we would still have to allow that our sense of ourselves is mind dependent in a radically different way.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021