What does "will" mean?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Mgrinder »

Jutfrank wrote:
Mgrinder wrote: What thing in nature does the translating of "sensations" into action, Schopenhauer?
The Will. (Wille)
Mgrinder wrote: Does such a thing exist?
It's not a 'thing' in the normal sense. It's more like an unseen mechanism behind things.
A mechanism is a "thing". I'm using "thing" in a very broad sense. that's language.
Jutfrank wrote:
Mgrinder wrote: Why can't I declare it as part of "me", Schopenhauer?
It's more that 'you' are a part of 'it'.
It's still a part of "me". There is (1) A general phenomenon called "awareness". Some of this can be localized to my body. Hence a part of "me". (2) A general phenomenon called "matter." Some of this can be localized to my body. Hence a part of "me". (3) A general phenomeon of "sensations" being translated into "action" (a will). Some of this can be localized to my body. Hence a part of "me".
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by RJG »

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants [Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]
As humans, we fail to recognize the overriding and powerful control that our “wants” [our "will"] impose upon our actions. We are not 'free' in any meaningful sense. --- We are just puppets to our wants!
Mgrinder wrote:Why can't I declare it [the Will] as part of "me", Schopenhauer?
Can a puppet "declare" the puppet master as “part of me”? For whose words (if not the puppet master's) is this puppet using???

Who is this “me”?, ...and whose words is this "me" using to make this "declaration"?

Jutfrank wrote:It's more that 'you' are a part of 'it'.
Mgrinder wrote:It's still a part of "me".
Jutfrank is correct. The puppet can only belong to the puppet master, (i.e. the puppet master speaks for the puppet!), ...not the other way around!!
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Spraticus »

Papus79 wrote:Will's one of those things where I see that we receive it from outside - ie. our internal hungers for x, y, or z, etc. that you could plot on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as well as the pressures and complexities that we take on from the nature of our social environments. Seems like for most of our lives we're in an effort to tune, modify, and cultivate the way our various lines of will surface, how we'll socially mediate the, how we'll internally mediate them, and we do a heck of a lot of sublimating as well - ie. there are plenty of times where you'll feel a strong will do one thing, it won't be appropriate to the situation, so you figure out how to exchange the currency for something you can apply it to.

I really have to posit the roots of will as evolutionary because the growth of bodies seems to be a mutual benefit situation and with moving bodies that benefit would seem to come through focused agency. As for Free Will, whether it would make me friends here or not, I have to side with the Sam Harris camp for reasons that seem even more obvious to me than whether or not we make our decisions 5 or 7 seconds after our brains process them - ie. we're in a structure of time where ultimately only one outcome or branch of outcomes is real with everything considered and there's no way to rewind time, play it 1, 10, 10,000, or a trillion tmes over and expect a prior state to lead to a different result. The implication of that last part is that our lives from birth to death are probably frozen in the same way they would be if they were recorded on DVD or Blu-Ray (random background flux of the universe also being something where it interjects where it does and, perhaps for my own lack of creativity, I can't think of how an experiment could prove that it's really random rather than complex to the point of chaotic appearance). I think for pragmatic reasons we're forced to admit that we're agents for the forces that come out of us and, if we do something grossly negligent and some type of tort or even tort plus punitive damages need to be levied that there's no one else for those damages to be levied against other than ourselves.
You're mixing up modern things that are from outside, as far as the surrounding culture is outside, like a good T-shirt, and real drives like sex, acceptance by the group, food, shelter etc
If drives like those have a reality it is because they connect with a drive to be accepted by the local group. There isn't,as far as I can see any relevance to the question of what will is, or whether or not it exists.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 3:07 pm to add the following --

It seems to me that most posts here are just dogs barking at noise in the dark. There is minimal engagement with other's argument and a lot of argument that is not worth engaging with.
Most of the points and counter-points are more about the language used than about what people actually mean. As far as I can see most of the barking is about the particular words people use, and if there was an agreed vocabulary, much of the argument would disappear. I suspect his is true of most of philosophical disputes. When we raise an important and humanly significant subject like, "Will", lots of people feel threatened by it. They trot out all the learned responses to the topic. What we need is a structured response to the topic such as;

What is will? How exactly is the OP defining it? Can we begin to accept that definition?

If the answer is, "No," then the rest of the conversation shouldn't happen.
It is fairly clear that there is no generally agreed definition of what will is or could be or if it even exists at all, so the rest of this conversation is pointless.

WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY ARGUING ABOUT? This is supposed to be a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

-- Updated February 28th, 2017, 3:10 pm to add the following --

It seems to me that most posts here are just dogs barking at noise in the dark. There is minimal engagement with other's argument and a lot of argument that is not worth engaging with.
Most of the points and counter-points are more about the language used than about what people actually mean. As far as I can see most of the barking is about the particular words people use, and if there was an agreed vocabulary, much of the argument would disappear. I suspect his is true of most of philosophical disputes. When we raise an important and humanly significant subject like, "Will", lots of people feel threatened by it. They trot out all the learned responses to the topic. What we need is a structured response to the topic such as;

What is will? How exactly is the OP defining it? Can we begin to accept that definition?

If the answer is, "No," then the rest of the conversation shouldn't happen.
It is fairly clear that there is no generally agreed definition of what will is or could be or if it even exists at all, so the rest of this conversation is pointless.

WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY ARGUING ABOUT? This is supposed to be a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Papus79 »

Spraticus wrote: You're mixing up modern things that are from outside, as far as the surrounding culture is outside, like a good T-shirt, and real drives like sex, acceptance by the group, food, shelter etc
If drives like those have a reality it is because they connect with a drive to be accepted by the local group. There isn't,as far as I can see any relevance to the question of what will is, or whether or not it exists.
Could you flesh that out with some examples of 'modern things' that aren't drives? I can't reply to this adequately if I don't know what you're referring to.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Gertie »

Spraticus
“I'd say the sort of issues you mention are the types of questions neuroscience should eventually be able to sort out, and I expect we will have to abandon some of our folk psychology intuitions and language when we have a better understanding of the mechanics of how brains work.”
It’s precisely those folk psychology ideas that I’m objecting to. Many of those constructs such as mind, will, soul, mentality, spirit, consciousness are, at best, superfluous; they are not so much multiplying entities as renaming a single phenomenon to make it look like many.



Maybe it's a single phenomenon, that's one hypothesis, but it still needs explaining.

The folk psychology notions which might be better understood purely through research on how the neurobiological systems work might include will and decision-making. But a more fundamental type of explanation is required for how phenomenological subjective experience arises, including its lawful relationship with physical matter. If/when we have that, we'll understand what, if any, causal properties phenomenological subjective experiential states can have. And saying terms like 'mind' are superfluous, when you say they have causal power needs deeper explanation.

Statements like the following are functional and behavioural descriptions of what brains do, which isn't the same thing -

Spraticus -
The thing we are talking about is a process, some parts of which are hidden and other parts of which are seen; the border between the parts is mediated by the attentional system. The process involves the integration of internal and external information to modify a predictive model of the body and its surrundings.
And terms like 'hidden' and 'seen' are vague and skirt the deeper issue.



“But the initial hurdle I referred to regarding the possibility of mental causation in principle, requires a different, more fundamental explanation about the relationship between the mental and physical. Some people like Dennett disagree, and say that by explaining the physical processes you have explained everything. And you get phrases like' the mental is the physical', or 'mind is what the brain does',, or 'consciousness is an illusion' given as explanation by people who find Dennett persuasive. And trying to pin down what people who say that actually mean can be a struggle. Because, imo, Dennett obfuscates, very skillfully and elegantly, with beguiling prose and attractive distractions about language and wotnot, but doesn't give people solid coherent arguments to take away.

I don't accept one line summaries like that as an explanation, even if they're onto something, they're not explanatory. For example it doesn't explain why my heart or digestive system don't give rise to mental experience.”
Why would they? I am not continuously aware of these organs but when something changes enough to reach a signal level high enough to provoke attention, I certainly do notice events. We experience tachycardia, indigestion, imminent bowel movements, a sudden drop in blood pressure, etc.
Why wouldn't they?
“The physical processes of brains and hearts and alimentary canals can all be explained in scientific terms. That scientific explanation doesn't include mental experience arising, or having a causal role in terms of psychological desires, fears, etc in my behaviour via brain processes.”

But it does. If you think of the brain’s primary function as being the maintenance of homeostasis, these drives are the mechanisms it uses to direct the body towards the necessary adjustments, sex, food, safety and so on.
Again, you're describing the function. If I asked for a fundamental scientific explanation for how a car moves, the properties and laws governing its processes, the answer wouldn't be it moves because its function is to move and the engine makes it go. Why a car moves is explainable in terms of the properties of matter and the laws governing how matter interacts. It fits into our scientific model of how the world works. The physical processes of hearts and brains do too. What doesn't, is that phenomenal subjective experience arises from working brains, or how it relates to the physical processes. Do you see the distinction I'm making?

So if I was a scientist who knew everything about the physical processes of brains and hearts, how would I predict that phenomenal subjective experience would arise in one but not the other using current scientific models?

If I couldn't, if I don't have the required fundamental theory, how can I know if phenomenal mental states play some causal role in physical processes (eg me reaching for an orange), physical processes which in principle can be fully accounted for by physical properties and laws?
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Spraticus »

I'm traveling at the moment and won't have time to reply for some days.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Mgrinder »

RJG wrote:
Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants [Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]
As humans, we fail to recognize the overriding and powerful control that our “wants” [our "will"] impose upon our actions. We are not 'free' in any meaningful sense. --- We are just puppets to our wants!
Mgrinder wrote:Why can't I declare it [the Will] as part of "me", Schopenhauer?
Can a puppet "declare" the puppet master as “part of me”? For whose words (if not the puppet master's) is this puppet using???

Who is this “me”?, ...and whose words is this "me" using to make this "declaration"?

Jutfrank wrote:It's more that 'you' are a part of 'it'.
Mgrinder wrote:It's still a part of "me".
Jutfrank is correct. The puppet can only belong to the puppet master, (i.e. the puppet master speaks for the puppet!), ...not the other way around!!
SO after all that, you will not engage with what I wrote, it's basically, RJG says this therefore, RJG is right....

I will have to remember not to bother with you. I've probably said this before...

-- Updated Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:00 pm to add the following --
Spraticus wrote:
It seems to me that most posts here are just dogs barking at noise in the dark. There is minimal engagement with other's argument and a lot of argument that is not worth engaging with.
Most of the points and counter-points are more about the language used than about what people actually mean. As far as I can see most of the barking is about the particular words people use, and if there was an agreed vocabulary, much of the argument would disappear. I suspect his is true of most of philosophical disputes. When we raise an important and humanly significant subject like, "Will", lots of people feel threatened by it. They trot out all the learned responses to the topic. What we need is a structured response to the topic such as;

What is will? How exactly is the OP defining it? Can we begin to accept that definition?

If the answer is, "No," then the rest of the conversation shouldn't happen.
It is fairly clear that there is no generally agreed definition of what will is or could be or if it even exists at all, so the rest of this conversation is pointless.

WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY ARGUING ABOUT? This is supposed to be a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
Well said, good point. :)
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by RJG »

Mgrinder wrote:SO after all that, you will not engage with what I wrote, it's basically, RJG says this therefore, RJG is right....

I will have to remember not to bother with you. I've probably said this before...
I "engaged" you quite succinctly and to the point. You apparently don't understand the meaning of what I said.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Papus79 »

I have to agree with the ideas above - ie. we do not originate our wants, our desires, what causes pain or pleasure, etc. and the best we can really do is soften or attempt to smooth/dull both ends or react to them in a way that seems meet to our best interests.

The way I've thought about this before is in the Input -> Processing -> Output model. If I don't get to control the inputs either from within or without, if I didn't build the processes that make up the way I think (whether they're wonderful and fully to my benefit or otherwise) then I don't own the processing or processor, so then how could I own the output? For pragmatic purposes I have to be held to account for my actions, because no one else can be and for the lack of human free will to delete the criminal and tort justice systems would indeed have very real and profoundly negative consequences. The net effect though - life is not fair and, to add, it literally cannot be fair based on what we're dealing with. There are denials of this we can make for our own feelings but the bills on such things always come due, just like the bills always come due on utopian ideologies or people's desire to fantasize all oppression on some other race, creed, or gender in the belief that if that intersectional group either fully capitulated or, under extreme beliefs, was wiped off the map that all would be right in the world.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Mgrinder »

RJG wrote:
Mgrinder wrote:SO after all that, you will not engage with what I wrote, it's basically, RJG says this therefore, RJG is right....

I will have to remember not to bother with you. I've probably said this before...
I "engaged" you quite succinctly and to the point. You apparently don't understand the meaning of what I said.
Yeah right. Other way round. You dismissed what I wrote with a"RJG is always right" statement. You are unable or unwilling to engage with the idea that I am the thing which decides. Something decides, why is it not me? You have no answer other than RJG thinks it's not me. What a waste of time.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by RJG »

Mgrinder wrote:
RJG wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I "engaged" you quite succinctly and to the point. You apparently don't understand the meaning of what I said.
Yeah right. Other way round. You dismissed what I wrote with a"RJG is always right" statement. You are unable or unwilling to engage with the idea that I am the thing which decides. Something decides, why is it not me? You have no answer other than RJG thinks it's not me. What a waste of time.
A "puppet" DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING!, ...it is the "puppet-master" that decides!!

The puppet (aka "me"/"you"/"I") is part of the puppet-master (aka the "Will"), ...it is the Will that controls Us, ...it is the Will that "pulls-our-strings", ...NOT the other way around!!!

To claim the reverse, that the Will is part of Us, is non-sensical, (i.e. to claim the "alphabet" is part of the "letter A" is non-sensical).
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Rr6 »

Mgrinder-- What does the word "will" mean?
Spirit-of-intent ergo combination of brain{ nervous system/spirit-2 } and access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, to whatever degree.

Some on this forum don't accept the facts that concepts exist as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect .

If metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts did not exist, this forum would not exist and words associated with them would not exist in dictionaries.

Spirit-of-intent is limited by a finite set of cosmic laws/principles, within an eternal yet finite set of occupied space events Universe.

We intend-- minimal expenditure of energy ---for this or that to happen and we take action-- more expenditure of energy --- in that direction.

A Puppet On String
rybo6 alias r6

A puppet on string,
Dangles and dances,
Controlled by the master,
It bows and prances.

Free from hard choices,
Free from minds will,
Free from pregnancy
Free from the pill.

Oh to be a puppet,
A puppet is free,
Free from decisions,
It smiles with glee.

My puppet is attentive,
My puppet is smart,
It lives in a container,
It does not fart.

A puppet on string,
A wooden delight,
No weight problems,
And reflects all light.
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Spraticus
Posts: 132
Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Spraticus »

Papus79 wrote:
Spraticus wrote: You're mixing up modern things that are from outside, as far as the surrounding culture is outside, like a good T-shirt, and real drives like sex, acceptance by the group, food, shelter etc
If drives like those have a reality it is because they connect with a drive to be accepted by the local group. There isn't,as far as I can see any relevance to the question of what will is, or whether or not it exists.
Could you flesh that out with some examples of 'modern things' that aren't drives? I can't reply to this adequately if I don't know what you're referring to.
Modern things like drinking Coke, wearing the right clothes etc are not drives in themselves, they are like symptoms of a disease, they just float on top of the real drives, such as the drive to eat or the drive for acceptance of membership in the group.. Actually, looking at what I wrote before, it's all there; just read and engage.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Papus79 »

Okay, I was trying to pinpoint our disagreement if there is one.

The way I'd think of what you said above is that we spend a lot of time catching our own reflection off of our environments and ultimately objects, sometimes living ones as well, become enmeshed in our drives and we try to make those objects tools of our expression. My point was that the sorting and management we're doing inside is governed by evolutionary drives and, maybe this is what you might disagree with, I tend to think that everything else we're doing as well which doesn't fit neatly into that category is still a secondary or tertiary byproduct of those drives and could still be considered an aspect of those drives in extension.

I tried looking back at your earlier posts and most of what I saw was debate over the hard problem. I find it interesting with respect to questions of AI and I do think our search to try finding the material roots of conscious experience and perhaps even create them inorganically will lead us to a lot of interesting discoveries along the way. Past that I think there are already thousands of PhD's in the kitchen on that one and I'm not sure how much I'd want to butt in.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: What does "will" mean?

Post by Mgrinder »

RJG wrote:
Mgrinder wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Yeah right. Other way round. You dismissed what I wrote with a"RJG is always right" statement. You are unable or unwilling to engage with the idea that I am the thing which decides. Something decides, why is it not me? You have no answer other than RJG thinks it's not me. What a waste of time.
A "puppet" DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING!, ...it is the "puppet-master" that decides!!

The puppet (aka "me"/"you"/"I") is part of the puppet-master (aka the "Will"), ...it is the Will that controls Us, ...it is the Will that "pulls-our-strings", ...NOT the other way around!!!

To claim the reverse, that the Will is part of Us, is non-sensical, (i.e. to claim the "alphabet" is part of the "letter A" is non-sensical).
As always, you are the thing that decides, it's far from non sensical. As always, you are doing nothing more than asserting, and not addressing any of my arguments or claims. Waste of time as usual.

-- Updated Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:05 am to add the following --
Papus79 wrote:Okay, I was trying to pinpoint our disagreement if there is one.

The way I'd think of what you said above is that we spend a lot of time catching our own reflection off of our environments and ultimately objects, sometimes living ones as well, become enmeshed in our drives and we try to make those objects tools of our expression. My point was that the sorting and management we're doing inside is governed by evolutionary drives and, maybe this is what you might disagree with, I tend to think that everything else we're doing as well which doesn't fit neatly into that category is still a secondary or tertiary byproduct of those drives and could still be considered an aspect of those drives in extension.

I tried looking back at your earlier posts and most of what I saw was debate over the hard problem. I find it interesting with respect to questions of AI and I do think our search to try finding the material roots of conscious experience and perhaps even create them inorganically will lead us to a lot of interesting discoveries along the way. Past that I think there are already thousands of PhD's in the kitchen on that one and I'm not sure how much I'd want to butt in.
Who are you talking to ?
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