Any free agent is an uncaused cause

[STT]

Your decision is caused by your will which is both free and created by God. Is there any logical contradiction there?

Yes, there is a contradiction in here. You cannot be caused by God and make a free decision. I have an argument for that:

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

But it’s not though. Free agents can be created, which makes them caused causes. There can be caused causes which have the ability to freely cause freewill decisions. There is no logical contradiction involved in this supposition, therefore it is logically possible.

Let’s see what is your opinion about the above argument.

 

[STT]

The uncaused cause is God, that one that began the chain of existence. The first cause is also God.

By uncaused cause I mean any being which causes and not created, such as mind. God however could be the creator of thing, such as physical.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, there is a contradiction in here. You cannot be caused by God and make a free decision. I have an argument for that:

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

Friend, it’s apparent that you do not have any children.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The uncaused cause is God, that one that began the chain of existence. The first cause is also God.

By uncaused cause I mean any being which causes and not created, such as mind. God however could be the creator of thing, such as physical.

It is not clear what you mean, because all parts of a creature are created including physical and spiritual.

 

[dmar198]

• The causation requires knowledge
• Knowledge is structured
• Therefore any caused thing is structured
• Anything which is structured cannot be free
• Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

Premises 2 and 4 are questionable. Why would knowledge require structure, and why can’t a thing that has structure also have freedom?

 

[STT]

Friend, it’s apparent that you do not have any children.

Freedom in decision is a property of mind which cannot be created. The person can be caused.

 

[STT]

It is not clear what you mean, because all parts of a creature are created including physical and spiritual.

What I am arguing is that the spiritual part, mind is not created. I have an argument for that:

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

 

[STT]

Premises 2 and 4 are questionable. Why would knowledge require structure, and why can’t a thing that has structure also have freedom?

Ok.
Premise 2: Knowledge is about the relation between things. Therefore knowledge is structured.
Premise 4: The behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts, parts being irreducible. Therefore anything which is structured cannot be free.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Mind however is not influenced by environment and past experiences when it make a free decision.

You seem to be presupposing that the mind is able to make any decision without being effected by it’s own past act of will, that is, it’s own experience in willing. Unless the only totally free decision is the absolute first thought, first act of will, then it will always be influenced by the past, simply through the capacity of memory.

No, when one is talking about mind as a separate substance.

If you can actually isolate a mind from a physical body outside of the concept of God. The existence of a mind, at least with respect to man, is bound by the existence of a body, a physical existence. Even if the mind can be proven to be a completely separate substance (I have never encountered reasoning which proved it could with respect to a human mind), it would be totally entangled on an existential level with that of a body outside of divine concepts of ipsum esse subsistens.

You are not free if you decision is accordance to nature.

From a Libertarian perspective. I specifically stated this within the Compatibilist perspective. Even then, we can examine this statement within Libertarian boundaries. If you aren’t free if your decision is in accordance with nature, then absolutely no decision if free because the nature of a mind includes an element of will and thought. Cogito ergo sum. Thus the very act of willing something, making a decision, or even reasoning abstractly acts in accordance with this nature. The nature of a mind is influencing its actions. By this, it is not free.

Only Compatibilism can overcome this circular logic of the influence of nature on our decisions.

 

[Vico]

…Anything which is structured cannot be free…

This is contrary to the idea that God causes rational being to have free will.

Note that angels are created pure spiritual beings.

 

[dmar198]

Premise 2: Knowledge is about the relation between things. Therefore knowledge is structured.

That is sufficient proof for me, thank you.

Premise 4: The behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts, parts being irreducible. Therefore anything which is structured cannot be free.

Your argument for Premise 4 introduces another questionable premise. Why can’t a structured thing determine its own behavior? Why must its behavior be determined by other parts of the structure?

 

[o_mlly]

Friend, it’s apparent that you do not have any children.

One’s own children are self-evidently caused. Children freely disobey (perhaps moved by a third type of freedom – combatibilism).

We have no experience of a mind preexisting its body. If one imagines as a predicate that a mind does preexist its body then any imaginable consequent may follow. But the truth of such an imaginary conditional proposition is not demonstrated.

 

[STT]

You seem to be presupposing that the mind is able to make any decision without being effected by it’s own past act of will, that is, it’s own experience in willing. Unless the only totally free decision is the absolute first thought, first act of will, then it will always be influenced by the past, simply through the capacity of memory.

Here we are interested on free decision. A decision is not free if it is biased by memory of past experiences, feelings, etc. One of course has options at the point of decision but his/her decision is not free if he/she for example choose an option because he/she likes it more. We makes free decision only when we want to show that we are free or when the options are equally liked.

If you can actually isolate a mind from a physical body outside of the concept of God. The existence of a mind, at least with respect to man, is bound by the existence of a body, a physical existence. Even if the mind can be proven to be a completely separate substance (I have never encountered reasoning which proved it could with respect to a human mind), it would be totally entangled on an existential level with that of a body outside of divine concepts of ipsum esse subsistens .

Here, I am arguing that the mind of an agent who is free is uncaused cause, which implicitly means that mind is a separate substance. I have an argument for this (a caused being/thing cannot be free):

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

From a Libertarian perspective. I specifically stated this within the Compatibilist perspective. Even then, we can examine this statement within Libertarian boundaries. If you aren’t free if your decision is in accordance with nature, then absolutely no decision if free because the nature of a mind includes an element of will and thought. Cogito ergo sum. Thus the very act of willing something, making a decision, or even reasoning abstractly acts in accordance with this nature. The nature of a mind is influencing its actions. By this, it is not free.

Only Compatibilism can overcome this circular logic of the influence of nature on our decisions.

I don’t think that Compatibilism is correct. You cannot make free decision and be biased by options or nature. That is against very definition of free will.

 

[STT]

This is contrary to the idea that God causes rational being to have free will.

Note that angels are created pure spiritual beings.

I know. But it is the conclusion. The conclusion is true unless there is a problem with one of the premise.

 

[STT]

Your argument for Premise 4 introduces another questionable premise. Why can’t a structured thing determine its own behavior? Why must its behavior be determined by other parts of the structure?

A structured thing can determine its own behavior if there is an emergence to allows that. What is emergence: Emergence simply is a phenomena in which the behavior of a thing is not a function of behavior of its parts. I have a thread on emergence that you can find it here: There is no emergence.

The argument is very simple:

1. There should be a reason when a thing which is made of parts behaves in specific way (things cannot happen for no reason)
2. Any reason is a function (a thing happens because of this and that)
3. Therefore there is a function which explain the behavior of the thing
4. This function is related to the behavior of parts (parts are the only things which we have)
5. Therefore there is no emergence

 

[STT]

One’s own children are self-evidently caused. Children freely disobey (perhaps moved by a third type of freedom – com b atibilism).

We have no experience of a mind preexisting its body. If one imagines as a predicate that a mind does preexist its body then any imaginable consequent may follow. But the truth of such an imaginary conditional proposition is not demonstrated.

A mind cannot have any experience without a body.

 

[Lucretius]

You are correct: life, animal motion, and free will all involve a kind of self-motion. But these are all relative self motions: wholes being moved by parts acting and interacting with the world. The animal moves its whole self by moving its legs against the ground, for example.

God is called unmoved mover in an absolute sense. He doesn’t move a part of himself to move himself, nor does he need anything outside himself to move himself. He is a whole without parts. He moves without having to be moved in any possible way.

Self-motion in creatures is a way in which creatures try to imitate their creator, for all things are made in his likeness. Free will is the highest form of self motion in creatures, for by it in union with reason, man is able to be be a master of himself, and thus of the whole world, and call himself a lord and king, an image of God, who we call Lord of lords.

 

[o_mlly]

A mind cannot have any experience without a body.

A mind cannot be the cause of anything w/o a body. Therefore, a mind cannot be an uncaused cause.

If you hold otherwise, provide examples of such ghostly effects from the real world.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

This is contrary to the idea that God causes rational being to have free will.

Note that angels are created pure spiritual beings.

I know. But it is the conclusion. The conclusion is true unless there is a problem with one of the premise.

A faulty premise is: “Anything which is structured cannot be free”.

That implies that voluntary choice or decision is impossible even where God makes it possible.

 

[CRM_Brother]

1. The causation requires knowledge

You seem to be blending two very different areas of philosophy: Epistomology and Metaphysical Causality. Causation does not require knowledge. Knowledge is the specific purview of the mind and yet objects without a mind can have causation. If you raise a rock into the air and then let go, gravity will cause it to fall. The rock does not have knowledge of the gravity as it doesn’t even have a mind to comprehend that knowledge. Yet, it is still caused to fall.

Following the logic in your propositions, then the easiest way to ensure your freedom is to simply refuse to accept knowledge. If there is no knowledge, there is no causation. Logic and philosophy become detrimental to freedom.

That is against very definition of free will.

No. This is against your definition of free will. Not mine.

You cannot make free decision and be biased by options or nature.

How can you be biased by nature? It is an integral part of the quidity of the thing in question. You can never separate the nature of the mind from the act of the mind. The very nature of the mind is to think (among other things). Therefore, according to your logic, no thought is free because it is influenced and compelled by the nature of the mind. You never addressed the main point with respect to nature, you simply said it’s wrong. If it is wrong, how can we reject our mind’s inherent nature in order to be free?