Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

And these things uniquely originate from the mind, yes?

Yes, these are abilities of mind.

If so, is it safe to agree that it may cause two of such things simultaneously?

I cannot follow you here. Mind doesn’t cause experience, it just experiences. Decision is an act that is internal. Mind finally causes which affects external.

Whilst each being unique from each other, like for example, to opposing thoughts being judged?

I cannot follow the first part of your sentence (bold part)…

If so, then we must say that there has to be a reason for the change between the cause (mind) or surrounding conditions in order for a different result to come about, yes?

My sincere apology. But I cannot understand what you are talking about.

But, and heres where the crux of the argument is to me, we must either admit one of three things. Either:
A) The cause experienced a change, and thus this is the reason for the difference in result
B) Surrounding conditions experienced a change, and thus this is the reason for the difference in result
C) Both experienced change, and thus this is the reason for the difference in result.

I am afraid that I cannot understand these, perhaps that is due to the fact that I couldn’t understand before.

Now, if we say the mind is unchanging (as a metaphysically simple, and therefore absolutely simple being must be) then therefore its “decisions” are really only the result of environment and not the actual substance. But that would contradict the definition of “free being”, therefore B is false.

I am very eager to understand what you are trying to say. But failed.

 

[STT]

The other two would be verify that a free agent does experience changes, and thus it cannot be metaphysically simple, but only substantially simple. As such, the mind should be able to both change and be the cause of thoughts (though, that is not to say that it can do them alone; thats where I would say that the brain maybe a mechanism of the mind to manifest thoughts, or perhaps the human being is both body and mind in complete union where they are completely connected).

Mind is simple and doesn’t change. It however experiences changes and can causes changes. I don’t know the difference between metaphysically and substantially simple so it would be nice of you to expound.

He would say that the brain is the mechanism of the mind, if I read his work accurately. Without the help of the mechanism, the mind can practically do nothing.

And what he means with mechanism?

I would call it the nature of a given being, though I suppose that would be composite if the being is composite. Anyhow, I don’t think that takes away from my objections, which was that the mind as a substance also has a nature in conformity with the rest of the nature of a given being, therefore it cannot be separated from essence and be called simply existence.

I can assure you that mind is simply existence. It doesn’t have any nature to act according to it. It can decide whatever.

 

[STT]

Complete simplicity in substance, spirit, physics and metaphysics, mind and understanding would require that one is in complete harmonious union with their nature (as a composition of essence and existence would contradict metaphysical simplicity).

I cannot understand how essence and existence could be one.

But to because essence is constant, it would require the beings existence to be immutably constant as well.

What do you mean with constant?

But true immutability can only come from a complete lack of the elements of change, that being potentiality. Therefore, a completely immutable being must be pure actuality.

I agree.

But God is pure actuality by definition; therefore, you are God.

What do you mean with “you”? By the way, I was looking for a proof that a being which is simple is pure actual.

Fair enough, but the fact of the matter is that the mind is the initiator of a thought, correct?

Yes. Mind is initiator.

As such, my argument above follows.

I fail to see what argument you are referring to.

Once more, I think its safe to say that the mind is the initiator of mental phenomena, and as such, my argument follows. Though, I must admit, I think I agree with your mind body synthesis to a good extent.

I am glad to hear that.

 

[STT]

Well, yes. The mind is operating you in a sense, but the mystery is how the operation takes place, i.e how can and does the immaterial interact with the material. I think thats what Gorgias is asking.

Well, that requires a large elaboration but here you go: Matter has properties which I divide it to physical, such as mass, charge etc. and mental, such as taste, color, etc. Matter itself is a substance which has form, so called field, which interact with another matter through forces field, such as gravity, electromagnetic force, etc. For each property we have a force. Matter moves according to laws of nature unless mind intervene. Majority of minds however only have access to mental property (mind basically is in a vat), I believe some people have access to physical property too but that is a separate topic. It is through mental properties that we could interact with reality. For example when we experience a flavor our brain receives signals from our sensory system which this is the result of interaction of matter with our sensory system. Lets say that we are testing salt. Salt, our sensory system and most importantly our brain goes to a configuration that allow a mental property magnifies, which in this case is the test of salt. So we experience salt.

 

[Gorgias]

Mind doesn’t cause experience, it just experiences.

No… you said that the mind actually causes, remember?

Mind does have abilities, such as experiencing, freely deciding and causing.

So… which is it? The mind causes, or it doesn’t cause?

quaestio45:

If so, then we must say that there has to be a reason for the change between the cause (mind) or surrounding conditions in order for a different result to come about, yes?

My sincere apology. But I cannot understand what you are talking about.

I think that @quaestio45 is alluding to the “principle of sufficient reason”, here. If you’re looking at two distinct, mutually exclusive, opposing acts, then you have to find the cause that one occurs and not the other. But, if they are both possible, and they would be able to proceed from the same source, how do you explain that one happens and not the other?

I am very eager to understand what you are trying to say. But failed.

He’s tearing down your assertion that the mind is immutable (which follows from the assertion of metaphysical simplicity).

I can assure you that mind is simply existence.

It’s not sufficient to merely “assure”, in this context. You must demonstrate or prove, please.

It doesn’t have any nature to act according to it. It can decide whatever.

Is ‘decision’ not an ‘act’? I would assert that it is!

 

[STT]

No… you said that the mind actually causes , remember?

Experiencing is different from causation. Causing experience is meaningless.

So… which is it? The mind causes, or it doesn’t cause?

Of course it causes.

I think that @quaestio45 is alluding to the “principle of sufficient reason”, here. If you’re looking at two distinct, mutually exclusive, opposing acts, then you have to find the cause that one occurs and not the other. But, if they are both possible, and they would be able to proceed from the same source, how do you explain that one happens and not the other?

Free decision is not the continuation of a chain of causality. We in fact have ability to terminate a chain of causality and cause a new one depending on option we perceive.

He’s tearing down your assertion that the mind is immutable (which follows from the assertion of metaphysical simplicity).

Free agent is immutable. You don’t change. Your thoughts, characters, behavior is subject to change. These are due to brain.

Is ‘decision’ not an ‘act’? I would assert that it is!

Yes decision is an act. If by nature you mean that it can act then I agree with it. What I meant that free agent doesn’t necessary always follow any instruction since it is free. I call decision an ability. You are free to call it nature.

 

[quaestio45]

STT:

Mind doesn’t cause experience, it just experiences.

No… you said that the mind actually causes , remember?

Mind does have abilities, such as experiencing, freely deciding and causing.

So… which is it? The mind causes, or it doesn’t cause?

This is exactly right @STT; you say that the mind can cause mental activity as an initiator, yet you also then rebut one of my objections by saying it doesn’t cause at all but is rather a passive experiencer. I have to press you on this a little and ask which is it? Can the mind be a cause? Or is it simply a passive experiencer?

I cannot follow the first part of your sentence (bold part)…

If the mind can initiate thoughts and other mental phenomena, and if we agree it can be thinking two distinct things at once (like the color of the apple on my desk as well as the general heat of the room), then it follows that the mind can be composed in some spiritual way (because to have two things within you, or to be of two different states of being is to be necessarily composed in some manner).

My sincere apology. But I cannot understand what you are talking about.

Basically I’m arguing that if you set up a scenario where there is the same cause but two different effects then one of three possibilities can be the explanation for the difference in outcome, which are:
A) The cause is different, so the result became different
B) The surrounding conditions were different, so the result became different
C) Both were different, meaning the results were different
Now, a free agent or mind cannot be compatible with B, because it reduces all distinction in effects of it as being ultimately originating from its environment and not the self, which contricts the idea of agency and freedom. It cannot be from A either, for that would mean that difference in environment does not effect a difference in cause at all, which cannot be true. Thus, only C may be valid, meaning that the mind must change.

And what he means with mechanism?

As in, there is a mind independent of the physical reality of the brain, but thoughts may only be manifested through the physical, similar to the relationship between software and hardware; the former is real but unusable without the latter.

I can assure you that mind is simply existence. It doesn’t have any nature to act according to it. It can decide whatever.

It has the nature of decieding and causing, yes? As well as awareness and consciousness, correct? Further, it cannot be simply existence because to be simply existence is to be simply actuality, but that means being pure actuality, which means a free agent is God and God only. But, last I understood it, we are not God. Thus, the mind cannot be pure or simple existence.

 

[quaestio45]

I cannot understand how essence and existence could be one.

Essence and existence are one in a being when the essence of a being explains the existence of a being perfectly. Thus, they are in pefect union and indistinguishable, and nothing which cannot be distinguished can be called nothing less than the same thing. Thus, essence and existence can be one in a being.

What do you mean with constant?

As in, it does not change. It is forever the same.

What do you mean with “you”?

As in, those who hold minds.

By the way, I was looking for a proof that a being which is simple is pure actual.

Whicg I did. To be purely simple means to hold no composition (or, to put another way, to hold no parts). Now, there are multiple ways to be composed, one such way is metaphysically, such as in potency and act, or essence and existence. But as I said, it is impossible to hold no composition if there is a distinction between essence and existence in a being. And, were you to be completely indistict in essence and existence, it requires you ti be completely immutable, which means holding no potency, which means being pure actuality. But that would mean you are God; but we minds are not God. Thus, we are composed.

 

[quaestio45]

Gorgias:

He’s tearing down your assertion that the mind is immutable (which follows from the assertion of metaphysical simplicity).

Free agent is immutable. You don’t change. Your thoughts, characters, behavior is subject to change. These are due to brain.

If by that you mean a minds nature cannot change, then sure. For if somethings nature changes, it becomes something else entirely. In order to be a mind you need the nature of a mind. But that alone does not mean that its being cannot change. Quite the contrary, it very much does, otherwise there cannot be different manifestations of its powers.

 

[STT]

This is exactly right @STT; you say that the mind can cause mental activity as an initiator, yet you also then rebut one of my objections by saying it doesn’t cause at all but is rather a passive experiencer. I have to press you on this a little and ask which is it? Can the mind be a cause? Or is it simply a passive experiencer?

Mind experiences and causes after decision. It can be a passive experiencer when a chain of thought follows. It however has ability to stop a chain of thought whenever it wants. The importance of mind is when there is a conflict in two chains of causality. A deterministic system can function only when there is one chain of causality. But in life we face with the ambiguous situation when we cannot deterministically function. That is the time when free agent comes to play and choose one of the option and accept the consequences.

If the mind can initiate thoughts and other mental phenomena, and if we agree with can be thinking two distinct things at once (like the color of the apple on my desk as well as the general heat of the room), then it follows that the mind can be composed in some spiritual way (because to have two things within you, or to be of two different states of being is to be necessarily composed in some manner).

No, mind has capacity to experience several things at once. It is just exposed to several things. That doesn’t mean that mind has parts. It is one mind.

Basically I’m arguing that if you set up a scenario where there is the same cause but two different effects then one of three possibilities can be the explanation for the difference in outcome, which are:

What do you mean two effects? Could you please give an example. Do you mean that we cause two different things? Or do you talking about the options when there is a cause?

A) The cause is different, so the result became different

We cause after we decide. The result, outcome is what we expect. So cause cannot be different from the result. Or perhaps I am not reading you correctly. Could you please give an example?

B) The surrounding conditions were different, so the result became different

Surrounding condition could be different and a mind could passively follow the results but mind can always intervene.

C) Both were different, meaning the results were different

I cannot follow what do you mean here because I don’t know what do you mean with A and B. An example would be great.

 

[STT]

Now, a free agent or mind cannot be compatible with B, because it reduces all distinction in effects of it as being ultimately originating from its environment and not the self, which contricts the idea of agency and freedom. It cannot be from A either, for that would mean that difference in environment does not effect a difference in cause at all, which cannot be true. Thus, only C may be valid, meaning that the mind must change.

I will come back to this when I know what do you mean with A, B and C.

It has the nature of decieding and causing, yes? As well as awareness and consciousness, correct? Further, it cannot be simply existence because to be simply existence is to be simply actuality, but that means being pure actuality, which means a free agent is God and God only. But, last I understood it, we are not God. Thus, the mind cannot be pure or simple existence.

Of course mind experience, decide and cause. Aren’t you agree with your own argument from the design that you don’t act according to a script when you freely decide? What is the source of the decision? It is you and simple you. Otherwise, it could be that or this which means that you are not simple.

 

[STT]

Essence and existence are one in a being when the essence of a being explains the existence of a being perfectly. Thus, they are in pefect union and indistinguishable, and nothing which cannot be distinguished can be called nothing less than the same thing. Thus, essence and existence can be one in a being.

I am afraid that I cannot agree. If by essence you mean mind and body and by existence you simply refer to mind then these thing cannot be equal. Unless there is no body which means mind is mind. In regards to God I think you believe that God does not have any body. How God could then be omniscient considering the fact that knowledge is structured. This is sort of topic. I will open a thread shortly to discuss this issue. So feel free to respond to this in another thread.

As in, it does not change. It is forever the same.

Mind is unchanging since it is simple.

As in, those who hold minds.

Yes, we are simple. You can call that God. I call God as the creator.

Which I did. To be purely simple means to hold no composition (or, to put another way, to hold no parts). Now, there are multiple ways to be composed, one such way is metaphysically, such as in potency and act, or essence and existence. But as I said, it is impossible to hold no composition if there is a distinction between essence and existence in a being. And, were you to be completely indistict in essence and existence, it requires you ti be completely immutable, which means holding no potency, which means being pure actuality. But that would mean you are God; but we minds are not God. Thus, we are composed.

Of course we are mind and body. Changes belong to body. Mind is simple and unchanging.

 

[STT]

If by that you mean a minds nature cannot change, then sure. For if somethings nature changes, it becomes something else entirely. In order to be a mind you need the nature of a mind. But that alone does not mean that its being cannot change. Quite the contrary, it very much does, otherwise there cannot be different manifestations of its powers.

The very important power of mind, free decision, is due to the its simplicity. Again, something which is simple cannot change.

 

[quaestio45]

No, mind has capacity to experience several things at once. It is just exposed to several things. That doesn’t mean that mind has parts. It is one mind

Okay, that was a bad example on my part . Let me try again and see what you have to say. Suppose you are thinking of the color orange, and then you start thinking of the color red simultaneously as thinking orange. Are these not two thoughts which require two different reasons for being initiated in the common cause? But if there are two different states being initiated by the mind, it must be in two different states of causing simultaneously. Thus, the mind becomes divisible between that which caused the red thought and that which caused the orange thought.

What do you mean two effects? Could you please give an example. Do you mean that we cause two different things? Or do you talking about the options when there is a cause?

I’ll supply you with an example:
Imagine two scenarios; in one, I kick a soccer ball and it travels X distance. In the second, I kick the same ball but this time it travels Y distance. Now, in both scenarios, the cause is the same being (that being me), and the process is the same (kicking the ball), but the outcome is different. Now, the question then is, why is the outcome different? There are three possibilities:
A) The cause changed from scenario 1 to 2, and as such the effect changed (perhaps I felt off that day for the kick, and as such the ball went less distance)
B) The conditions surrounding the scenario changed and thus the effect changed (perhaps I kicked up a hill in the second scenario, while in the first I kicked on a flat plane)
C) Both the cause and the conditions surrounding the scenario changed (I was feeling off on my kicking and I kicked up a hill rather than a plane).
Now, if we were to instead make the cause the mind and the effect some mental phenomena, perhaps thoughts, then we find ourselves in the same situation. All three solutions are likely, however when we ask which is the ultimate all encompassing reason for a change in effect (thought) whilst the cause being the same (same mind), we find that both A and B are unsavory ideas (as A implies that environment does not play a role in production of mental phenomena at all, whilst B implies that there is no agency or freedom in the mind, and that instead it is a simple passive observer which produces mental phenomena deterministically by nothing but environmental conditions, almost like an automaton; both are upsurd, we might agree). As such, that only leaves C, which does affirm that the mind changes in some way shape or form.

Of course mind experience, decide and cause.

Okay, so we might be on the same page.

 

[quaestio45]

Aren’t you agree with your own argument from the design that you don’t act according to a script when you freely decide? What is the source of the decision? It is you and simple you. Otherwise, it could be that or this which means that you are not simple.

I think you might be confusing essence with determinism to some capacity. To say something has a nature isn’t to say that it must be completely mapped out in its being, and thus deterministically scripted in behavior and thought. It simply means that there is a nature to the thing at hand which makes it a given thing (such as an apple; an apple has a nature to which it conforms to. If an object doesn’t have that nature, it is not an apple), to which may allow for behaviors to manifest, but does not force them to in some instances (for example, being a human allows us to be a chef, but we need not be a chef). Further, you yourself acknowledge that the mind has an essence because you attempt to define the mind; well, if the mind had no nature which may distinguish it from say an apple, then we cannot possible describe it, let alone define it.

As for my argument from design, I must admit, I am pondering it, but I haven’t come to any conclusions on it yet. My rule of thumb for accepting an idea is that it must be something to which I can defend in debate, and I haven’t gotten there just yet. I’ll get back to you when I do though. If there was going to be an objection on that argument, it would likely have to do with the definition of design, the nature of determinism, and whether or not creation need be completely scripted to be designed.

I am afraid that I cannot agree. If by essence you mean mind and body and by existence you simply refer to mind then these thing cannot be equal.

Um… I think I may have perhaps miscommunicated to you on this front then, which may be the reason for some confusion. Essence is in reference to the nature of a given being (or, rather, existent entity). That need not be specific to that which holds body and mind, but rather only to that which is a being. As such, there are multiple essences in the person because he is composed, yet the person as a whole has one essence because that is a very specific being; for example, my arm is a being (an existent entity) and thus has an essence specific to it, as well as my eyes, my brain, my heart, my soul, and finally my mind. But because the human being is the composition of all such things, it has its very own essence. In short, no; essence isn’t only applicable to a mind body composite, but all beings, for all beings have a nature that we use to identify said being as a given being.

In regards to God I think you believe that God does not have any body.

Necessarily; lest he be a mind body composite, which would contradict divine simplicity.

 

[quaestio45]

How God could then be omniscient considering the fact that knowledge is structured. This is sort of topic. I will open a thread shortly to discuss this issue. So feel free to respond to this in another thread.

Sounds like something I’d be eager to listen to. I’ll be there when it opens

Mind is simple and unchanging.

Do you believe that our minds are God like entities? As in, they are pure acutality?

The very important power of mind, free decision, is due to the its simplicity.

Fair enough; but if you claim that we are wholly simple even in a metaphysical manner then you have to understand that there are huge consequences to that which don’t seem to be in alignment with the reality.

Again, something which is simple cannot change.

True! But heres the thing @STT - and this is really what I’m trying to drive home - in order to be actually and completely immutable that requires that the given being (even minds) must be lacking of that which are the keys to change, which would be potentiality. Now, all that lacks potentiality must necessarily be purely its opposite, which is actuality. But to be pure actuality means we are quite literally God!

Think about that for a moment… that means we are quite literally pure completion, pure existence, pure understanding, and the perfection of being itself. But thats impossible because it seems self evident that minds are none of those things. They are not complete being itself; they can’t be. Further, if they were, that would mean your mind, my mind, @Gorgias mind, and all the minds in the world are all really one mind because they would all be pure actuality in both existence and essence, which means that none of us would have any way of distinguishing between one mind and another. And that which is completely indistinguishable must be defined as the exact same (for separation is marked by distinction). Are you prepared to say that all our minds are really only one mind?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

So… which is it? The mind causes, or it doesn’t cause?

Of course it causes.

OK… so, then, why did you write this?

Mind doesn’t cause experience, it just experiences.

Free agent is immutable. You don’t change. Your thoughts, characters, behavior is subject to change. These are due to brain.

You’re not making sense here, I’m afraid. For you, “free agent” means “soul”. You seem to want to separate it from the intellect (whereas the normative Thomistic construct would be to link soul and intellect). But, you want to call ‘intellect’ something that interacts with ‘mind’ (although you refuse to define what ‘mind’ means). Nevertheless, you posit a mind-brain interface, which you claim makes decisions and causes experience. This means that it is not immutable – it changes!

What I meant that free agent doesn’t necessary always follow any instruction since it is free. I call decision an ability. You are free to call it nature.

I’d call a decision an ‘act’. I’d also assert that beings act according to their nature. Not by an ‘instruction set’, so to speak, but definitely according to their nature!

If by essence you mean mind and body and by existence you simply refer to mind then these thing cannot be equal.

No, that’s not what’s meant by ‘essence’ or ‘existence’. I thought that this had been cleared up earlier?

How God could then be omniscient considering the fact that knowledge is structured.

You yourself admitted that a mind could consider multiple things at once!

Mind is unchanging since it is simple.

This statement has no meaning, unless you sufficiently define what you mean by ‘mind’…

 

[STT]

Okay, that was a bad example on my part . Let me try again and see what you have to say. Suppose you are thinking of the color orange, and then you start thinking of the color red simultaneously as thinking orange. Are these not two thoughts which require two different reasons for being initiated in the common cause?

I think that was my bad to explain ability of minds well . Mind perceive different ideas through the brain, in this example the color of orange and then color of red. Mind however has the ability to choose too. So you can think of both colors, red or orange after decision is made.

But if there are two different states being initiated by the mind, it must be in two different states of causing simultaneously. Thus, the mind becomes divisible between that which caused the red thought and that which caused the orange thought.

Mind just perceive different ideas. It then decides which idea to work upon and then cause. By causation I mean it initiate a chain of causality which force the brain to work accordingly. So you can decide to think of red. That is the duty of brain to feed the mind with thought of red until you change your mind and decide to do other thing.

I’ll supply you with an example:
Imagine two scenarios; in one, I kick a soccer ball and it travels X distance. In the second, I kick the same ball but this time it travels Y distance. Now, in both scenarios, the cause is the same being (that being me), and the process is the same (kicking the ball), but the outcome is different. Now, the question then is, why is the outcome different? There are three possibilities:
A) The cause changed from scenario 1 to 2, and as such the effect changed (perhaps I felt off that day for the kick, and as such the ball went less distance)
B) The conditions surrounding the scenario changed and thus the effect changed (perhaps I kicked up a hill in the second scenario, while in the first I kicked on a flat plane)
C) Both the cause and the conditions surrounding the scenario changed (I was feeling off on my kicking and I kicked up a hill rather than a plane).

If the cause is exactly the same then the outcome would be exactly the same.

 

[STT]

Now, if we were to instead make the cause the mind and the effect some mental phenomena, perhaps thoughts, then we find ourselves in the same situation. All three solutions are likely, however when we ask which is the ultimate all encompassing reason for a change in effect (thought) whilst the cause being the same (same mind), we find that both A and B are unsavory ideas (as A implies that environment does not play a role in production of mental phenomena at all, whilst B implies that there is no agency or freedom in the mind, and that instead it is a simple passive observer which produces mental phenomena deterministically by nothing but environmental conditions, almost like an automaton; both are upsurd, we might agree). As such, that only leaves C, which does affirm that the mind changes in some way shape or form.

Mind doesn’t have any internal states therefore it cannot create different thoughts. That is the duty of brain. Mind just perceive the ideas, decides, and force brain to act accordingly.

 

[STT]

I think you might be confusing essence with determinism to some capacity. To say something has a nature isn’t to say that it must be completely mapped out in its being, and thus deterministically scripted in behavior and thought. It simply means that there is a nature to the thing at hand which makes it a given thing (such as an apple; an apple has a nature to which it conforms to. If an object doesn’t have that nature, it is not an apple), to which may allow for behaviors to manifest, but does not force them to in some instances (for example, being a human allows us to be a chef, but we need not be a chef). Further, you yourself acknowledge that the mind has an essence because you attempt to define the mind; well, if the mind had no nature which may distinguish it from say an apple, then we cannot possible describe it, let alone define it.

If by nature you meant that the subject has abilities then yes, I agree that mind has nature or essence.

As for my argument from design, I must admit, I am pondering it, but I haven’t come to any conclusions on it yet. My rule of thumb for accepting an idea is that it must be something to which I can defend in debate, and I haven’t gotten there just yet. I’ll get back to you when I do though. If there was going to be an objection on that argument, it would likely have to do with the definition of design, the nature of determinism, and whether or not creation need be completely scripted to be designed.

Cool. So we come back to your argument later.

Um… I think I may have perhaps miscommunicated to you on this front then, which may be the reason for some confusion. Essence is in reference to the nature of a given being (or, rather, existent entity). That need not be specific to that which holds body and mind, but rather only to that which is a being. As such, there are multiple essences in the person because he is composed, yet the person as a whole has one essence because that is a very specific being; for example, my arm is a being (an existent entity) and thus has an essence specific to it, as well as my eyes, my brain, my heart, my soul, and finally my mind. But because the human being is the composition of all such things, it has its very own essence. In short, no; essence isn’t only applicable to a mind body composite, but all beings, for all beings have a nature that we use to identify said being as a given being.

So can we agree that essence is what make a being what it is? In case of human, body, soul, and mind.