Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

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

Yes, we are simple. If by pure actual you mean that the substance of our minds are changeless then I agree with that.

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.

By simple, I mean its substance is not made of parts hence it is not subject to 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!

Potentiality is due to body rather than mind.

Think about that for a moment… that means we are quite literally pure completion, pure existence, pure understanding, and the perfection of being itself.

For these you need perfect body. Mind is perfect itself.

But thats impossible because it seems self evident that minds are none of those things.

We don’t have proper body. Mind is perfect.

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?

No we are different minds. I have an argument for that which is linked to the argument for existence of mind. I however don’t understand why simplicity in substance means that all minds have to be one.

 

[STT]

You’re not making sense here, I’m afraid. For you, “free agent” means “soul”.

By free agent I mean mind.

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).

Mind and intellect are separate thing. Intellect is not possible without mind though. I already defined mind: an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. It is obvious from this definition that mind doesn’t have any intellect.

Nevertheless, you posit a mind-brain interface, which you claim makes decisions and causes experience. This means that it is not immutable – it changes!

I have never said those things. Mind, experiences (what brain produces, thoughts, sense of red, etc.), freely decides, and causes (force brain to act according to decision).

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

Does essence makes a thing what it is? Does existence refer to something which exists?

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

Mind consider what experiences. The stuff that we experience is due to work of our brains and sensory systems. Mind is absolutely blind without any body.

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

It means something. Something which has simple substance, it has no parts. Change is due to having parts so things can internally change.

 

[quaestio45]

Mind perceive different ideas through the brain

So the mind simply perceives ideas and thoughts, but does not produce them, yes?

Mind however has the ability to choose too.

So it is a passive agent which chooses but does not produce anything?

Mind just perceive different ideas. It then decides which idea to work upon and then cause.

Is this decision making on the part of the mind informed or uninformed? As in, when it makes a choice, does it judge between the possible choices and then decides? Can it do that? If not, then it is just a random amalgamation which acts on the whim of chance; but if it decides, it’ll do it on the basis of minimal judgment. That requires some minor thinking at minimum, which, as you’ve said, the mind does not do. That be so, what is actually making decisions here? The mind or the brain? Why need a mind at all if the brain is the thing to which holds all the vital components to thinking, choosing, and acting?

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 want you to think of the color red” says the mind to the brain; “why can’t you do it? You can think to! Thats clear because you just communicated a command to me” says the brain. “Nay good sir! I cannot think, that only you can do but I can initiate” says the mind. Do you see the problem here? To will something is to posses something like a position or yearn, but those two things require some thought, especially if you translate it into a command. So what is your solution to this problem? How can you choose but not think? You can say “the thoughts are just perceptions of mind from the brain” or something like that, but even these are initiated from the mind in the form of a command. Unless you say the mind is not needed for initiation and the brain does all the heavy lifting, in which case, why posit a mind at all? I’ll give you the answer: because a free thinking and choosing agent needs to be substantially simple. Thus, we arrive at the mind with the necessity to hold both the ability to think, choose, and act to some degree.

Further, perception without thought is meaningless. For, what is it to “perceive” anything if you do not have some manner by which to interpret what is being perceived or experienced? A camera is something exposed to sight and experience, but do we dare say it perceives anything in the same way a mind does? Of course not. Because consciousness, thought, and all such things are vitally important to the process. Without, nothing is a perciever. As such, to call a mind nothing but a thoughtless chooser and perciever is meaningless and wrong.

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

Surrounding conditions change the effect also.

 

[quaestio45]

Mind just perceive the ideas, decides, and force brain to act accordingly.

As I said, true decision is based off of some understanding as to what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how you are doing it. A thoughtless entity can do none of these things, and saying that perception can be a substitute for it doesn’t actually solve the problem.

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

More like “this is what makes entity x entity x”, but sure.

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

Exactly!

Yes, we are simple.

The question is, how simple?

If by pure actual you mean that the substance of our minds are changeless then I agree with that.

By pure actuality I mean that it is being itself (as opposed to a particular being). To be changeless is just a symptom of that fact.

By simple, I mean its substance is not made of parts hence it is not subject to change.

There you go! Thats what I was looking for! As such, it is only simple in one regard, not all regards. As such, it can be composed in other ways.

Potentiality is due to body rather than mind.

No, because a mind may be acted upon and its state of existence effected by external agents (which is undeniable because you say yourself that the mind is a mere perciever and director, which means its directions, and thus a part of its abilities, are contingent upon reaction of the external world).

For these you need perfect body. Mind is perfect itself.

Is it being itself? As opposed to a certain being?

No we are different minds.

If all minds are perfectly pure actuality, it is impossible to say we have different minds. I can give you the whole argument in deductive fashion if you wish.

I however don’t understand why simplicity in substance means that all minds have to be one.

Simplicity in substance? No. Simplicity in metaphysics? Yes.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

How is ‘perception’, ‘decision’, and ‘direction of the brain’ stateless?!?

Potentiality is due to body rather than mind.

I think that classical approaches would assert that a person is not a “body with a mind”, but rather, a “body / soul composite”. Therefore, the person, in which the soul (or mind, if you insist) participates, has potentiality.

Even if you don’t agree with that approach, you’ll have to agree that, if the mind is capable of future action, then it has potentiality in respect to that future action. It is not “pure act”.

For these you need perfect body. Mind is perfect itself.

No… there are plenty imperfect minds out there!

Gorgias:

You’re not making sense here, I’m afraid. For you, “free agent” means “soul”.

By free agent I mean mind.

You do? Are you sure? Let’s see:

I am talking about free agent. One soul for example.

And I agree with you that what you call soul is free agent

So, I’m cool that one way to utilize these forums is to engage in conversation that helps a person develop his argument. Naturally, it can develop – and change, and settle into a distinct form – in the course of the discussion.

However, what is simply dirty pool is using one definition when it suits you, and then changing to a different definition when the first one is shown not to work, and then changing back to the first definition when the second one is shown to be untenable as well! Let’s be honest, @STT: you keep bouncing around with your notion of a “free agent” – calling it ‘mind’ at some points, and ‘soul’ at others – just so that you might hope to avoid the inconsistencies of your assertions. That’s just poor form, and it’s pretty clear that this is what’s going on here!

So… a “free agent” can’t be “mind but not soul” when it suits you and “soul but not mind” at other times. C’mon, brother…

 

[STT]

So the mind simply perceives ideas and thoughts, but does not produce them, yes?

Yes. How mind could produce thought if it is simple? You need a brain which is structured in order to bring a new thoughts based on collective memory.

So it is a passive agent which chooses but does not produce anything?

Choosing matters and that is something that brain cannot do it since it is a deterministic thing. The process of finding a new thought is however deterministic since collective memory is structured and act based on laws of nature.

I would like to mention that matter existence and its behavior are due to other minds (you can call them higher minds who sustain matter). So it is a party of minds who each affects or sustain material.

Is this decision making on the part of the mind informed or uninformed?

Mind decides based on the options that perceives. So mind is informed when it makes a free decision.

As in, when it makes a choice, does it judge between the possible choices and then decides?

No, mind doesn’t judge. Judging requires that mind contains something to judge according to it which it doesn’t have. Judging is according to a script, if X is bigger than Y then choose X.

Can it do that? If not, then it is just a random amalgamation which acts on the whim of chance; but if it decides, it’ll do it on the basis of minimal judgment. That requires some minor thinking at minimum, which, as you’ve said, the mind does not do. That be so, what is actually making decisions here?

Brain makes many decision (non-free) which is based on judgment. Brain is scripted properly to do that. The brain however cannot make free decision.

The mind or the brain?

Brain does non-free decision whereas mind does free decision. Brain simply get stuck when the situation for example ambiguous, for example when it is not clear where the option take you.

Why need a mind at all if the brain is the thing to which holds all the vital components to thinking, choosing, and acting?

Mind is needed for free decision.

 

[STT]

“I want you to think of the color red” says the mind to the brain; “why can’t you do it? You can think to! Thats clear because you just communicated a command to me” says the brain. “Nay good sir! I cannot think, that only you can do but I can initiate” says the mind. Do you see the problem here? To will something is to posses something like a position or yearn, but those two things require some thought, especially if you translate it into a command. So what is your solution to this problem? How can you choose but not think?

Free decision doesn’t require thinking otherwise the decision is biased by thinking which make it non-free.

You can say “the thoughts are just perceptions of mind from the brain” or something like that, but even these are initiated from the mind in the form of a command. Unless you say the mind is not needed for initiation and the brain does all the heavy lifting, in which case, why posit a mind at all? I’ll give you the answer: because a free thinking and choosing agent needs to be substantially simple. Thus, we arrive at the mind with the necessity to hold both the ability to think, choose, and act to some degree.

No sir. I have to say that I disagree as it is illustrated in my previous comments. For what regards free thinking I have to say that a free thinker consider options viable and see where logical thinking based on option takes him/her. Otherwise the person is not a free thinker.

Further, perception without thought is meaningless.

Mind perceive thoughts.

For, what is it to “perceive” anything if you do not have some manner by which to interpret what is being perceived or experienced? A camera is something exposed to sight and experience, but do we dare say it perceives anything in the same way a mind does? Of course not. Because consciousness, thought, and all such things are vitally important to the process.

Yes, conscious mind is needed for any change. Otherwise there would no change at all. I have a separate argument for this which is linked to the argument for existence of mind.

Without, nothing is a perciever. As such, to call a mind nothing but a thoughtless chooser and perciever is meaningless and wrong.

As I mentioned change is not possible without mind. So its existence is vital when there is a change.

Surrounding conditions change the effect changes also.

True.

 

[STT]

How is ‘perception’, ‘decision’, and ‘direction of the brain’ stateless ?!?

Brain is not stateless. Brain does not perceive. Its decision is base on how it is scripted which doesn’t need consciousness.

I think that classical approaches would assert that a person is not a “body with a mind”, but rather, a “body / soul composite”. Therefore, the person , in which the soul (or mind, if you insist) participates, has potentiality.

Even if you don’t agree with that approach, you’ll have to agree that, if the mind is capable of future action, then it has potentiality in respect to that future action. It is not “pure act”.

Yes, the person, body and mind is subject to change.

No… there are plenty imperfect minds out there!

That is not correct. Mind is an irreducible substance with ability to experience, freely decide and cause. It is what it is. You cannot make it better or worst. My mind is similar to your mind. What make us different are our bodies.

You do? Are you sure? Let’s see:
So, I’m cool that one way to utilize these forums is to engage in conversation that helps a person develop his argument. Naturally, it can develop – and change, and settle into a distinct form – in the course of the discussion.

However, what is simply dirty pool is using one definition when it suits you, and then changing to a different definition when the first one is shown not to work, and then changing back to the first definition when the second one is shown to be untenable as well! Let’s be honest, @STT: you keep bouncing around with your notion of a “free agent” – calling it ‘mind’ at some points, and ‘soul’ at others – just so that you might hope to avoid the inconsistencies of your assertions. That’s just poor form, and it’s pretty clear that this is what’s going on here!

So… a “free agent” can’t be “mind but not soul” when it suits you and “soul but not mind” at other times. C’mon, brother…

Yes, I might used soul interchangeably with mind. But I didn’t mean soul as Catholic believe. I try to use mind since now to avoid future confusion.

 

[Gorgias]

Brain is not stateless.

So if the brain is not stateless, then how is directing the brain stateless?

Yes, the person, body and mind is subject to change.

This is getting tiring:

STT:

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).

If you assert that the mind is metaphysically simple, then you are asserting that it is immutable. Here, though, you admit that the mind “is subject to change”. Which is it?

My mind is similar to your mind. What make us different are our bodies.

‘Similar’ implies ‘different’, my friend, not “exactly the same”.

I try to use mind since now to avoid future confusion.

It’s not going to work unless you give a description of what you mean by mind, especially in contradistinction to what Catholics mean by ‘soul’!!!

 

[STT]

First happy birthday.

So if the brain is not stateless, then how is directing the brain stateless?

Brain has different states. You could be aware of one or some. I however don’t understand your question. Are you saying that how mind is directing the brain?

This is getting tiring:

Why? I said person and not mind.

If you assert that the mind is metaphysically simple, then you are asserting that it is immutable. Here, though, you admit that the mind “is subject to change”. Which is it?

Yes. Mind doesn’t have any parts. It is simple and immutable.

‘Similar’ implies ‘different’, my friend, not “exactly the same”.

I don’t recall if I said exactly the same. My apology if I said otherwise.

It’s not going to work unless you give a description of what you mean by mind , especially in contradistinction to what Catholics mean by ‘soul’!!!

By mind I mean an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide and cause. Soul is what unifies some matter into a single object.

 

[quaestio45]

Yes. How mind could produce thought if it is simple?

Well thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and all such things aren’t any thing which can be called substances, therefore their existence must be categorized as something else. What we might call that category is beyond me, but what is important to know is that they are not physical or substance based, meaning that it isn’t incompatible for something which is simple in the physical or substance to hold multiple of that which is beyond those two categories. Think of a basket holding many fruit in it; the basket is always the same. It does not multiply or divide with the number of fruits it holds, yet nonetheless it holds fruit and thus there is more stuff there then before. In that same way, the mind might be thought of as a basket which produces ideas within it in some sort of way, yet does not effect it in its substance.

Choosing matters and that is something that brain cannot do it since it is a deterministic thing.

Fair enough…

The process of finding a new thought is however deterministic since collective memory is structured and act based on laws of nature.

Could you elaborate on this thought? I’m a little confused as to what it means.

No, mind doesn’t judge. Judging requires that mind contains something to judge according to it which it doesn’t have.

Some may disagree and say that the mind does have something to judge in accordance to; they would call that the ultimate final cause. The mind then attempts to find what that final cause is, and how to get to it. That, however, does not mean we act like automatons operating off a script, otherwise we’d be perfect in achieving our final cause. Temptations, misinterpretations, and mistaken final causes are a couple of things which keeps the mind from its final cause. In the end, the mind does, however, operate in accordance to what it most heavily values in the moment (which is obvious, because if you didn’t value what you were doing more highly then any other thing then you would be doing that thing instead). The mind thus works to understand what it is that it most highly values in a given moment, given its final cause.

Free decision doesn’t require thinking otherwise the decision is biased by thinking which make it non-free.

Why is it that bias removes freedom? Also, to freely decide it certainly seems to me you need to think, otherwise all the external information the mind receives become as meaningless as a camera receiving external information; they both don’t really perceive or interact with it and will passively just sit there until something triggers it to act a certain way. Note, if something else triggers it deterministically to act a certain way, then there is no freedom in the given entity being worked upon then.

 

[quaestio45]

For what regards free thinking I have to say that a free thinker consider options viable and see where logical thinking based on option takes him/her.

Careful considerations of options seem like judgment to me, and as I said earlier, to judge is to think.

quaestio45:

For, what is it to “perceive” anything if you do not have some manner by which to interpret what is being perceived or experienced? A camera is something exposed to sight and experience, but do we dare say it perceives anything in the same way a mind does? Of course not. Because consciousness, thought, and all such things are vitally important to the process.

Yes, conscious mind is needed for any change. Otherwise there would no change at all.

I think you may be missing my point in that objection, good sir, which is that a passive, none thinking, none judging entity cannot meaningfully perceive anything. To say “well thankfully the mind is conscious” doesn’t actually help if it does not posses the elements of consciousness itself, such as thought. As such, the mind is little more than just a camera out in the open, technically perceiving all that passes by, but meaningfully not at all.

 

[Latin]

THIS IS THE WAY THE HUMAN MIND WORKS

St. Thomas explains THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY

“It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.”

.
ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION

I.(1) “On human interaction with grace: Every good work, even good will, is the work of God.
.
De gratia Christi 25, 26: “For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it”
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: “It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good … . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act , providing most effective powers to the will.”
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).

.
OUR FATE/ DESTINY IS IN THE DIVINE WILL

For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 1) that "the Divine will or power is called fate."
But the Divine will or power is not in creatures, but in God. Therefore fate is not in creatures but in God.

The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)

.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.
This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.
.
CCC 1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.

CCC 2022 The divine initiative (supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul) in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
God bless

 

[quaestio45]

First I’d like to say that I really do love the thoroughness of your comments along with citations as support; its something unnecessary in most cases yet it adds more qualification to what you attempt to say and I deeply respect that. Quite frankly, I don’t think you get enough credit for that. In anycase, continue doing your good work .

Second, I do have a few questions to your idea of… what’s it called… divine assistence in the will of man? That being, one, are you suggesting that an event happens in a particular way because God wishes it go in that exact particular way, or is it that the power of choice and action are things which decend directly from the power of God himself? If its the latter, I one hundred percent agree; the former would be the one have trouble with.

This is because if we define God as the Good, then we must recognize that God, being the Good, cannot be the direct cause of that which goes against the nature of the Good (that being evil, of course). But if God is wishing and making so that all things go in a very particular way, rather then know that the things will happen and make his plan around it, then we come to conclusions which are incompatible with God. Consider the evils of Hitler, for example; if God directly caused these events to happen, then he would be, in turn, directly causing evil. As such, I don’t think we can fall into the idea that God directly orders all things to be as they be, but rather knows what will happen and accommodates these things into his grand plan.

 

[Latin]

Catholic Encyclopedia : Evil
“But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.”

If God would willed, no one commit even a single act of sin.
.
CCC 310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection, 314 through the dramas of evil and sin. – God created the dramas of evil and sin, by directly causing our acts of sins for our benefit.

.
THE REASON GOD CREATED THE DRAMAS OF EVIL AND SIN.

Life without suffering would produce spoiled brats, not joyful saints.

Our struggle and tribulation while journeying towards our ultimate perfection through the dramas of evil and sin is the cost which in-prints the virtue/ nobility into our souls – the cost of our road to nobility and perfection.

In this world man has to learn by experience and contrast, and to develop by the overcoming of obstacles (Lactantius, “De ira Dei”, xiii, xv in “P.L., VII, 115-24. St. Augustine “De ordine”, I, vii, n. 18 in “P.L.”, XXXII, 986).
.
As we see above, we are all sinners because God willed to create us to be sinners for good reason, for the benefit of the entire human race.
.
CCC 312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil , caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”
.
CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.,”

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

Nothing is outside God’s creating, sustaining and governing will.

CCC 313; St.Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: “Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” 182

God bless

 

[quaestio45]

But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.”

Yes, I fully agree, if there were no free agents created. If God did deciede to create free agents in a possibly different universe, I would have to say that evil is an inevitable. I had a lovely chat with Abrosz about this topic on another thread where I deflected the argument against God’s goodness on the basis of evil beings by coming to the conclusion that, were God to create free agents, he could not simply create free agents which:

1. could not choose evil but only good
   &
2. could choose evil but wouldn’t because he simply chose not to create those who would do otherwise.

The first is because God would be forcefully imposing himself unto beings without them having the ability to consent through an equal choice of acceptance and rejection, to which is may be said is an evil (as converting someone to anything, even the faith, through force and excluding consent is known to be evil).

The second comes from my argument that if God only picked to create beings that he knew would choose not to reject God, then he would be unjustly punishing those who aren’t created on the basis of something they have yet to choose to do; as it is unjust to execute a boy for a crime he may commit in his late adulthood. If that be so, God cannot discriminate the creation of beings on whether or not they choose him. Punishment or anything of its like can only come after the act of evil is committed.

As such, a universe which holds many free agents cannot be without evil.

would produce spoiled brats, not joyful saints.

Well, if we suppose that God could create a world without evil while simultaneously occupying free agents, I’d have to ask why it can’t be taken a step further and said that God could simply make the free agents of the world also supremely joyful rather than brattish? That way, sin, evil, and suffering are unnecessary.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

So heres a big question on my part, if you could answer. What type of directing are we speaking of? Directing in a dominering and dictatorial fashion where my actions are all done because God demands it be done as such? Or rather in a way where he fully knows and understand what will happen, gives us the power to follow our mind to get said things to happen, and then accommodate his plan perfectly for all said consequences?

 

[Latin]

Please @quaestio45 consider you are an architect.

You designed a building, you designed every event down to its minutest details which need to take place to complete your building.

You give the builders your building design, which contains every event/ act down to its minutest details.

Your Designed, Decreed, Foreordained Plan causes every event/ act down to its minutest details which need to take place to complete your building.

Your building design creates/causes the builders their DETERMINED WILL and their DETERMINED ACTIONS which determined actions you tailor made everyone of your builders which need to perform to complete your building.

.
GOD DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE AND WE ARE HIS BUILDERS – CCC 307, CCC 308, etc.

God designed the universe includes this world, He Designed, Decreed, Foreordained and He causes every event/ act according to His design down to its minutest details.

As we are God’s fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom, God’s building design creates/causes us our DETERMINED WILL and our DETERMINED ACTIONS which determined actions God tailor made every-one of us from all eternity, which acts we need to perform to complete God’s kingdom.

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
Without even knowing, we are all God’s builders, every choice we make, every act we perform, tailor made to each one of us, and Designed, Decreed, Foreordained by God from all eternity and He causes us to FREELY perform in order to complete the work of His creation.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will explains;
“God is the author of all causes and effects, but is not the author of sin, because an action ceases to be sin if God wills it to happen. Still God is the cause of sin.
God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe.”

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.,”

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
Because God works in us He causes all our actions, we all freely do what we want to do and we don’t even realize, we are freely cooperating with His graces and working on to complete His creation.
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

By mind I mean an irreducible substance

OK… what kind of substance, then?

 

[STT]

Well thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and all such things aren’t any thing which can be called substances, therefore their existence must be categorized as something else.

Thoughts are sort of substance. That is true since they have forms otherwise we could not experience, recognize, and distinguish them.

What we might call that category is beyond me, but what is important to know is that they are not physical or substance based, meaning that it isn’t incompatible for something which is simple in the physical or substance to hold multiple of that which is beyond those two categories.

I already comment on this in post #184. Matter has physical and mental properties. People have access to mental properties.

Think of a basket holding many fruit in it; the basket is always the same. It does not multiply or divide with the number of fruits it holds, yet nonetheless it holds fruit and thus there is more stuff there then before. In that same way, the mind might be thought of as a basket which produces ideas within it in some sort of way, yet does not effect it in its substance.

I am afraid that I must disagree. You cannot add anything to what is simple.

Could you elaborate on this thought? I’m a little confused as to what it means.

Have you ever work with Mathematica? It works based on a script but you can perform very complicated things like calculus using it when the human mind has tremendous difficulty to perform. What I mean with that phrase is that new thoughts are formed in the brain. But thoughts are structured and to manipulate them, you need a script that exists in the brain similar to Matematica which is a software. Brain similar to a computer works as hardware. Brain or hardware are material so they work based on the laws of nature.

 

[STT]

Some may disagree and say that the mind does have something to judge in accordance to; they would call that the ultimate final cause. The mind then attempts to find what that final cause is, and how to get to it. That, however, does not mean we act like automatons operating off a script, otherwise we’d be perfect in achieving our final cause. Temptations, misinterpretations, and mistaken final causes are a couple of things which keeps the mind from its final cause. In the end, the mind does, however, operate in accordance to what it most heavily values in the moment (which is obvious, because if you didn’t value what you were doing more highly then any other thing then you would be doing that thing instead). The mind thus works to understand what it is that it most highly values in a given moment, given its final cause.

As I mentioned before judging is a function based on a script. Free-agent does not act based on a script since it is free. Free-agent is just an observer of judgment that it perceives. What does the judgment? Brain or maybe higher substance.

Why is it that bias removes freedom? Also, to freely decide it certainly seems to me you need to think, otherwise all the external information the mind receives become as meaningless as a camera receiving external information; they both don’t really perceive or interact with it and will passively just sit there until something triggers it to act a certain way. Note, if something else triggers it deterministically to act a certain way, then there is no freedom in the given entity being worked upon then.

You can of course think but your decision, if it is free, cannot be biased by thinking. Why? That is the very definition of the free decision by which I mean that the agent may decide freely independent of any bias.