Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

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

You just consider options equally if you want to freely think. Careful consideration cannot help in the case when the situation is completely ambiguous. Careful consideration is useful when you are firmed that one option may probably be better than other based on some value judgment but you could be wrong at the end.

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.

That is the brain which passively receives information and work on them without being aware of them. Again, that is the brain which think based on collective memory it stored in the whole life time. Mind could be aware of thinking or not. Some people call such activity unconscious activity when mind is not aware of it otherwise it is a conscious activity.

 

[STT]

OK… what kind of substance , then?

According to Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things that, according to the system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality. Thus, for an atomist, atoms are the substances, for they are the basic things from which everything is constructed.

 

[quaestio45]

Thoughts are sort of substance.

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

Forms do not mean a substance in the same way a spiritual entity has substance. For one, forms do not posess the ability of interaction, yet a spiritual entity can. Second, if you were to equate the two (form and mind substance) you’d have to say that either forms can interact with subjects of substance (which they can’t) or that the mind substance is a form fundamentally. But that would reduce it to mere essence and not existence (which would make it immutable and simple, I guess, but not in the way you think, as nothing which does not exist but is only essence cannot interact with anything, to which you hold the mind can, I believe). As such, no, these two things are not similar in substance.

Matter has physical and mental properties.

Perhaps, but you wouldn’t tell me that the physical properties are the mental, or that the mental properties are the physical, correct? As such, their is a distinction between the two, and as such, one may say, if the mind is perhaps of a simple spiritual substance, then it can still be compatible with those categories outside of such spiritual substance in composition, such as in the holding of the forms.

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

…okay, we might be going in circles. STT, if I remember correctly, you very specifically said that the mind must be simple in substance, to which I said if that is the only way it must be incomposed then it may composed in other ways. Now, my analogy works in that the subject itself is singular in substance (the basket is only basket, and the mind is simple in its substance), but it is being composed in some other way (in what is being held in the basket, and in the ideas produced and held in the mind). As such, they are analogous. Now, explain to me how it is wrong given that we agree that the mind need only be simple in the one manner of substance.

As I mentioned before judging is a function based on a script.

More like a specific goal, to which the mind looks for and goes for, some would claim. That is the nature of having a final cause.

 

[quaestio45]

Free-agent is just an observer of judgment that it perceives. What does the judgment? Brain or maybe higher substance.

Okay, I believe I hit this already and have not had a satisfactory rebuke, so I’ll say it again; a completely passive observer cannot be meaningfully called a perciever of anything, for interpretation of external data in correspondence to one goals is what differentiates a camera from “percieving” something and say a man or mind. A camera is a completely passive observer, but do we dare equate it to man as a perciever? No, because interpretation is key here, to which is contingent upon thinking. As such, the mind cannot be called a simple passive observer, for those that are cannot hold agency; further, if judgment is derived from the brain and not the mind, yet judgment is the convergence of goal and thought, then the mind which you claim initiated thoughts must have some sort of participation in this endeavor. But, as I’ve said, to initiate a wanted thought is to know what you want, and then to translate it into a command, which is a type of thought (remember the brain/mind concersation?). As such, this division between brain and mind simply cannot work as it is.

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.

I strongly disagree with your idea of “freedom”. If we are to say that true freedom only comes from ultimate indifference in choice, then I say boldly and assertively that therefore nothing has freedom, as there is hardly a time when a choice is not made without judgment of values in relation to some final cause. In fact, it is when we are in a complete state of indifference with choice that we cannot make decisions (as @Hume pointed out in another thread); if this is the condition necessarry for a fully free being, then surely it would manifest its existence in these scenarios. But instead, what usually happens is that we choose off of whims or coin flips out of difficulty in decision because we just can’t understand what to do. But it is upsurd to think that because there are decisions of complete indifference towards the choices being made and we can’t choose, that therefore there is no freedom. For we still ultimately deciede things. Is thaf not enough of a criteria? That we deciede things without force or imposition and that we discover what is worthy of being pursued ourselves by understanding of what is the good? If not, then we may have reached an astonishing impasse, I must say.

 

[quaestio45]

That is the brain which passively receives information and work on them without being aware of them. Again, that is the brain which think based on collective memory it stored in the whole life time. Mind could be aware of thinking or not. Some people call such activity unconscious activity when mind is not aware of it otherwise it is a conscious activity.

I fail to understand how this rebutes my argument of the meaninglessness of a completely passive perciever such as your idea of the mind. I understand what you mean by unconscious (that the brain, or hard wired neurological part of us operates without our knowing or consent), but that doesn’t answer the question of how you can call conscious that which cannot think, and as an extent, consider, judge, and ultimately meaningfully deciede at all.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

OK… what kind of substance , then?

According to Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things that, according to the system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality. Thus, for an atomist, atoms are the substances, for they are the basic things from which everything is constructed.

Wait a minute: you’re saying that ‘mind’ is one of the basic fundamental entities of reality? Like ‘forms’ or ‘atoms’? (I see that @quaestio45 has the same question / criticism of that assertion…)

 

[STT]

Forms do not mean a substance in the same way a spiritual entity has substance.

Perhaps I didn’t formulate the sentence well. We experience thoughts therefore they exists. But something which exists must be a substance. Moreover we distinguish thoughts therefore they must have forms. We couldn’t possibly communicate thoughts in the form of sentences if they didn’t have forms.

For one, forms do not posess the ability of interaction, yet a spiritual entity can.

Mind has the ability to experience. Experience what? Material.

Second, if you were to equate the two (form and mind substance) you’d have to say that either forms can interact with subjects of substance (which they can’t) or that the mind substance is a form fundamentally.

We have two substances, mind and material. Mind is formless whereas material has form.

But that would reduce it to mere essence and not existence (which would make it immutable and simple, I guess, but not in the way you think, as nothing which does not exist but is only essence cannot interact with anything, to which you hold the mind can, I believe). As such, no, these two things are not similar in substance.

Mind and matter are different substances.

Perhaps, but you wouldn’t tell me that the physical properties are mental, or that the mental properties are the physical, correct? As such, there is a distinction between the two, and as such, one may say, if the mind is perhaps of a simple spiritual substance, then it can still be compatible with those categories outside of such spiritual substance in composition, such as in the holding of the forms.

I cannot follow you here (bold part).

…okay, we might be going in circles. STT, if I remember correctly, you very specifically said that the mind must be simple in substance , to which I said if that is the only way it must be incomposed then it may composed in other ways. Now, my analogy works in that the subject itself is singular in substance (the basket is only basket, and the mind is simple in its substance), but it is being composed in some other way (in what is being held in the basket, and in the ideas produced and held in the mind). As such, they are analogous. Now, explain to me how it is wrong given that we agree that the mind need only be simple in the one manner of substance.

Are you saying that mind is simple but it can hold things? The answer to this question is no. What would be use of the brain if mind could hold ideas in itself. The same applies to judging. That is due to brain too. There are people with the brain damage who are not able to logically think because of the brain damage.

 

[STT]

Okay, I believe I hit this already and have not had a satisfactory rebuke, so I’ll say it again; a completely passive observer cannot be meaningfully called a perciever of anything, for interpretation of external data in correspondence to one goals is what differentiates a camera from “percieving” something and say a man or mind.

There are two sort of decisions: Free and Non-free (based on a script). Mind only participates in the first one and is a passive observer of the second one. It cannot participate in the second one because the second one is against the idea of simplicity (it can however veto when an non-free decision is made). Is there any use for mind? Of course there is. Without mind there would be no coherent change (this is a very important topic that I would share it with you if you wish). A deterministic system even if it could exist without mind, which this is not possible since any physical system is subject to change therefore it is contingent, halts in different situations, when the outcome of options in a situation are ambiguous for example. So mind is essencial.

A camera is a completely passive observer, but do we dare equate it to man as a perciever? No, because interpretation is key here, to which is contingent upon thinking. As such, the mind cannot be called a simple passive observer, for those that are cannot hold agency; further, if judgment is derived from the brain and not the mind, yet judgment is the convergence of goal and thought, then the mind which you claim initiated thoughts must have some sort of participation in this endeavor. But, as I’ve said, to initiate a wanted thought is to know what you want, and then to translate it into a command, which is a type of thought (remember the brain/mind concersation?). As such, this division between brain and mind simply cannot work as it is.

Yes. Without mind a coherent process is impossible. I would comment on that if you wish.

 

[STT]

I strongly disagree with your idea of “freedom”. If we are to say that true freedom only comes from ultimate indifference in choice, then I say boldly and assertively that therefore nothing has freedom, as there is hardly a time when a choice is not made without judgment of values in relation to some final cause. In fact, it is when we are in a complete state of indifference with choice that we cannot make decisions (as @Hume pointed out in another thread); if this is the condition necessarry for a fully free being, then surely it would manifest its existence in these scenarios. But instead, what usually happens is that we choose off of whims or coin flips out of difficulty in decision because we just can’t understand what to do. But it is upsurd to think that because there are decisions of complete indifference towards the choices being made and we can’t choose, that therefore there is no freedom. For we still ultimately deciede things. Is thaf not enough of a criteria? That we deciede things without force or imposition and that we discover what is worthy of being pursued ourselves by understanding of what is the good? If not, then we may have reached an astonishing impasse, I must say.

How do you define freedom? What is it if it is not free of any bias?

 

[STT]

Wait a minute: you’re saying that ‘mind’ is one of the basic fundamental entities of reality? Like ‘forms’ or ‘atoms’? (I see that @quaestio45 has the same question / criticism of that assertion…)

There are minds and material. One of them is simple and another one not.

 

[quaestio45]

We experience thoughts therefore they exists.

Perhaps, but we wouldn’t dare say that they “exist” in the same manner as a being. Thoughts, ideas, and all such abstractions are essences (or form, if you like); but they if they are soley essences then they cannot have being unless the essence was existence. But such is not the case for all things except the one of actus purus.

But something which exists must be a substance.

In the sense of them being a being, sure. But that which is soley essence does not actually exist; they do not possess the same reality as you, me, or anything with being because we posses actualization in our essence, thus giving us existence. Soley essence is merely potentiality in that something may exist with that given essence but are not (such is the nature of definitions; they’re application is independent of the defined subjects existence, yet if the definition is met, the subject exists). So no, ideas do not “exist” really, though they do posses form or essencs which are immaterial and insubstantial realities; they may, therefore, only be possesed and “interacted with” by that which itself is immaterial in some way. I believe @Gorgias would call that the “soul”, though its nature I’m unfamiliar with, so comment on this part is sadly beyond my qualifications. In anycase, if I’m not mistaken, even a “spiritual” entity would be immaterial yet posses a substance of some sort, so even the immaterial could be subdivided.

Moreover we distinguish thoughts therefore they must have forms. We couldn’t possibly communicate thoughts in the form of sentences if they didn’t have forms.

Agreed. Thoughts and ideas must be form itself in some way.

quaestio45:

For one, forms do not posess the ability of interaction, yet a spiritual entity can.

Mind has the ability to experience. Experience what? Material.

Are you saying that the mind is ultimately a form? For, if you were, I’d have to object to this the same way I objected above; forms in and of themselves do not really exist, therefore they are inert and cannot experience.

Mind and matter are different substances.

Fair enough… how does rebut my argument that there must be a division between the forms and a spiritual entity in substance? Unless you claim there is only “mind and matter” but then you’d have to elaborate on what you mean by mind. Is it form? If so, then my objection above follows.

I cannot follow you here (bold part).

Out of what? A lack of understanding or disagreement? If its the former, then I basically say that there is a distinction between forms and a spiritual entity (like the mind), and as such, if the mind need only be simple in spiritual substance, then it very much can be composed in the holdin of forms.

 

[quaestio45]

Are you saying that mind is simple but it can hold things?

No. What I’m saying is that if something must be uncomposed in one manner only, then that therefore means it can be composed in manners outside of the one its restricted in. Therefore, mind may be composed, just not in spiritual substance.

What would be use of the brain if mind could hold ideas in itself. The same applies to judging. That is due to brain too. There are people with the brain damage who are not able to logically think because of the brain damage.

The brain I would say is just the mechanism by which the mind operates in complete coherence with. So much so, that if the tool of the mind is damaged, then it hinders the mind itself, and vice verca (when you are experiencing mental or perhaps spiritual troubles, it very much can effect the body). Their relationships is similar to that of hardware and software; if the hardware is damaged, the software, although undamaged and still functional, cannot operate perfectly, or perhaps at all. That doesn’t mean that ideas are of the brain, or that consciousness surfaces through the brain; rather, these are of the mind which the brain becomes the vessel for operating successfully.

A deterministic system even if it could exist without mind, which this is not possible since any physical system is subject to change therefore it is contingent, halts in different situations, when the outcome of options in a situation are ambiguous for example.

Well some may say either one, because all reality is scripted, these occurances never happen, or two, in moments like these randomness occurs in outcome rather than full halt in a causal chain.

Yes. Without mind a coherent process is impossible. I would comment on that if you wish.

My friend, although what you say maybe true, I think that perhaps you might not be grasping the objection I fired at your claim; that being that if the mind, in your model, cannot think but can only initiate what to think in the brain (which is a contridiction if it is neither determined or random but a meaningfull decision, as that would require thought), which therefore means it cannot judge, and it cannot meaningfully decide. As such, the mind you propose cannot be a conscious entity if we rob it of all those things which makes something conscious. Instead, we have rendered it as blind as a camera, only “percieving” in the most basic of ways.

 

[quaestio45]

How do you define freedom? What is it if it is not free of any bias?

It is simply the ability to meaningfully choose what your final cause is and how to achieve it. Bias and temptation is riddled in everything, but to choose against it is very much possible if you believe your final cause is not in alignment with it and therefore not worthy of pursuing. Choosing a final cause comes down to what the individual believes is good; a pleasure of the moment, a satisfaction of hunger, an escape from pain, or perhaps something transcending all these things.

 

[STT]

Perhaps, but we wouldn’t dare say that they “exist” in the same manner as a being. Thoughts, ideas, and all such abstractions are essences (or form, if you like); but they if they are soley essences then they cannot have being unless the essence was existence. But such is not the case for all things except the one of actus purus.

Yes, I agree. Thought are different from mind. Any form including thought is sustained by mind.

In the sense of them being a being, sure. But that which is soley essence does not actually exist; they do not possess the same reality as you, me, or anything with being because we posses actualization in our essence, thus giving us existence.

Yes. Thought existence in fact is due to mind.

Soley essence is merely potentiality in that something may exist with that given essence but are not (such is the nature of definitions; they’re application is independent of the defined subjects existence, yet if the definition is met, the subject exists). So no, ideas do not “exist” really, though they do posses form or essencs which are immaterial and insubstantial realities; they may, therefore, only be possesed and “interacted with” by that which itself is immaterial in some way. I believe @Gorgias would call that the “soul”, though its nature I’m unfamiliar with, so comment on this part is sadly beyond my qualifications. In anycase, if I’m not mistaken, even a “spiritual” entity would be immaterial yet posses a substance of some sort, so even the immaterial could be subdivided.

Yes. Thoughts are due to mind, have forms and could be subdivided.

Are you saying that the mind is ultimately a form? For, if you were, I’d have to object to this the same way I objected above; forms in and of themselves do not really exist, therefore they are inert and cannot experience.

No, mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

Fair enough… how does rebut my argument that there must be a division between the forms and a spiritual entity in substance? Unless you claim there is only “mind and matter” but then you’d have to elaborate on what you mean by mind. Is it form? If so, then my objection above follows.

I already defined mind in the previous comment. Material is another substance, its change is due to mind, it has forms, therefore it can be divided.

Out of what? A lack of understanding or disagreement? If its the former, then I basically say that there is a distinction between forms and a spiritual entity (like the mind), and as such, if the mind need only be simple in spiritual substance, then it very much can be composed in the holdin of forms.

I think you are mixing mind with person, person being mind and body.

 

[STT]

The brain I would say is just the mechanism by which the mind operates in complete coherence with. So much so, that if the tool of the mind is damaged, then it hinders the mind itself, and vice verca (when you are experiencing mental or perhaps spiritual troubles, it very much can effect the body). Their relationships is similar to that of hardware and software; if the hardware is damaged, the software, although undamaged and still functional, cannot operate perfectly, or perhaps at all. That doesn’t mean that ideas are of the brain, or that consciousness surfaces through the brain; rather, these are of the mind which the brain becomes the vessel for operating successfully.

That is how I see it. The brain tissue is hardware, the way it is structured is software. Mind allows the process. It does not have internal access to all form of brain. It only experiences mental and can cause mental too.

Well some may say either one, because all reality is scripted, these occurances never happen, or two, in moments like these randomness occurs in outcome rather than full halt in a causal chain.

It does happen. Have you every been in a situation that you don’t know where your choices will take you?

My friend, although what you say maybe true, I think that perhaps you might not be grasping the objection I fired at your claim; that being that if the mind, in your model, cannot think but can only initiate what to think in the brain (which is a contridiction if it is neither determined or random but a meaningfull decision, as that would require thought), which therefore means it cannot judge, and it cannot meaningfully decide. As such, the mind you propose cannot be a conscious entity if we rob it of all those things which makes something conscious. Instead, we have rendered it as blind as a camera, only “percieving” in the most basic of ways.

Do you agree that judging is a scripted process?

 

[STT]

It is simply the ability to meaningfully choose what your final cause is and how to achieve it. Bias and temptation is riddled in everything, but to choose against it is very much possible if you believe your final cause is not in alignment with it and therefore not worthy of pursuing. Choosing a final cause comes down to what the individual believes is good; a pleasure of the moment, a satisfaction of hunger, an escape from pain, or perhaps something transcending all these things.

Do you agree that escape from pain is an scriptic process? Do you agree that you need mind for feeling pain? If the both answers are yes then you need body and mind together, in another word that is person who look for a final cause.

 

[quaestio45]

Yes, I agree. Thought are different from mind. Any form including thought is sustained by mind.

Okay, thats good. Now if we agree that there is a difference between the forms and the mind, and that thinking and conscious acts are just the holding of forms in the mind, then we reach the conclusion that the mind is simple in substance yet can think and therefore be composite in other ways (primarily, the holding of forms).

I think you are mixing mind with person, person being mind and body.

I’m trying to be very careful navigating this topic, so when I comment I usually have it made sure that what I am describing is what I truly think is applicable to the mind and not the just the person as a whole. In anycase, if a mistake is made, I will take the correction.

That is how I see it. The brain tissue is hardware, the way it is structured is software. Mind allows the process. It does not have internal access to all form of brain. It only experiences mental and can cause mental too.

I think the big distinction that we hold is whether or not the mental phenomena is operating within the mind or the brain or both equally and simultaneously. I hold that mental phenomena, such as conscious, are very much within the mind manifested through the brain because otherwise it cannot be truly aware, as I’ve tried showing with my brain/mind conversation and camera analogy.

It does happen. Have you every been in a situation that you don’t know where your choices will take you?

Well yes, but we are conscious beings and as such are not behaving according the dictates of nature of physics, both of which are determined. Remove the conscious beings, and no such event would ever be that the outcome isn’t explained perfectly through the laws of nature.

Do you agree that judging is a scripted process?

Insofar as you need a higher ideal to judge by? Yes, of course; standards, ideals, or rules of operation are imperative to any act of judgment. That does not, however, mean that the judger is fully operating by a script deterministically because one may either not fully understand the standards by which they work with or they simply appease to their own will rather than their acclaimed principles.

Do you agree that escape from pain is an scriptic process?

As in, pain has a necessary behavioral reaction? Well, yes I suppose so, but to a very light extent. That extent being the experiencing of a rather unpleasant phenomena, of course, but everything after that cannot be determined fully by a conscious being unless you know what their highest value in the moment of pain would be (which is usually fluid and contingent upon many mental factors).

Do you agree that you need mind for feeling pain?

Yes, I can agree to that.

 

[quaestio45]

If the both answers are yes then you need body and mind together

That doesn’t follow friend, unless you were to tell me that the mind can never operate by higher principles accepted by said mind, or that bias is incompatible with a free being (which I still strongly disagree with). But I’m at a refusal to admit to such a thing for the time being.

 

[STT]

Okay, thats good. Now if we agree that there is a difference between the forms and the mind, and that thinking and conscious acts are just the holding of forms in the mind, then we reach the conclusion that the mind is simple in substance yet can think and therefore be composite in other ways (primarily, the holding of forms).

Conscious thinking requires two things: Content of mind (what mind sustains, thoughts for example) and actively and coherently process the content of mind what we can call intellect, another ability of mind. I think we are right on this.

I think the big distinction that we hold is whether or not the mental phenomena is operating within the mind or the brain or both equally and simultaneously.

I think you need a community of minds each has an intellect. Brain, what mind sustain, for example holding collective memory.

I hold that mental phenomena, such as conscious, are very much within the mind manifested through the brain because otherwise it cannot be truly aware, as I’ve tried showing with my brain/mind conversation and camera analogy.

Brain is a source of collective memory. Mind experience mental though. I already commented on these.

Insofar as you need a higher ideal to judge by? Yes, of course; standards, ideals, or rules of operation are imperative to any act of judgment. That does not, however, mean that the judger is fully operating by a script deterministically because one may either not fully understand the standards by which they work with or they simply appease to their own will rather than their acclaimed principles.

I think mind does instruction if we accept mind is an ability of mind. One step at each instant.

As in, pain has a necessary behavioral reaction? Well, yes I suppose so, but to a very light extent. That extent being the experiencing of a rather unpleasant phenomena, of course, but everything after that cannot be determined fully by a conscious being unless you know what their highest value in the moment of pain would be (which is usually fluid and contingent upon many mental factors).

I agree.

Yes, I can agree to that.

Cool.

 

[quaestio45]

Conscious thinking requires two things: Content of mind (what mind sustains, thoughts for example) and actively and coherently process the content of mind what we can call intellect, another ability of mind. I think we are right on this.

Very nice; it seems we are on the same page.

I think you need a community of minds each has an intellect. Brain, what mind sustain, for example holding collective memory.

This is an interesting thought… could you elaborate on this community of minds?

Brain is a source of collective memory.

What do you mean by collective memory.

I think mind does instruction if we accept mind is an ability of mind. One step at each instant.

I’m a little confusef as to what you mean here. Mind is an ability of mind?

I agree

Great!