Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

It does not follow that, since we are composite (you have eyes? Ears? Hands? You’re composite, then), we are unable to decide.

I am talking about two minds which both are involved in decision. I am not talking about the body.

Are you the source of your own existence? Do you have parents? Then… you’re not “uncaused”.

I am not talking about your body but your mind.

“Free to go against any cause” is not the definition of “immutable.” Are you physical? Were you a baby, and then a teen, and then an adult? Then your body changes; you’re not immutable.

In other words: none of your assertions holds up to scrutiny. QED.

I am talking about your mind and not your body.

 

[quaestio45]

Then you are biased by what has most value for you. Therefore you are not free.

Correct. I don’t agree with your freedom. I think we are similar to automatons yet distinct in one special way. Similar in that, as Aristotle discovered, we all have an ultimate purpose for existence, an end to achieve, that being ‘happiness’ as he called it, though I would refer to it more as final satisfaction. Now, we are all born with distinct environments, different bodies and inherent biases, ideologies as to what is the nature of the final end, along with how to get there. As such, we are bound be decisions and judgments and thoughts to make to further our being to our ends. Now, you make a fantastic point to which cannot be ignored STT, which is that in the world we experience events where the outcomes of each seem equally in our favor depending on the lens we look through. How is any mere automaton to react to such things other than to break down? Well that is where the will enters in stage, with thoughts and reason as its tools. It looks at option one and two, evaluates its own knowledge as to its final cause and perhaps what appears to be worth sacrificing in the moment for some temporary pleasure, and then places values on each idea, opportunity, and outcome according to its reason. The will then pursues necessarily that which is in most highest accord with value, even if it be a temporary one, and enacts it. As such, we are like automatons which are bound to act in accordance with the end, but special in that we can reason, through bias, experience, and learning, as well as discipline to pick an option. Controversial idea? Perhaps. Completely accurate? I doubt it. Nearer the truth then alternative theories? Perhaps only further inquiry may tell.

If God does not have substance then He does not exist.

If you mean my latter definition (“but if you simply mean that he has being which can be distinguished to others, then yes”), then yes. If you mean my prior definition (“If we are using the same definition of substance, which is the make up of a being (or material, one may say), then I cannot say God would have substance, for he is made up of nothing, but instead soley is himself”) then I need some reason to think so.

Endless refer to a value that cannot be reached.

Fair enough…

Never ceasing is a temporal property.

True… perhaps I misworded myself. As an outward observor attempting to understand the breadth of an infinite being, it seems never ceasing(the same way that numbers seem never ending if I counted off from one to infinity, even though the numbers aren’t temporally bound and exist all simultaneously). But God would need to be of a property which in fact does not change but is constant, whilst simultaneously being so grand in being that one cannot concieve of an end to him (which is exactly what would need to happen were he devoid of potency, the thing which characterizes limit in being).

 

[quaestio45]

I don’t believe that any thing is incomprehensible.

I’ll give you an example of something that cannot be comprehended right now. The power set of the natural numbers. Infinite knowledge (as I’ve argued). The nature of an infinite being. Certainly, we may comprehend these things at a surface level, understanding them in manners of representation (mathematical or logical), but surely, it is true to fully comprehend any of the things I’ve mentioned is an impossibility. As such, they are incomprehensible to a large degree.

This we already discuss it to depth. If I know foreknowledge that I would do X then I would do Y to show that I am free.

Yes, I understand your argument. I simply state what you are stating, that these two things are fully incompatible, and as such one can be true while the other is necessarily false. I will admit that I don’t believe your idea of freedom, thus, I am free to say that the knowledge of God perfectly understands what has happened from eternity (the irony of my uses of freedom is not lost on me).

I already argue in favor of it. There are many situation in life that you don’t know the consequence of options. A deterministic entity simply fail to proceed in this type of situation. You choose X and find out that that was a wrong choice so you learn from your mistake. That is how we learn thing, through trial and error.

Were the deterministic entity programed with a random decision generator when two things are of absolute equal value, then the problem is resolved. Its not like reality doesn’t have an inherent bit of randomness in it at the quantum level. It is not silly, therefore, to say that dice are merely being tossed in these scenarios (though, I strongly disagree with that idea myself, I just want to express the problem in this particular argument).

And what is x?

Anything you care it to be. Lets say that I recognize theres an apple on my desk. Well, I have attained a piece of knowledge in recognizing that, but now more truth and thus knowledge has been generated. If I were to then recognize this knowledge then what happens? Another truth appears, that being the recognition of my recognition of the apple. You can do this over and over and over again for eternity, but so long as you are limited in comprehension, you shall never be able to grasp all of knowledge, for knowledge is infinite.

 

[quaestio45]

I think that was you who argue against simplicity of God in An argument against God.

I very much do, and I’ve come to a counter argument against myself:

P1) There are incompatible perfections to God (state of creation and state of passivity)

P2) These must be resolved by taking in one and rejecting the other

P3) With no final cause or essence to operate by in scenarios of incompatible perfection (as God’s essence is simply perfection), this requires the freest will to choose by voluntude

C1) Thus, God can and must act of voluntude

This argument basically implies that God chose his perfection when he could’ve choosen to be perfect in another way, as there might be multiple routes to perfection to God. Now God is not pre-determined, as you’ve said, but rather self-determined in how he is. I think thats exactly right. God determined himself how he would be perfect. This of course means he could’ve determined himself differently, I’ll admit, but I don’t believe this would be a problem to God as the rules don’t constrain him, for he is the rules, in a sense (pure actuality is determined by his state, not the other way around). What do you think?

The manner by which an infinite being exist must have been derived by choice, therefore, God could have been “different” then he is now. Not many have challanged me on this argument other then Vico on a denial of my argument against God, so I don’t know if there are any holes in my reason. If you think I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

You also agreed that God cannot be knowledge.

So through my further thinking and reflection, and honestly mostly from reading a bit into the subject, I think it is also ineffective to argue against a purely simple being on the basis of knowledge (meaning I redact my argument against a purely simple mind on the basis of knowledge comprehension). This is because knowledge is an ultimately contingent thing to which is mostly independent of the one that thinks of it. A purely simple mind can indeed, if noncontingent, hold knowledge, but the pre requisite being that the consciousness of knowledge not be divided, that the knowledge be not changing, and that the knower fully and unchangingly understands the knowledge. As such, there cannot be a transfer from no knowledge to knowledge, as this violates the immutability of the being, nor can it be without knowledge, for it would lack something greatly. Knowledge therefore can only be fully comprehended by an infinite being, and an infinite being must have full knowledge.

 

[STT]

Correct. I don’t agree with your freedom. I think we are similar to automatons yet distinct in one special way. Similar in that, as Aristotle discovered, we all have an ultimate purpose for existence, an end to achieve, that being ‘happiness’ as he called it, though I would refer to it more as final satisfaction. Now, we are all born with distinct environments, different bodies and inherent biases, ideologies as to what is the nature of the final end, along with how to get there. As such, we are bound be decisions and judgments and thoughts to make to further our being to our ends. Now, you make a fantastic point to which cannot be ignored STT, which is that in the world we experience events where the outcomes of each seem equally in our favor depending on the lens we look through. How is any mere automaton to react to such things other than to break down? Well that is where the will enters in stage, with thoughts and reason as its tools. It looks at option one and two, evaluates its own knowledge as to its final cause and perhaps what appears to be worth sacrificing in the moment for some temporary pleasure, and then places values on each idea, opportunity, and outcome according to its reason. The will then pursues necessarily that which is in most highest accord with value, even if it be a temporary one, and enacts it. As such, we are like automatons which are bound to act in accordance with the end, but special in that we can reason, through bias, experience, and learning, as well as discipline to pick an option. Controversial idea? Perhaps. Completely accurate? I doubt it. Nearer the truth then alternative theories? Perhaps only further inquiry may tell.

And how do you deal with the idea of moral responsibility? No free will no responsibility.

If you mean my latter definition (“but if you simply mean that he has being which can be distinguished to others, then yes”), then yes. If you mean my prior definition (“If we are using the same definition of substance, which is the make up of a being (or material, one may say), then I cannot say God would have substance, for he is made up of nothing, but instead soley is himself”) then I need some reason to think so.

Is God a thing? I am asking because saying that God is Himself doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[STT]

Yes, I understand your argument. I simply state what you are stating, that these two things are fully incompatible, and as such one can be true while the other is necessarily false. I will admit that I don’t believe your idea of freedom, thus, I am free to say that the knowledge of God perfectly understands what has happened from eternity (the irony of my uses of freedom is not lost on me).

So you are a machine that has no control on his action?

Were the deterministic entity programed with a random decision generator when two things are of absolute equal value, then the problem is resolved. Its not like reality doesn’t have an inherent bit of randomness in it at the quantum level. It is not silly, therefore, to say that dice are merely being tossed in these scenarios (though, I strongly disagree with that idea myself, I just want to express the problem in this particular argument).

You are not a random generator. You are hold responsible for free decision because you want them.

Anything you care it to be. Lets say that I recognize theres an apple on my desk. Well, I have attained a piece of knowledge in recognizing that, but now more truth and thus knowledge has been generated. If I were to then recognize this knowledge then what happens? Another truth appears, that being the recognition of my recognition of the apple. You can do this over and over and over again for eternity, but so long as you are limited in comprehension, you shall never be able to grasp all of knowledge, for knowledge is infinite.

Yes, particular knowledge could be infinite. I am however talking about higher knowledge.

 

[quaestio45]

And how do you deal with the idea of moral responsibility? No free will no responsibility.

I’m not denying that we are free agents, only that I think your theory of how the mind is free is off. My proposal as to how we are free, I believe, is a practical one. It requires less logical jumps and it doesn’t fall either into determinism or hard libertarianism. It is, in my estimate, a middle ground. Our minds are information centers. They are constantly being reported as to the condition of the body, environment, the good, the final cause, and inherent yearns. This information has to be dealt with, of course, and in a manner which satisfies the most needs, and especially the highest need. Thus, we have rationality, the ultimate tool to evaluate all information, reason which priorities should be pursued given the needs of the being, and how to accomplish it. This isn’t an elimination of freedom, as the manner by which we reason, how we reason, what we allow to influence our reason, and the integrity of the reason are all within the control of the rational. Thus, we still have freedom, but not the type of freedom you propose.

Is God a thing? I am asking because saying that God is Himself doesn’t make any sense at all.

God is “himself” in so far as he is not material or physical, and is not a construct whose being is of a given thing (such as matter, spirit, etc.). He just exist. He is not made up of anything.

You are not a random generator. You are hold responsible for free decision because you want them.

Yes, I agree. But the determinist wouldn’t argue that. They would argue the opposite, and your trap could be hand wave away as being resolved through randomness in the system.

Yes, particular knowledge could be infinite. I am however talking about higher knowledge.

Yeah, I suppose I can agree with that. But if we look at collective knowledge, we would definitely say its infinite.

 

[Latin]

But ultimately, and ontologically, the knowledge of God is contingent upon what he knows, and if the subject of knowledge is our act then it is safe to say that we aren’t therefore necessary in acting a particular way, for our actions to come are what dictate the knowledge of God, and not the other way around.

Our Catholic Church doesn’t agree with your above statement @quaestio45.
.
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.

God is the sole ruler of the world. His will governs all things.

Divine Intelligence, as St. Thomas says (Summa I, G. xxii, a. 1), is the cause of all things. Providence, therefore, pertains primarily to the Intelligence of God, though it implies also will (I, Q. xxii, a. 1, ad 3 urn), and hence is defined by St. John Damaschene as “the will of God by which all things are ruled according to right reason” (“De fid. orth.”, i, 3 in “P.G.”, XCIV, 963, 964).

God acts through secondary causes, yet all alike postulate Divine concurrence and receive their powers of operation from Him (I, Q. xxii, a. 3; Q. ciii, a. 6); efficacious, in that all things minister to God’s final purpose, a purpose which cannot be frustrated (Contra Gent., III, xciv);

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

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

CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan. They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.
.
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.
.
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]

I’ve seen this objection leveled to you many times, and I’d be rather silly if I didn’t do it myself. If God is the primary and secondary cause of everything, and he had it willed that all events of history would occur, can we also say that he willed Satan to rebel against him? Or perhaps Adam to disobey him? We can’t possibly say yes, for we know God is the good. But the good can never be in cahoots with its opposite, let alone wish it to manifest, for it wants all good universally, as that is the highest good to wish for. Thus, it cannot possibly be that God ordered his universe completely in his whole will, nor especially can we attribute all actions to him, for the acts of evil cannot be originated within him. Thus, how do you respond?

 

[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, He could create us with the privilege of immunity from sin and in this world would be 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 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.

.
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.”,

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

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.
.
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

 

[Gorgias]

I am talking about two minds which both are involved in decision. I am not talking about the body.

Ahh, but you can’t pretend like the body doesn’t exist and therefore proclaim, “a-ha! we’re simple, not composite!”

I am not talking about your body but your mind.

You’re not the cause of your mind, either. I seem to recall that you believe that your soul has existed for all eternity, but you don’t have anything to back that assertion up with. (From a Catholic perspective, we would justify our belief that souls are created immediately by God at the point that parents cooperate with God’s act of creation and procreate their child. For us, the justification is God’s self-revelation and the teaching authority of the Church, given to her by Jesus.)

I am talking about your mind and not your body.

Again: a human person is a body/soul composite. If that composite changes, then it is not immutable. Bodies change. Therefore, human persons are not immutable.

 

[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.”

I think I expressed this point once before, but I’ll repeat it oncemore, for its been a while since we’ve touched this subject. God cannot simply create any world, of course. His effects must be without contridiction to his nature. As such, he must create a logically coherent reality, and one that is “good” in so far as he created it. He can’t possibly have created it evil by default for as another user in these forums have pointed out “to knowingly cause evil is itself an evil”. Now, here in lies the manner by which me and him separated in agreement. In order to defend the attack on his good by producing Satan knowingly, I said that it can only be of necessity that he does this. He needed not create, yes. But in so long as he creates he cannot create in a discriminatory manner which eliminates the possibility of existence on the basis of an evil act not yet commited. Justice comes after the crime, not before, lest it be unjust. Therefore, I hold God cannot have created a world of conscious beings without there being a sinful being by necessity.

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

Now, allow me, if I may, to turn the tables on you and ask “why did God not simply produce these beings happy and joyful? He, after all, is all powerful, is he not? And if he could’ve done this, but rather chose not to, how can we call this an all good God? He made is imperfect by choice when he could’ve made us happy angels.”

 

[STT]

I’m not denying that we are free agents, only that I think your theory of how the mind is free is off. My proposal as to how we are free, I believe, is a practical one. It requires less logical jumps and it doesn’t fall either into determinism or hard libertarianism. It is, in my estimate, a middle ground. Our minds are information centers. They are constantly being reported as to the condition of the body, environment, the good, the final cause, and inherent yearns. This information has to be dealt with, of course, and in a manner which satisfies the most needs, and especially the highest need. Thus, we have rationality, the ultimate tool to evaluate all information, reason which priorities should be pursued given the needs of the being, and how to accomplish it. This isn’t an elimination of freedom, as the manner by which we reason, how we reason, what we allow to influence our reason, and the integrity of the reason are all within the control of the rational. Thus, we still have freedom, but not the type of freedom you propose.

What you describe is not a free agent. It is not free at all. Rationality, environment, genes, does not make you free.

God is “himself” in so far as he is not material or physical, and is not a construct whose being is of a given thing (such as matter, spirit, etc.). He just exist. He is not made up of anything.

What you describe does make any sense to me.

Yes, I agree. But the determinist wouldn’t argue that. They would argue the opposite, and your trap could be hand wave away as being resolved through randomness in the system.

For now, they are trapped to address the hard problem of consciousness.

 

[STT]

Ahh, but you can’t pretend like the body doesn’t exist and therefore proclaim, “a-ha! we’re simple , not composite !”

I am talking about your mind and not the person.

You’re not the cause of your mind, either. I seem to recall that you believe that your soul has existed for all eternity, but you don’t have anything to back that assertion up with. (From a Catholic perspective, we would justify our belief that souls are created immediately by God at the point that parents cooperate with God’s act of creation and procreate their child. For us, the justification is God’s self-revelation and the teaching authority of the Church, given to her by Jesus.)

And how the Church conclude that?

Again: a human person is a body/soul composite. If that composite changes, then it is not immutable. Bodies change. Therefore, human persons are not immutable.

Yes. But I am talking about your mind.

 

[quaestio45]

What you describe is not a free agent. It is not free at all. Rationality, environment, genes, does not make you free.

Environment, genes, and all such things may not make you free, but the manner by which the rational reasons to sort through these things is not something deterministic, nor is it something random, so it could be called free. In anycase, even if I were wrong, I’d still contend that your hypothesis of the mind certainly cannot be right for it is metaphysically contradictive and leads to tremendously large and impossible implications. That being:
a) an uncaused cause must be perfectly simple, which means no aspect of being may be omitted from the subject, to which the mind can’t be because we are lacking in knowledge, for example, and we cannot totally exercise our will
b) an uncaused cause can never be in a state of being caused by an externality, but you admitted that the mind may commit to uncaused actions whilst also reacting in a caused manner to others
c) the mind can most definitely change. My evidence for this is diversity of thought. Multiple effects from one cause can only mean the cause was slightly different in each instance or that the surrounding conditions changed, none of which leaves room for the freedom you advocate for.
Thus, I still deny your hypothesis of freedom.

What you describe does make any sense to me.

Well, please, if you may, tell me what exactly you mean by substance then. I feel like this is the area of confusion.

For now, they are trapped to address the hard problem of consciousness.

This is actually a fairly easy thing to address: there is no consciousness, its just an illusion. As silly as this sound (and yes, I understand its very silly) they do push this as the ultimate conclusion of a purely materialistic and physics based explanation as to the problem of conscious. Simple denial.

 

[Gorgias]

I am talking about your mind and not the person.

So, here’s the thing. If I said “my hand is simple” or “my hair is simple” or “my foot is simple”, and then followed that up with “therefore, I as a person am simple”… then you’d roll your eyes and call me a real loon – and you’d be right! So, before you take one ‘part’ of me and make assertions of simplicity over composition, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture.

Now, if you’re thinking of ‘mind’ as somewhat analogous to ‘soul’, then I get the temptation. Yet, inasmuch as the ‘mind’ / ‘soul’ is part of the composite being known as ‘person’ – especially since the operation of the ‘mind’ is dependent on the body – I think it’s unhelpful to compartmentalize it off and make assertions of simplicity.

And how the Church conclude that?

Revelation from God. Teachings under divine authority by the Church.

Yes. But I am talking about your mind.

Yes, but your mind operates in conjunction with your body.

 

[STT]

Environment, genes, and all such things may not make you free, but the manner by which the rational reasons to sort through these things is not something deterministic, nor is it something random, so it could be called free.

Of course rationality is a deterministic thing. You can even write a program for it so called laws.

In anycase, even if I were wrong, I’d still contend that your hypothesis of the mind certainly cannot be right for it is metaphysically contradictive and leads to tremendously large and impossible implications. That being:
a) an uncaused cause must be perfectly simple, which means no aspect of being may be omitted from the subject, to which the mind can’t be because we are lacking in knowledge, for example, and we cannot totally exercise our will

No. An uncaused cause is a entity which can affect ignoring affections. This follows from freedom in decision. It follows from freedom in decision that you are simple too. So the key point is whether you are free or no.

b) an uncaused cause can never be in a state of being caused by an externality, but you admitted that the mind may commit to uncaused actions whilst also reacting in a caused manner to others

Mind’s substance doesn’t change while you experience since at any moment you can make a free decision.

c) the mind can most definitely change. My evidence for this is diversity of thought. Multiple effects from one cause can only mean the cause was slightly different in each instance or that the surrounding conditions changed, none of which leaves room for the freedom you advocate for.

Thoughts are what mind perceives or creates. That doesn’t change mind’s substance.

Thus, I still deny your hypothesis of freedom.

I hope that you change your mind.

Well, please, if you may, tell me what exactly you mean by substance then. I feel like this is the area of confusion.

Substance is what make a being what it is. We exist because we have substance. No substance no existence.

 

[STT]

So, here’s the thing. If I said “my hand is simple” or “my hair is simple” or “my foot is simple”, and then followed that up with “therefore, I as a person am simple”… then you’d roll your eyes and call me a real loon – and you’d be right! So, before you take one ‘part’ of me and make assertions of simplicity over composition, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture.

Now, if you’re thinking of ‘mind’ as somewhat analogous to ‘soul’, then I get the temptation. Yet, inasmuch as the ‘mind’ / ‘soul’ is part of the composite being known as ‘person’ – especially since the operation of the ‘mind’ is dependent on the body – I think it’s unhelpful to compartmentalize it off and make assertions of simplicity.

No. Mind is not soul. It is a separate entity and can exist without any body.

Revelation from God. Teachings under divine authority by the Church.

Mind, the free agent, cannot be created.

Yes, but your mind operates in conjunction with your body.

Yes, mind needs body to operate. Its existence however is not due to the body in any way.

 

[quaestio45]

Of course rationality is a deterministic thing. You can even write a program for it so called laws.

Yes, rationality given it acts strictly according to a set of principles is deterministic. But when even those principles by which it should operate are under its own lens to evaluate and decide on, the picture becomes very different. The rational does not become a tied up machine but rather a choosing agent. Especially when there is not through precise knowledge on the principles by which it should operate. All that to say, the manner by which it should act isn’t bound to it like a script out of lack of information and a number of other external factors.

No. An uncaused cause is a entity which can affect ignoring affections.

In other words, it acts but can also not be acted upon, yes? Is that not what we would call the definition of an immutable being? One who is not changing yet can change others? But an immutable being can only be immovable permanently. Thus, it cannot have the seeds of change within it, meaning potentiality. Thus, you must be an infinite being. One cannot be both an infinite being and have any potential to change even through your own will. It is a simple contradiction, in my estimate.

This follows from freedom in decision. It follows from freedom in decision that you are simple too.

Freedom in the way you describe it? Yes, that is so. But currently, based off the implications of it which contradict much of reality as we know it, I cannot up take such a line of thought yet.

Mind’s substance doesn’t change while you experience since at any moment you can make a free decision.

But the state of the mind does, meaning that it is a changing entity. And, as I’ve said: an uncaused cause can never be in a state of being caused by an externality, but you admitted that the mind may commit to uncaused actions whilst also reacting in a caused manner to others. Thus, there is contradiction in nature here.

Thoughts are what mind perceives or creates. That doesn’t change mind’s substance.

You need to be in a different state of mind in order to create different thoughts. Thus, the mind does change, even if not in substance.

I hope that you change your mind.

If your hypothesis is ultimately closer to truth then anything to which I know of or hold, then indeed, I hope my mind is thoroughly changed.

Substance is what make a being what it is. We exist because we have substance. No substance no existence.

Oh, so what you mean by substance most would say essence, in a manner. In which case, God is existence. That is his essence. Pure actuality is another way of thinking of it.

 

[STT]

Yes, rationality given it acts strictly according to a set of principles is deterministic. But when even those principles by which it should operate are under its own lens to evaluate and decide on, the picture becomes very different.

The picture unfortunately doesn’t become different. You cannot become free by evaluating things.

The rational does not become a tied up machine but rather a choosing agent.

How come? Rationality is a property of mind. It cannot make you free since it always looking for a prescription or giving a prescription.

Especially when there is not through precise knowledge on the principles by which it should operate. All that to say, the manner by which it should act isn’t bound to it like a script out of lack of information and a number of other external factors.

Freedom in decision comes to play when rationality cannot take you to a proper direction, when you don’t have a useful prescription to decide and act upon.

In other words, it acts but can also not be acted upon, yes?

The being which freely decide ignoring all biases.

Is that not what we would call the definition of an immutable being?

Immutability means that your substance is constant. You are the same being as yesterday.

One who is not changing yet can change others?

It is up to it to change or not. Accept or reject.

But an immutable being can only be immovable permanently.

By that I mean that your substance is not subject to change.

Thus, it cannot have the seeds of change within it, meaning potentiality.

There is no potentiality in minds’s substance. It is complete, it experiences, freely decides, and causes. It is all you need to make the reality function well.

Thus, you must be an infinite being.

What do you mean with infinity in here? Non-changing once you add something to it?

One cannot be both an infinite being and have any potential to change even through your own will. It is a simple contradiction, in my estimate.

Yes. As your substance doesn’t change.