Free agent is not contingent

[quaestio45]

Yes, the ability to evaluate things grant you some sort of freedom. Without this ability, we would be a cripple who was not able to do anything. But I think it is clear that free will is different from the ability to evaluate things.

We may think that because theres is more to our free process then simple perception. There is judgment, and also the rationality behind a judgment. These things, of continued fluid connection between information, judgment, and rationalization are linked to the process of thinking. What is thinking, other than the manifestation of these processes in articulated structure. The thoughts of the man is the exploration of rationalization. All the elements, therefore, are there for freedom as the layman sees it.

Rationality cannot always provide an answer to a situation.

Yes, correct, if you’re working for a reason based solution. Consider however the times when you do not rationalize for a reason based solution to a problem, but rather an emotional based solution. Both are triggered by the rational believing the appropriatness if one over the other. We cannot say that one does not participate in a rational process when expressing emotion. The division here which is important is between the rational and reason. You may rationalize that 2 and 2 may equal 5, but through reason, this cannot be so.

That is when you freely decide.

But if we freely decide in these scenarios, why do we insist at time of making a “blind choice” through coin flip, for example, or external opinion?

That is a non-free decision.

It is, on the contrary, free.

I am not talking about the essence or body.

Then if you are talking about existence your hypothesis falls apart. Our minds cannot be perfectly immutable. That requires no potentiality. That requires infinite or pure actuality. Thus, we become complete in being, and thus not lack anything. But we lack complete knowledge and power to exercise our will. Thus, the mind is mutable.

You choose to move along an external force. That is a non-free decision.

So there is no instance by which you are not choosing?

Knowledge is the property of a person.

Knowledge is a property of being. To be complete in being is to be complete in knowledge.

God to me is the creator. I am talking about mind in here.

Nevermind what we call him. What I mean to describe is a pure act entity.

You as a person are different since you have different body and you were exposed to different events your whole life.

Does the mind causes thoughts? Yes. Are there diversity in thoughts? Of course. Thus, it must be that the cause must be different to account for different effects.

 

[STT]

Yes, it really does. You change from “not having decided” on a proposition or course of action to “having decided” on it. That’s literally a change. And it happens in the mind, as you posit it.

There of course should be two states of affair for each decision. How could you possibly decide if these two states cannot exist? This however doesn’t mean that mind is subject to change since these are basically mental states, what mind experience and cause.

 

[STT]

We may think that because theres is more to our free process then simple perception. There is judgment, and also the rationality behind a judgment. These things, of continued fluid connection between information, judgment, and rationalization are linked to the process of thinking. What is thinking, other than the manifestation of these processes in articulated structure. The thoughts of the man is the exploration of rationalization. All the elements, therefore, are there for freedom as the layman sees it.

I understand what you are trying to say. You are basically describing freedom of will, the ability to do this or that, rather than free will.

But if we freely decide in these scenarios, why do we insist at time of making a “blind choice” through coin flip, for example, or external opinion?

Because not all people have access to this knowledge to know that free decision is a blind choice. They however need it to get somewhere.

Then if you are talking about existence your hypothesis falls apart. Our minds cannot be perfectly immutable. That requires no potentiality. That requires infinite or pure actuality. Thus, we become complete in being, and thus not lack anything. But we lack complete knowledge and power to exercise our will. Thus, the mind is mutable.

You don’t need complete power and knowledge to be immutable in substance.

So there is no instance by which you are not choosing?

There are of course situation that I choose even if I don’t freely choose.

Does the mind causes thoughts? Yes. Are there diversity in thoughts? Of course. Thus, it must be that the cause must be different to account for different effects.

Mind does its job as follow, it experience, decide and cause. It always needs an (name removed by moderator)ut to cause an output. Creating thoughts is a process in which mind get involved in getting (name removed by moderator)ut, judge them, and then create output.

 

[quaestio45]

I understand what you are trying to say. You are basically describing freedom of will, the ability to do this or that, rather than free will.

What is the distinction between these two, if I may ask?

You don’t need complete power and knowledge to be immutable in substance.

So what immutability are we discussing if not complete immutatbility? You say immutability of substance, but that barely helps me. Is it an immutability of what something is made of? The way something exists? Somethings nature? The way something acts?

There are of course situation that I choose even if I don’t freely choose.

I deny “freely choosing” at this point in time.

Mind does its job as follow, it experience, decide and cause. It always needs an (name removed by moderator)ut to cause an output. Creating thoughts is a process in which mind get involved in getting (name removed by moderator)ut, judge them, and then create output.

Great, now does this process work like an (name removed by moderator)ut output math table where the (name removed by moderator)ut is acted upon constantly, or is it more like “there is (name removed by moderator)ut, the mind evaluates and decides, and the then output occurs”? If its the former, the mind is an automaton. If the latter, then we still have to address the change in the minds position.

 

[Gorgias]

This however doesn’t mean that mind is subject to change since these are basically mental states, what mind experience and cause.

Ahh, but your mind enters into a different mental state. That’s a change!

 

[STT]

What is the distinction between these two, if I may ask?

Freedom of will is as I mentioned ability to will different things, like thinking. You are basically free to do many things as far as it does not have a conflict with any rule. You for example cannot fly or cannot think when you are sleeping, etc. A decision however might be needed for each will and this decision could be non-free or free.

So what immutability are we discussing if not complete immutatbility? You say immutability of substance, but that barely helps me. Is it an immutability of what something is made of? The way something exists? Somethings nature? The way something acts?

It is immutability in what something is made of.

I deny “freely choosing” at this point in time.

Why? You know the consequences? You for example cannot be held responsible for your decision.

Great, now does this process work like an (name removed by moderator)ut output math table where the (name removed by moderator)ut is acted upon constantly, or is it more like “there is (name removed by moderator)ut, the mind evaluates and decides, and the then output occurs”? If its the former, the mind is an automaton. If the latter, then we still have to address the change in the minds position.

Mind is not a math table. So the former is a correct interpretation.

 

[STT]

Ahh, but your mind enters into a different mental state. That’s a change!

Mind doesn’t enter into different mental states. It however experience different mental states. Its substance is not subject to change.

 

[Gorgias]

Mind doesn’t enter into different mental states. It however experience different mental states. Its substance is not subject to change.

“Mind experiences different mental states” and “mind doesn’t enter into different mental states” is a distinction without a difference, I would assert. If you can provide substantiation of this claim – that this is not the case – I’d be interested in hearing your case.

“Its substance is not subject to change” does not prove your case, unfortunately. My substance is “substance of human being”. However, as a human being, I am subject to change. The fact that my substance doesn’t participate in that change does not impact the fact that I – as a person – am changed. So… try again, maybe? Maybe there’s another approach you might attempt, which would substantiate your assertion?

 

[STT]

“Mind experiences different mental states” and “mind doesn’t enter into different mental states” is a distinction without a difference , I would assert. If you can provide substantiation of this claim – that this is not the case – I’d be interested in hearing your case.

“Its substance is not subject to change” does not prove your case, unfortunately. My substance is “substance of human being”. However, as a human being, I am subject to change. The fact that my substance doesn’t participate in that change does not impact the fact that I – as a person – am changed. So… try again, maybe? Maybe there’s another approach you might attempt, which would substantiate your assertion?

Mental state is not something that mind or anything else can enter into it. The subject of experience is mental which is a property of matter. Mind obviously is different from mental.

 

[Gorgias]

Mental state is not something that mind or anything else can enter into it.

Wait… you’re asserting that the mind doesn’t enter into mental states?

If the mind isn’t ‘mental’, then what is it?

 

[STT]

Wait… you’re asserting that the mind doesn’t enter into mental states?

If the mind isn’t ‘mental’, then what is it?

Mental state as I stated is a property of matter. Like redness. Mind is an irreducible substance which experience mental state, redness for example.

 

[Gorgias]

Mental state as I stated is a property of matter.

Wait – you’re claiming mental state as a material object? So, you can quantify it? Measure it empirically? What color is it? How much does it weigh?

No… that doesn’t make sense.

Mind is an irreducible substance which experience mental state, redness for example.

Is ‘mind’ physical, then, such that it experiences physical states?

And, if not physical (since it’s “irreducible”, as you claim), then how does it experience physical states… and without affecting or being affected by them?

 

[STT]

Wait – you’re claiming mental state as a material object?

No, as I clearly stated mental state is a property of matter.

So, you can quantify it? Measure it empirically? What color is it? How much does it weigh?

These are properties of matter.

No… that doesn’t make sense.

It will.

Is ‘mind’ physical, then, such that it experiences physical states?

We have two substances, matter and minds.

And, if not physical (since it’s “irreducible”, as you claim), then how does it experience physical states… and without affecting or being affected by them?

It is a matter of necessity. It is its ability.

 

[Gorgias]

No, as I clearly stated mental state is a property of matter.

So… it’s material, then. That’s what I said. I’m not buying it.

So… how do you describe a “material mental state”, then?

 

[STT]

So… it’s material, then. That’s what I said. I’m not buying it.

So… how do you describe a “material mental state”, then?

Matter can undergo many changes in which these changes can be described by the change in matter’s properties. Matter at any given state has a set of parameters which I divide them to physical, like mass, and mental like color.

 

[Gorgias]

Matter can undergo many changes in which these changes can be described by the change in matter’s properties. Matter at any given state has a set of parameters which I divide them to physical, like mass, and mental like color.

Two thoughts:

• None of this describes how a seemingly non-physical property (mental state) might be described as a material state
• are you really saying that “matter … has a set of parameters which [are]… mental like color”? Seriously? Color is a ‘mental’ and not ‘physical’ property? Be careful before you answer…

 

[quaestio45]

Freedom of will is as I mentioned ability to will different things, like thinking. You are basically free to do many things as far as it does not have a conflict with any rule. You for example cannot fly or cannot think when you are sleeping, etc. A decision however might be needed for each will and this decision could be non-free or free.

I see the distinction you are making now.

It is immutability in what something is made of.

So it isn’t absolutely simple and therefore may be produced.

Why? You know the consequences? You for example cannot be held responsible for your decision.

I believe in free will, but not of the type you advocate. Besides, moral responsibility needs judgment, and that requires a principle to judge by, but that, you would say, is therefore an unfree decision. So the ethical is reduced, I believe, in your hypothesis as well.

Mind is not a math table. So the former is a correct interpretation.

Perfect! Thus, the mind changed in so far as its causing of things.

 

[STT]

Two thoughts:

• None of this describes how a seemingly non-physical property (mental state) might be described as a material state

I didn’t say so. I said material undergoes many different states depending on its properties.

• are you really saying that “matter … has a set of parameters which [are]

Property and not parameter. My mistake.

… mental like color”? Seriously? Color is a ‘mental’ and not ‘physical’ property? Be careful before you answer…

Color is a mental property. It is due to how the brain is structured and this is due to what the brain perceive from the sensory system.

 

[STT]

So it isn’t absolutely simple and therefore may be produced.

How a thing which is simple could be created?

I believe in free will, but not of the type you advocate. Besides, moral responsibility needs judgment, and that requires a principle to judge by, but that, you would say, is therefore an unfree decision. So the ethical is reduced, I believe, in your hypothesis as well.

Which kind of free will do you believe?

Perfect! Thus, the mind changed in so far as its causing of things.

Mind’s substance doesn’t change.

 

[Gorgias]

I said material undergoes many different states depending on its properties.

Ahh, but you also said that the mind has physical properties!

Property and not parameter. My mistake.

Fair enough, but it still doesn’t correct your assertion that the mind has physical properties!

Color is a mental property. It is due to how the brain is structured and this is due to what the brain perceive from the sensory system.

Yeah, I had a feeling that’s what you were attempting to say. No, that’s not accurate. Color is a physical property. On the other hand, perception of color is a mental activity. However, that doesn’t mean that ‘color’ exists as a property within the mind.