Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

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

Where?

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

I didn’t say so. Perhaps I can correct my mistake if you guide me to the place that I said so.

Yeah, I had a feeling that’s what you were attempting to say. No, that’s not accurate. Color is a physical property.

You can call it 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.

I didn’t say so. I said mind experience mental properties.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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

Where?

as I clearly stated mental state is a property of matter.

Gorgias:

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

These are properties of matter.

So… you’re saying that the mind possesses properties of physical entities.

You can call it physical property.

At best, now, you’re claiming that a non-physical entity can have physical properties. See how that’s contradictory?

Gorgias:

However, that doesn’t mean that ‘color’ exists as a property within the mind.

I didn’t say so. I said mind experience mental properties.

No, that’s exactly what you said:

Color is a mental property.

See? Unless you’re going to try to explain how the mind experiences something that doesn’t exist in itself, that’s precisely what you’re claiming!

(I still assert that color is not a ‘mental property’, but a physical property of physical objects.)

 

[quaestio45]

How a thing which is simple could be created?

From actualization of potentiality.

Which kind of free will do you believe?

The, as you call it, freedom of will model I proposed, where the mind is a center if information which observes and judges and acts.

Mind’s substance doesn’t change.

Yes, but something about the mind changed. Its irrefutable

 

[STT]

So… you’re saying that the mind possesses properties of physical entities.

No. I said those things like color or weight are properties of matter. Mind is an separate substance.

See? Unless you’re going to try to explain how the mind experiences something that doesn’t exist in itself, that’s precisely what you’re claiming!

(I still assert that color is not a ‘mental property’, but a physical property of physical objects.)

Mind experience mental properties. Mental properties which I would like to separate from physical property is just a naming. Matter have physical and mental properties.

 

[STT]

From actualization of potentiality.

But there is no potentiality in you. The very fact that you are a free agent implements that there is no potentiality in you.

The, as you call it, freedom of will model I proposed, where the mind is a center if information which observes and judges and acts.

And what do you do with moral responsibility since there is no element of want in what you propose? A thief is held responsible for his action because he wants to steal. Of course, there is a chance of getting arrested before he wants to commit the crime. So what he should do? He doesn’t know what is the outcome. So he commits the crime after a free decision and succeeds in stealing. Happy him.

Yes, but something about the mind changed. Its irrefutable

What is that thing about mind which changes?

 

[Gorgias]

Matter have physical and mental properties.

So… matter has physical properties, which inhere in the object, but also mental properties, which exist externally to the object, in the observer?

You’re about to paint yourself into a corner, here, so be careful…

 

[quaestio45]

But there is no potentiality in you. The very fact that you are a free agent implements that there is no potentiality in you.

Once more I will ask, do we posess absolute being? If not, we have potentiality.

And what do you do with moral responsibility since there is no element of want in what you propose?

Yes there is. The temptation of flesh, ambition, wealth, and all such things are there. These things are what the mind judges and either commits to under its own questionable rationalism or false information, or admitition that it seeks a different good than an objective good. As such, want is there.

 

[quaestio45]

What is that thing about mind which changes?

I would say mental state, and affirm that mental states are indeed part of the mind.

 

[STT]

So… matter has physical properties, which inhere in the object, but also mental properties, which exist externally to the object, in the observer?

You’re about to paint yourself into a corner, here, so be careful…

Matter has a set of properties among which some are only magnified when there is brain activity. I call such a properties as mental. Mind in case of human has ability to experience mental, what is created by brain.

 

[STT]

Once more I will ask, do we posess absolute being? If not, we have potentiality.

What is the use of absolute in here? An entity is either simple or composed.

I would say mental state, and affirm that mental states are indeed part of the mind.

But mind doesn’t have any state. What it experiences is however subject to change.

 

[quaestio45]

What is the use of absolute in here? An entity is either simple or composed.

Yes, metaphysically simple, also called absolutely simple, or otherwise composed in some way. The mind you describe belongs in the latter as it is only simple in one dimension and not all dimensions of being. To be absolutely simple means to be absolute in being.

But mind doesn’t have any state. What it experiences is however subject to change.

Its come to the point where I must ask the question what is your substantiation of this claim? I understand that you will say “the mind is simple” but as I’ve layed out along with Gorgias, you cannot possibly be describing a purely metaphysically simple entity when you talk of mind, but rather a limited being which can indeed change and does have influences over it. These things are not a purely simple being. As such, you can do one of two things. Either prove our mind is metaphysically and completely simple (which is impossible), or concede that the mind isn’t metaphysically simple and therefore can have composition in manners outside of substance and thus can change.

 

[STT]

Yes, metaphysically simple, also called absolutely simple, or otherwise composed in some way. The mind you describe belongs in the latter as it is only simple in one dimension and not all dimensions of being . To be absolutely simple means to be absolute in being.

How that could be true? Mind is simple.

Its come to the point where I must ask the question what is your substantiation of this claim ? I understand that you will say “the mind is simple” but as I’ve layed out along with Gorgias, you cannot possibly be describing a purely metaphysically simple entity when you talk of mind, but rather a limited being which can indeed change and does have influences over it. These things are not a purely simple being. As such, you can do one of two things. Either prove our mind is metaphysically and completely simple (which is impossible), or concede that the mind isn’t metaphysically simple and therefore can have composition in manners outside of substance and thus can change.

I can make decisions for no specific reason. How that could possibly comes from some composition?

 

[Gorgias]

Matter has a set of properties among which some are only magnified when there is brain activity. I call such a properties as mental. Mind in case of human has ability to experience mental, what is created by brain.

Yep. You went there. OK… I tried to warn you:

• you claim that ‘color’ is a mental property
• mental properties inhere in the mind / brain of the observer, not in the object itself
• therefore, if there is no observer with a mind, then there is no mental property.

The practical upshot of your argument is that an object has no color unless there is an observer present to observe the object and instantiate the property of ‘color’.

Umm… nice try, but no.

 

[quaestio45]

How that could be true? Mind is simple.

Its not absolutely simple. It is a metaphysical and logical impossibility.

I can make decisions for no specific reason. How that could possibly comes from some composition?

A thing done without a reason is done out of randomness to a person. There is a reason for that though, which is usually indifference between options.

 

[STT]

A thing done without a reason is done out of randomness to a person. There is a reason for that though, which is usually indifference between options.

But the decision is not purely random. You want it. That is why it happens. The very fact that you want it and it happens means that you cause it. The very fact that there was no reason for my decision means that there was no cause on me yet I manage to cause. These two means that I am uncaused cause.

 

[quaestio45]

But the decision is not purely random. You want it. That is why it happens.

If you want it, there is thus a bias towards it. This comes from your being, not your mind. Thats what I would say, I think.

 

[STT]

If you want it, there is thus a bias towards it. This comes from your being, not your mind. Thats what I would say, I think.

The point is that I didn’t give up my decision to external bias. Of course there is a bias which is due to my mind and not my body. My body does many strange things but it does not make conscious decision instead of me.

 

[quaestio45]

The point is that I didn’t give up my decision to external bias. Of course there is a bias which is due to my mind and not my body. My body does many strange things but it does not make conscious decision instead of me.

Sure. The rationization to act according to bias X could have been different if the mind rationized or judged differently. It could have done that, but it judged and rationilized towards X instead. As such, we maintain freedom and avoid falling into the noncontingent trap I have laid out.

 

[STT]

Sure. The rationization to act according to bias X could have been different if the mind rationized or judged differently. It could have done that, but it judged and rationilized towards X instead. As such, we maintain freedom and avoid falling into the noncontingent trap I have laid out.

I am not talking about judging mind. I am talking about free mind.

 

[quaestio45]

I am not talking about judging mind. I am talking about free mind.

And I say to you that those two things are inseparably linked to one another. A free mind must be a judging mind (though that is not to say that a judging thing is a free thing, as that would mean an automaton is a free thing, to which it is not). A free mind is one that takes in information, attempts to organize said information between what contributes to final cause information, what contributes to final cause progress, and what pertains to the need of the being. The yearning comes naturally from our purpose, our needs, and influences around. We accept through the rational judgment (even if faulty judgment) which yearnings we enact on or develop. Thus, yearns are not at all separate from the mind.