Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

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.

Cannot you still pick up vanilla ice cream?

 

[quaestio45]

Cannot you still pick up vanilla ice cream?

Yes, you can.

 

[STT]

Yes, you can.

Therefore you have free will.

 

[quaestio45]

Therefore you have free will.

Sure, but not as you propse it. You imply that my construction of freedom does not allow for alternative choice, but it does. It would just require a difference in the rationalization to get there.

 

[STT]

Sure, but not as you propse it. You imply that my construction of freedom does not allow for alternative choice, but it does.

You are defining freedom of will, to choose and act based on rational, needs, etc. The decision in this case is either biased by rationality, needs, or any other cause therefore is non-free.

It would just require a difference in the rationalization to get there.

I have thought about these thing ling time ago.

 

[Gorgias]

The decision in this case is either biased by rationality, needs, or any other cause therefore is non-free.

No. The definition of a free choice isn’t one that isn’t conditioned by any influences, but rather, one that – among many choices, with a variety of influences – is chosen freely and rationally.

A choice without any (name removed by moderator)uts isn’t the definition of a free choice; it’s the definition of a random choice.

 

[quaestio45]

The decision in this case is either biased by rationality, needs, or any other cause therefore is non-free.

It seems very much like freedom to me. You have all the elements for agency. You are a hub of information. You evaluate the information and explore which options bring about greatest satisfaction (note, I did not say pleasure, I said satisfaction, which goes into final causes), and then you act.

I have thought about these thing ling time ago

As have I. The truth of the matter is that your hypothesis cannot be true as it leads to metaphysical contridictions. Mine may be flawed, yes. And perhaps it is less a representation of the truth then another theory. But does it contridict our common sense idea of freedom? I don’t believe it does not.

 

[STT]

No. The definition of a free choice isn’t one that isn’t conditioned by any influences, but rather, one that – among many choices, with a variety of influences – is chosen freely and rationally.

A choice without any (name removed by moderator)uts isn’t the definition of a free choice; it’s the definition of a random choice.

I didn’t say without (name removed by moderator)ut but without bias.

 

[STT]

It seems very much like freedom to me. You have all the elements for agency. You are a hub of information. You evaluate the information and explore which options bring about greatest satisfaction (note, I did not say pleasure, I said satisfaction, which goes into final causes), and then you act.

That we already discussed. You are talking about freedom in will but I am talking about free will.

As have I. The truth of the matter is that your hypothesis cannot be true as it leads to metaphysical contridictions. Mine may be flawed, yes. And perhaps it is less a representation of the truth then another theory. But does it contridict our common sense idea of freedom? I don’t believe it does not.

There is no metaphysical contradiction in what I proposed. You can pick up vanilla ice cream. The same applies to the thief who is no sure of what happens when he is stealing. Etc.

 

[Gorgias]

I didn’t say without (name removed by moderator)ut but without bias.

You’re trying to have it both ways again. On one hand, you admit that the mind has biases; on the other, you claim that the mind is a free agent because it decides without bias.

You try to claim that mind makes decisions without (name removed by moderator)uts, but then you claim that it makes them with (name removed by moderator)uts.

You’ve been reminded that a choice without (name removed by moderator)uts is a random choice, but you want to claim that the choices a mind makes aren’t random.

Which is @STT? You can’t have it both ways.

Just to remind you where you said these things:

STT:

I can make decisions for no specific reason.

A thing done without a reason is done out of randomness

Of course there is a bias which is due to my mind and not my body.

 

[STT]

You’re trying to have it both ways again. On one hand, you admit that the mind has biases; on the other, you claim that the mind is a free agent because it decides without bias.

You try to claim that mind makes decisions without (name removed by moderator)uts, but then you claim that it makes them with (name removed by moderator)uts.

You’ve been reminded that a choice without (name removed by moderator)uts is a random choice, but you want to claim that the choices a mind makes aren’t random.

Which is @STT? You can’t have it both ways.

Just to remind you where you said these things:

I am free of biases. I can also decide without a reason. I can decide when the outcome of situation is not clear. Etc. I am free.

 

[Gorgias]

I am free of biases.

No, you’re not. You rationalize. That – by your own definition – is a “bias”.

I can also decide without a reason.

No, you cannot. You might decide in the absence of conscious rationalization, but that doesn’t imply “lack of a reason.”

I can decide when the outcome of situation is not clear.

That’s immaterial. In that case, you’re basing your decision on some sort of heuristic. “Clarity of outcome” is not the same as “lack of reason in choosing”.

 

[STT]

No, you’re not. You rationalize. That – by your own definition – is a “bias”.

I am free. I don’t know about you.

No, you cannot. You might decide in the absence of conscious rationalization, but that doesn’t imply “lack of a reason.”

Of course, I can.

That’s immaterial. In that case, you’re basing your decision on some sort of heuristic. “Clarity of outcome” is not the same as “lack of reason in choosing”.

It is very important.

 

[Gorgias]

I am free. I don’t know about you.

If by that you mean that you don’t rationalize, don’t take into account considerations when you decide, and make decisions without (name removed by moderator)uts… well, I’ll take your word on it, but I disagree.

Of course, I can.

If you say so. Sadly, you’re mistaken, and I can demonstrate it to you conclusively:

• you decided to make this post to which I’m responding
• your post was in response to my post
• therefore, you didn’t post “without reason” or without (name removed by moderator)ut; by your own standards, then, there was bias in your decision
• therefore, you decided “from a position of bias”
• therefore, by your standards, you are not “free”

Clearly, your assertions are faulty. QED.

Gorgias:

In that case, you’re basing your decision on some sort of heuristic. “Clarity of outcome” is not the same as “lack of reason in choosing”.

It is very important.

It’s not necessary, however. It is not the chain of events you claim it is.

 

[STT]

If by that you mean that you don’t rationalize, don’t take into account considerations when you decide, and make decisions without (name removed by moderator)uts… well, I’ll take your word on it, but I disagree.

I do rationalize. But my freedom is on top of rationalization.

If you say so. Sadly, you’re mistaken, and I can demonstrate it to you conclusively:

• you decided to make this post to which I’m responding
• your post was in response to my post
• therefore, you didn’t post “without reason” or without (name removed by moderator)ut; by your own standards, then, there was bias in your decision
• therefore, you decided “from a position of bias”
• therefore, by your standards, you are not “free”

Clearly, your assertions are faulty. QED.

You are challenging my freedom. So I don’t answer you anymore in spite of wanting to answer you. QED.

It’s not necessary, however. It is not the chain of events you claim it is.

It is very necessary. Think of a thief who knows that is risky to steal yet he steals. By risky I mean it is not certain whether he ger arrested or not.

 

[Gorgias]

I do rationalize. But my freedom is on top of rationalization.

By your own definition, if you rationalize, then there’s a bias in your decision. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

You are challenging my freedom. So I don’t answer you anymore in spite of wanting to answer you. QED.

You just proved my point, friend. You based your decision on something you call a ‘bias’.

(Oh, and … BTW? You did just answer me. )

 

[quaestio45]

That we already discussed. You are talking about freedom in will but I am talking about free will.

Let me repeat myself, for I did not say “free will” because you immediately assume I reference your theory of mind. I instead said…

It seems very much like freedom to me. You have all the elements for agency

You are free with my model, it seems. But not in the way you say.

There is no metaphysical contradiction in what I proposed.

Uncaused cause = noncontingent = pure act = infinite and complete in being =/= the human mind. Therefore human mind =/= uncaused cause.

 

[STT]

By your own definition, if you rationalize , then there’s a bias in your decision. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

Yes, that is why I think there are two sorts of decision, free and non-free.

You just proved my point, friend. You based your decision on something you call a ‘bias’.

(Oh, and … BTW? You did just answer me. )

And what was the bias for that decision?

 

[STT]

I think we are in a circle. This thread is about free agents not being contingent. That follows from the fact that we are free in other words uncaused cause. That is true by definition of my free will. I gave examples of this definition too.

 

[quaestio45]

And what was the bias for that decision?

You answered his response, which was presumably driven by a belief in knowledge of the truth, which you presumably communicate because of the inherent value in truth, which itself is a reflection of a final cause which is perfect knowledge of truth. Thus, you are driven by something. Thus, you are not uncaused.