Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

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.

I made a free decision. I could do otherwise.

 

[quaestio45]

I think we are in a circle.

yes

This thread is about free agents not being contingent.

Correct, thus they don’t exist. Or at minimum, only God is a free agent.

That follows from the fact that we are free in other words uncaused cause.

No we are not. Not in the way you describe. Its impossible.

 

[quaestio45]

I made a free decision. I could do otherwise.

Yes, but you didn’t do it on a whim. You did out of a rational process, or reason.

 

[STT]

yes

Cool.

Correct, thus they don’t exist. Or at minimum, only God is a free agent.

God cannot be free considering that He is eternal.

No we are not. Not in the way you describe. Its impossible.

I am.

 

[STT]

Yes, but you didn’t do it on a whim. You did out of a rational process, or reason

The very fact that I could do otherwise mean that I was not under influence of a rational process.

 

[quaestio45]

The very fact that I could do otherwise mean that I was not under influence of a rational process.

I don’t think you understand. You are not a being influenced by rational processes, you are the rational which creates processes to determine what to do. These processes manifest themselves as thoughts. Through these one goes a way or another. If you do not like one outcome over another, thats a bias usually based off some reason. Thus you rationalize an alternative solution or thought. As such, you aren’t a blank chooser.

God cannot be free considering that He is eternal

Ontologically prior to his effect, he is free to choose to act in any given perfect way. I demonstrate this on my argument against God thread.

I am

Once more, I say to you…

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

 

[Gorgias]

And what was the bias for that decision?

You wished to respond. You did not do it without thought or ratiocination. Therefore, by your definition, “bias”.

I made a free decision. I could do otherwise.

No – by your definition, a ‘free’ decision isn’t hindered by any cause. The cause of your response to me was your desire to clarify. Therefore, “caused”.

The very fact that I could do otherwise mean that I was not under influence of a rational process.

Of course it was a rational process!

Now, if you had written “asdf jodfhjrh jump blue turkeyesque”, then I might look at the lack of grammar, composition and meaning and say “maybe he just thumped his hands down on the keyboard without thinking.” But, since you wrote in a manner that followed the grammar and spelling rules of the English language, and wrote something that had semantic content, then you must have participated in the rational process of ‘communicating your thoughts via the written word’.

 

[STT]

I don’t think you understand. You are not a being influenced by rational processes, you are the rational which creates processes to determine what to do. These processes manifest themselves as thoughts. Through these one goes a way or another. If you do not like one outcome over another, thats a bias usually based off some reason. Thus you rationalize an alternative solution or thought. As such, you aren’t a blank chooser.

I can even go to state of the blank chooser.

Ontologically prior to his effect, he is free to choose to act in any given perfect way. I demonstrate this on my argument against God thread.

There is a before and after any decision. This requires time. Therefore, God is not free.

Once more, I say to you…

quaestio45:

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

Again, in here we just discuss that a free agent is non-contingent.

 

[quaestio45]

I can even go to state of the blank chooser.

But such a thing would be rationlized to as well. You wouldn’t be a blank chooser on a whim, but out of some reason, even if small, like proving a point to me, for example.

There is a before and after any decision. This requires time. Therefore, God is not free.

God has done x eternally, so there is no before or after. But ontologically prior to any effect (ehich is not contingent upon time) there is the possibility for choice. In the same manner as in a temporal framework? No, because there is no before or after. But nonetheless, there is something akin to decision here.

Again, in here we just discuss that a free agent is non-contingent.

Sure, we arrived to the conclusion that your hypothesis leads to noncontingency. But thats not all. Look all the way to the bottom, my friend, and you discover that it would as such require you to be all powerful, all knowing, infinite, and complete in being. But we aren’t these things of course. Not in mind or complete being. As such, we are not noncontingent or, as an extent, uncaused cause.

 

[STT]

You wished to respond. You did not do it without thought or ratiocination. Therefore, by your definition, “bias”.

My decision was not based on any particular wish.

No – by your definition, a ‘free’ decision isn’t hindered by any cause. The cause of your response to me was your desire to clarify. Therefore, “caused”.

Do you know what would happen for moral responsibility if we are always caused?

Of course it was a rational process!

I didn’t say so. I said I was not under influence of any rational process.

Now, if you had written “asdf jodfhjrh jump blue turkeyesque”, then I might look at the lack of grammar, composition and meaning and say “maybe he just thumped his hands down on the keyboard without thinking.” But, since you wrote in a manner that followed the grammar and spelling rules of the English language, and wrote something that had semantic content, then you must have participated in the rational process of ‘communicating your thoughts via the written word’ .

That was part of my decision, to write you that I won’t write you.

 

[STT]

But such a thing would be rationlized to as well. You wouldn’t be a blank chooser on a whim, but out of some reason, even if small, like proving a point to me, for example.

Sure, but you are not influenced by anything when you are a black chooser.

God has done x eternally, so there is no before or after. But ontologically prior to any effect (ehich is not contingent upon time) there is the possibility for choice. In the same manner as in a temporal framework? No, because there is no before or after. But nonetheless, there is something akin to decision here.

Process of making decision is temporal.

Sure, we arrived to the conclusion that your hypothesis leads to noncontingency. But thats not all. Look all the way to the bottom, my friend, and you discover that it would as such require you to be all powerful, all knowing, infinite, and complete in being. But we aren’t these things of course. Not in mind or complete being. As such, we are not noncontingent or, as an extent, uncaused cause.

First, we didn’t arrive at the conclusion. We were discussing that something which is free cannot be created. Only this. I provide many examples which show that I am free.

 

[quaestio45]

First, we didn’t arrive at the conclusion. We were discussing that something which is free cannot be created. Only this. I provide many examples which show that I am free.

That which is not created is eternal. What is eternal is that way either from being sustained eternally by an ontologically prior being or through its own essence. If its not the former, then the being is noncontingent. To be noncontingent is to be complete in being (as your nature explains your existence perfectly, meaning there is no room for external influences. That be so, it cannot have potentiality in any regard. But that requires complete actuality. Thus, the noncontingent being must be pure actuality). But the mind is most certainly not complete in being because we are lacking completness in knowledge, power, and comprehension. Thus, the mind is not noncontingent. There is no avoiding this conclusion unless you say that an externality makes you eternal, but that means you are not noncontingent, nor metaphysically simple, nor immutable, nor an uncaused cause. All the elements you need for your idea of free will.

Sure, but you are not influenced by anything when you are a black chooser.

Once you have rationized your way to choosing blankly, you choose rather randomly, not out of some sort of deep internal seperated yearn. There is no evidence to suggest that such a yearn exists. Only evidence to suggest that yearns have external origin from the rational.

Process of making decision is temporal.

What is making a decision other than willing one thing when one could will another? Such does not therefore require time, only a will and power.

 

[STT]

That which is not created is eternal. What is eternal is that way either from being sustained eternally by an ontologically prior being or through its own essence. If its not the former, then the being is noncontingent. To be noncontingent is to be complete in being (as your nature explains your existence perfectly, meaning there is no room for external influences. That be so, it cannot have potentiality in any regard. But that requires complete actuality. Thus, the noncontingent being must be pure actuality). But the mind is most certainly not complete in being because we are lacking completness in knowledge, power, and comprehension. Thus, the mind is not noncontingent. There is no avoiding this conclusion unless you say that an externality makes you eternal, but that means you are not noncontingent, nor metaphysically simple, nor immutable, nor an uncaused cause. All the elements you need for your idea of free will.

I don’t need to be complete and I am not complete when I make a free decision.

Once you have rationized your way to choosing blankly, you choose rather randomly, not out of some sort of deep internal seperated yearn. There is no evidence to suggest that such a yearn exists. Only evidence to suggest that yearns have external origin from the rational.

Again, the outcome of free decision seems random from the third point perspective. The person who commit the decision however want that outcome. That is why we are responsible for our free decision. Otherwise, you are only biased.

What is making a decision other than willing one thing when one could will another? Such does not therefore require time, only a will and power.

There is a before decision (God alone), then decision, then after decision (God and creation).

 

[quaestio45]

There is a before decision (God alone), then decision, then after decision (God and creation).

Not for the eternal, no.

Again, the outcome of free decision seems random from the third point perspective. The person who commit the decision however want that outcome. That is why we are responsible for our free decision. Otherwise, you are only biased

Sure, that might be an explanation for a blank mind, but not evidence for one, especially given that one can’t exist.

I don’t need to be complete and I am not complete when I make a free decision.

Correct, you are not complete in being. Thus, you cannot be free in the way you describe. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be both free in the way you describe and incomplete in being. If you contend with this, tell me where my line of reasoning where Uncaused cause = noncontingent = pure act = infinite and complete in being =/= the human mind. Therefore human mind =/= uncaused cause.

 

[STT]

Not for the eternal, no.

Then how does God decide?

Sure, that might be an explanation for a blank mind, but not evidence for one, especially given that one can’t exist.

Consider the example of the thief.

Correct, you are not complete in being. Thus, you cannot be free in the way you describe.

Of course, I am free.

 

[Gorgias]

My decision was not based on any particular wish.

So… you didn’t wish to correct my statement? If you say so…

Do you know what would happen for moral responsibility if we are always caused?

You’re using “caused” in a way that’s non-standard. I think you’re trying to ask “what would happen for moral responsibility if actions were always deterministic?”

So, by “uncaused”, I think you’re attempting to say “non-deterministic”?

I said I was not under influence of any rational process.

You yourself had initiated a rational process in your mind.

That was part of my decision, to write you that I won’t write you.

Ahh! So… you did go through a process of deciding!

(See… I told ya so! )

Then how does God decide?

Strictly speaking… He doesn’t. He is pure act.

 

[STT]

So… you didn’t wish to correct my statement? If you say so…

When?

You’re using “caused” in a way that’s non-standard. I think you’re trying to ask “what would happen for moral responsibility if actions were always deterministic?”

Yes. That is when your decision is aligned with your feeling or thought. Your decision was determined by a fact.

So, by “uncaused”, I think you’re attempting to say “non-deterministic”?

Yes, if by non-deterministic you mean not determined.

You yourself had initiated a rational process in your mind.

Yes, we all something rationalize before or after a decision.

Strictly speaking… He doesn’t . He is pure act.

Actually, @quaestio45 believes that God is free while being pure act.

 

[Gorgias]

When?

With just about every post you write.

 

[quaestio45]

Then how does God decide?

He deciedes eternally to commit to one of various decisions. There is no before or after. Simply the act of choice. This is something which does not happen in time but ontologically or metaphysically.

Consider the example of the thief.

Can you recite the example please?

Of course, I am free.

Okay, so whats the solution to the paradox I showed you? Where:

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

 

[STT]

Can you recite the example please?

The example in which a thief is not sure if he gets arrested or not. The situation is not certain. He has to decide and he is held responsible for his action if he gets arrested.

Okay, so whats the solution to the paradox I showed you? Where:

quaestio45:

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

Something which is free is uncaused cause given definition of free will and uncaused cause. One has to go a long way, basically the argument in OP in order to show that something which is free is non-contingent. To me, it is not clear that how a free agent which is non-contingent has to be pure act. I am still wondering what do you mean with infinite.