Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

A free agent is what I mean, which of course necessitates a mind; so yes.

Mind to me is the free agent.

I simply mean that the essence of the free agent isn’t in complete explanation of its existence because essence is constant whilst a free agent isn’t, along with the fact that if a free agent is created, then the explanation for their existence lies in something else. All this to say is that there are metaphysical compositions to which a limited or finite free agent must have, unless they are supremely simple, to which only a being of pure actuality can be (God, of course).

Essence to Aquinas refers to species, what makes a thing what it is animal or human for example. That refers to their body which is always different from existence, mind. Essence is structured whereas existence is simple.

So a mind does not hold a thought?

Yes. Mind is metaphysically simple since it can decide freely, free of thought which experiences for example. Thoughts are stored in the physical, brain for example. Mind can cause too.

It simply is a thought or experiences a thought?

Mind to me is the experiencer of thought.

But, I hope you understand that to experience something is to have some form of possesion.

I don’t think so. Mind is metaphysically simple as it is illustrated.

As such, if the free agent can posess multiple thoughts, and such thoughts can only be caused by a single entity, then thus the entity is either composed in substance or, alternatively, is simply composed in thought.

We couldn’t possibly freely decide if we were composted in thought. Remember your argument my friend: mind cannot be designed so its substance is not composed either.

Reality is very simple. It is constitute of minds and physical, physical being what mind experience and cause.

So the free agent holds nothing?

Yes. Just look at the moment that you freely decide. You don’t experience options at the moment of free decision. You just cut the chain of thought that you perceive at the moment of free decision and then freely decide and then cause.

It does not store anything or posess anything?

It couldn’t freely decide if it was not metaphysically simple.

In which way is the free agent not composed fundamentally? Every way? Or just the substance based way?

Mind is simple in its substance. It can however experience, decides freely and then causes. Remember your argument my friend. Something which doesn’t have design is metaphysically simple. I think it is also follow that something which is metaphysically simple doesn’t have design too.

 

[quaestio45]

Mind to me is the free agent.

Fair enough.

Essence to Aquinas refers to species, what makes a thing what it is animal or human for example. That refers to their body which is always different from existence, mind.

Not entirely true. Essence is simply the nature of a being, which is going to account for the entire being both body and mind. As such no, essence isn’t only applicable to the physical; further, the only thing that matters in what I’m trying to say is that if a being be contingent in its existence then its being cannot be the explanation for its existence, but instead something else. As such, there must be a sharp distinction between the nature of a being in the factors surrounding their existence, which means composition in the being between nature (essence) and their state (existence).

Essence is structured whereas existence is simple.

I’m sorry, what? Could you explain that?

Mind is metaphysically simple since it can decide freely, free of thought which experiences for example.

What is metaphysically is absolutely simple and thus cannot have freedom by necessity, as my first thread argues and concludes. Furthermore to say the mind isn’t a holder of thoughts but a posseser of thoughts would raise the question of how the mind can cause diverse thoughts? For such things would require a change in the causing agent, which would require holding a difference in substantial attributes. As such, the mind could not only hold things, but hold multitude things at once (as to be the cause of multiple thoughts at once). Thus, it would have the ability to be composed in substance, which cannot be.

We couldn’t possibly freely decide if we were composted in thought. Remember your argument my friend: mind cannot be designed so its substance is not composed either.

To be composed in thought does not necessitate being composed in other categories such as substance.

Reality is very simple. It is constitute of minds and physical, physical being what mind experience and cause.

That’s a big can of worms we have yet to get to, but I do assume it will be interesting if we do get there.

Just look at the moment that you freely decide. You don’t experience options at the moment of free decision. You just cut the chain of thought that you perceive at the moment of free decision and then freely decide and then cause

To deciede cannot be sharply disconnected from thoughts, though I admit, it can be disconnected somewhat from manifested thoughts that can be made aware of.

 

[quaestio45]

Something which doesn’t have design is metaphysically simple. I think it is also follow that something which is metaphysically simple doesn’t have design too.

Well we’d have to understand what the term designed means more in depth, but yes. That which isn’t designed must be absolutely simple, I think. But thats where I’d diverge and say only God, or actus purus, could possibly be as such.

 

[STT]

Not entirely true. Essence is simply the nature of a being, which is going to account for the entire being both body and mind.

I see.

As such no, essence isn’t only applicable to the physical; further, the only thing that matters in what I’m trying to say is that if a being be contingent in its existence then its being cannot be the explanation for its existence, but instead something else.

I agree if that something is contingent then it needs a explanation for its existence. But that is not applicable to the mind as we will see.

As such, there must be a sharp distinction between the nature of a being in the factors surrounding their existence, which means composition in the being between nature (essence) and their state (existence).

Yes, body is different from Mind.

I’m sorry, what? Could you explain that?

If we agree that existence refer to mind and essence to body and mind then it follows that existence is simple whereas essence is not since it contain body and body is structured.

What is metaphysically is absolutely simple and thus cannot have freedom by necessity, as my first thread argues and concludes.

Quite opposite. What is simple can be free. Simplicity is required for freedom. By the way, which thread you are referring to.

Furthermore to say the mind isn’t a holder of thoughts but a posseser of thoughts would raise the question of how the mind can cause diverse thoughts?

That is mind and brain together which cause thoughts. A person with damaged brain cannot function intellectually well yet it has a mind so s/he can experience and cause.

For such things would require a change in the causing agent, which would require holding a difference in substantial attributes. As such, the mind could not only hold things, but hold multitude things at once (as to be the cause of multiple thoughts at once). Thus, it would have the ability to be composed in substance, which cannot be.

Brain of course is subject to change but mind not.

To be composed in thought does not necessitate being composed in other categories such as substance.

I see what you mean but again that is brain which holds thoughts.

That’s a big can of worms we have yet to get to, but I do assume it will be interesting if we do get there.

Cool.

 

[STT]

Well we’d have to understand what the term designed means more in depth, but yes. That which isn’t designed must be absolutely simple, I think. But thats where I’d diverge and say only God, or actus purus, could possibly be as such.

Design is simply a plan to make something to function or look accordingly. Free agent doesn’t function when it freely decide. Therefore, free agent is simple.

 

[Gorgias]

If we agree that existence refer to mind and essence to body and mind then it follows that existence is simple whereas essence is not since it contain body and body is structured.

No, that is not the distinction being made here, so your conclusion doesn’t hold up.

When you say “mind”, to what are you referring precisely, again?

Free agent doesn’t function when it freely decide. Therefore, free agent is simple.

sigh…

 

[STT]

No, that is not the distinction being made here, so your conclusion doesn’t hold up.

When you say “mind”, to what are you referring precisely, again?

By mind I mean an irreducible substance that can experience, decide and cause.

sigh…

Sigh what? Do you know what is functioning? Do you know what is free decision?

 

[Gorgias]

By mind I mean an irreducible substance that can experience, decide and cause.

More specific, please. Is mind material or spiritual? What’s its connection (if any) to the ‘brain’, the ‘intellect’, and/or the ‘soul’?

Do you know what is functioning? Do you know what is free decision?

If I recall correctly, then to translate what you wrote, we’d say:

Free agent THE SOUL doesn’t function when it freely decide. Therefore, free agent THE SOUL is simple.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “a soul doesn’t function when it decides”, but given that A → B is true when B is true (regardless of the truth value of A), then sure… the soul is simple, so your assertion is presumed true.

 

[STT]

More specific, please. Is mind material or spiritual? What’s its connection (if any) to the ‘brain’, the ‘intellect’, and/or the ‘soul’?

Mind is not material, we can call it spiritual. Mind experience material and can affect them. So mind can experience the content of brain and affect it. Mind is not soul as Catholic believe. Intellect is the result of work between mind and brain when it comes to intellectual activity.

If I recall correctly, then to translate what you wrote, we’d say:

Free agent THE SOUL doesn’t function when it freely decide. Therefore, free agent THE SOUL is simple.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “a soul doesn’t function when it decides”, but given that A → B is true when B is true (regardless of the truth value of A), then sure… the soul is simple, so your assertion is presumed true.

By functioning I mean that it does operate according to certain given rules.

 

[quaestio45]

If we agree that existence refer to mind and essence to body and mind then it follows that existence is simple whereas essence is not since it contain body and body is structured.

…no… even if the mind was something uncaused, it still has a nature to it (thinking thing might be one way of describing it, like Descartes did). As such, it has an essence; perhaps an essence seperate from the body, but an essence nonetheless. Now if our being is both body and mind, then we are one essence which accounts for both substances. Also, simply because a mind may be a union between essence and existence (which it most certainly isn’t because that would require pure actuality) that doesn’t seem to therefore mean that existence is universally simple, for the body exists, I’d hope we can agree, and is not simple.

Quite opposite. What is simple can be free. Simplicity is required for freedom. By the way, which thread you are referring to.

https://forums.catholic-questions.o...phically-compatible-with-free-will/618329/128

God I identify as supreme simplicity, and I demonstrate that such is incompatible with freedom. You yourself actually agreed to this, I believe.

That is mind and brain together which cause thoughts. A person with damaged brain cannot function intellectually well yet it has a mind so s/he can experience and cause.

Brain of course is subject to change but mind not.

Okay, which causes thoughts, the brain or mind? Most would say the mind, with the brain being a mechanism used to achieve said thoughts. Do you agree? If not, then the mind cannot be seperated even theoretically from the body, as it becomes quite literally without any type of awareness, agency, or ability to act in anyway; I hardly see the difference between this an a corpse honestly.

Free agent doesn’t function when it freely decide. Therefore, free agent is simple.

So the mind has no functionality? Would that make it similar to a corpse then?

 

[Gorgias]

Mind is not material, we can call it spiritual. Mind experience material and can affect them. So mind can experience the content of brain and affect it. Mind is not soul as Catholic believe. Intellect is the result of work between mind and brain when it comes to intellectual activity.

OK… but, if you’re positing ‘mind’ as distinct from ‘brain’, ‘soul’, and ‘intellect’, you’re going to have to describe what it is. You should explain the interface between these other entities. Otherwise, you’re just waving your hands and asking us to “just trust me.”

By functioning I mean that it does operate according to certain given rules.

So, you’re asserting that when a soul decides (and I hesitate to assent to that description, but I will, if only for the sake of argument), it doesn’t “operate according to” any specific process?

 

[STT]

…no… even if the mind was something uncaused, it still has a nature to it (thinking thing might be one way of describing it, like Descartes did).

Mind does have abilities, such as experiencing, freely deciding and causing. I think that Descartes had never met a person who is mentally ill and cannot logically think because of a brain damage. The person is still alive so it has a mind.

As such, it has an essence; perhaps an essence seperate from the body, but an essence nonetheless.

I have my own argument in favor of mind. I can share it with you if you wish.

Now if our being is both body and mind, then we are one essence which accounts for both substances.

Yes, given the definition of essence.

Also, simply because a mind may be a union between essence and existence (which it most certainly isn’t because that would require pure actuality) that doesn’t seem to therefore mean that existence is universally simple, for the body exists, I’d hope we can agree, and is not simple.

Essence/person as I illustrated is not simple since by definition (as you said) is a sum of body and mind. It at least has two substances mind being simple and body which has structure.

Can God be philosophically compatible with free will? - #127

God I identify as supreme simplicity, and I demonstrate that such is incompatible with freedom. You yourself actually agreed to this, I believe.

I think I was arguing that pure actuality cannot decide. Simple to me is different from pure actual unless you can show otherwise.

Okay, which causes thoughts, the brain or mind?

This is off topic but I answer that. Thought is the result of brain and mind working together. Mind experiences, freely decides and causes. Brain is the place that we memorize thoughts for future retrieval. Mind also experiences what the brain produces.

 

[STT]

Most would say the mind, with the brain being a mechanism used to achieve said thoughts. Do you agree?

The mechanism of thinking is a separate topic but I explain that. Brain and mind coherently works on collective memory in order to bring new thought. New thought is observed by mind. Mind then decide whether to take action on the direction of thought or not. Then there is the moment of deliberation when the brain works on collective memory to brings some new thought based on collective memory.

If not, then the mind cannot be seperated even theoretically from the body, as it becomes quite literally without any type of awareness, agency, or ability to act in anyway; I hardly see the difference between this an a corpse honestly.

Of course mind cannot experience, decide and cause if there was no material. That is true since we experience material and act on them.

So the mind has no functionality?

Mind does something. Free decision though is not functional act.

Would that make it similar to a corpse then?

Well, matter is a substance but it is guided by mind.

 

[STT]

OK… but, if you’re positing ‘mind’ as distinct from ‘brain’, ‘soul’, and ‘intellect’, you’re going to have to describe what it is . You should explain the interface between these other entities. Otherwise, you’re just waving your hands and asking us to “just trust me.”

Mind basically experiences material sometimes internally sometimes externally. Internally such as thought. Externally such as an object. Mind also give direction to matter after decision is made. The brain and our sensory systems are playing the role of a medium between environment and minds. Brain also keeps our memory and it is a leg when it comes to producing thought.

So, you’re asserting that when a soul decides (and I hesitate to assent to that description, but I will, if only for the sake of argument), it doesn’t “operate according to” any specific process?

Mind does something, it makes decision and give direction to motion of matter.

 

[Gorgias]

The brain and our sensory systems are playing the role of a medium between environment and minds

OK – so, in a Thomistic context, you’re talking about “intellect”, which is a power of the soul (in humans).

Mind does something, it makes decision and give direction to motion of matter.

So, you’re going to have a problem with dualists on this one: they’re going to ask how a ‘mind’ controls material (i.e., the brain).

(In a Thomistic context, of course, the answer is an Aristotelian take on hylomorphism – body/soul as a composite, which defines the human person.)

 

[quaestio45]

Mind does have abilities, such as experiencing, freely deciding and causing.

And these things uniquely originate from the mind, yes? If so, is it safe to agree that it may cause two of such things simultaneously? Whilst each being unique from each other, like for example, to opposing thoughts being judged? If so, then we must say that there has to be a reason for the change between the cause (mind) or surrounding conditions in order for a different result to come about, yes? But, and heres where the crux of the argument is to me, we must either admit one of three things. Either:
A) The cause experienced a change, and thus this is the reason for the difference in result
B) Surrounding conditions experienced a change, and thus this is the reason for the difference in result
C) Both experienced change, and thus this is the reason for the difference in result.

Now, if we say the mind is unchanging (as a metaphysically simple, and therefore absolutely simple being must be) then therefore its “decisions” are really only the result of environment and not the actual substance. But that would contradict the definition of “free being”, therefore B is false. The other two would be verify that a free agent does experience changes, and thus it cannot be metaphysically simple, but only substantially simple. As such, the mind should be able to both change and be the cause of thoughts (though, that is not to say that it can do them alone; thats where I would say that the brain maybe a mechanism of the mind to manifest thoughts, or perhaps the human being is both body and mind in complete union where they are completely connected).

I think that Descartes had never met a person who is mentally ill and cannot logically think because of a brain damage.

He would say that the brain is the mechanism of the mind, if I read his work accurately. Without the help of the mechanism, the mind can practically do nothing.

The person is still alive so it has a mind.

Yes, I’d agree with this.

I have my own argument in favor of mind. I can share it with you if you wish.

Because I accept the existence of the mind, I will simply take it as a given, and not need argumentation for it.

Essence/person as I illustrated is not simple since by definition (as you said) is a sum of body and mind.

I would call it the nature of a given being, though I suppose that would be composite if the being is composite. Anyhow, I don’t think that takes away from my objections, which was that the mind as a substance also has a nature in conformity with the rest of the nature of a given being, therefore it cannot be separated from essence and be called simply existence.

 

[quaestio45]

I think I was arguing that pure actuality cannot decide. Simple to me is different from pure actual unless you can show otherwise.

Complete simplicity in substance, spirit, physics and metaphysics, mind and understanding would require that one is in complete harmonious union with their nature (as a composition of essence and existence would contradict metaphysical simplicity). But to because essence is constant, it would require the beings existence to be immutably constant as well. But true immutability can only come from a complete lack of the elements of change, that being potentiality. Therefore, a completely immutable being must be pure actuality. But God is pure actuality by definition; therefore, you are God.

This is off topic but I answer that. Thought is the result of brain and mind working together. Mind experiences, freely decides and causes. Brain is the place that we memorize thoughts for future retrieval. Mind also experiences what the brain produces.

Fair enough, but the fact of the matter is that the mind is the initiator of a thought, correct? As such, my argument above follows.

The mechanism of thinking is a separate topic but I explain that. Brain and mind coherently works on collective memory in order to bring new thought. New thought is observed by mind. Mind then decide whether to take action on the direction of thought or not. Then there is the moment of deliberation when the brain works on collective memory to brings some new thought based on collective memory.

Once more, I think its safe to say that the mind is the initiator of mental phenomena, and as such, my argument follows. Though, I must admit, I think I agree with your mind body synthesis to a good extent.

 

[STT]

OK – so, in a Thomistic context, you’re talking about “intellect”, which is a power of the soul (in humans).

Intellect is the result of mind and brain working together. Brain and mind coherently works on collective memory in order to bring new thought. New thought is observed by mind. Mind then decide whether to take action on the direction of thought or not. Then there is the moment of deliberation when the brain works on collective memory to brings some new thought based on collective memory.

So, you’re going to have a problem with dualists on this one: they’re going to ask how a ‘mind’ controls material (i.e., the brain).

(In a Thomistic context, of course, the answer is an Aristotelian take on hylomorphism – body/soul as a composite, which defines the human person.)

Of course mind can cause and affect the material. That is my mind which moves my hand after a conscious decision is made.

 

[quaestio45]

Of course mind can cause and affect the material. That is my mind which moves my hand after a conscious decision is made.

Well, yes. The mind is operating you in a sense, but the mystery is how the operation takes place, i.e how can and does the immaterial interact with the material. I think thats what Gorgias is asking.

 

[Gorgias]

Intellect is the result of mind and brain working together.

OK, but… this doesn’t help if you don’t identify what ‘mind’ is!!!

Of course mind can cause and affect the material.

Again, you must define the mind; otherwise, you’re positing that a disconnected, non-physical entity interacts with a physical entity!

Well, yes. The mind is operating you in a sense, but the mystery is how the operation takes place, i.e how can and does the immaterial interact with the material. I think thats what Gorgias is asking.

Right! As Catholics, we can point to the ‘soul’, and make the claim that it’s the soul that is that connection. So far, all @STT has done is say “mind! mind! mind!”, without providing the explanation of what it is, and how it gives rise to interaction!