Free will

[Bahman]

An agent (human, animal, anything with a state of mind) reaches to situation at a given time and its mind go to state of A. This state of mind is partially defined by a part that the agent has consciousness on it and another part which is undefined namely subconsciousness. The problem is to choose one scenario between two scenarios, lets say X and Y, each with the known outcome to simply to problem. From starting of the the process the sate of mind chances from A to B and decision is made. If consciousness is dominant part in making the decision which means the decision is made based on the knowledge or preference toward outcome X or Y then we say we made an conscious decision otherwise we say we maid an unconscious decision, or in another word say “I” made that decision. The so called free is when we make an unconscious decision since if it was conscious then the outcome could be priory known. Happy to hear from you and continue the discussion from here.

 

[empther]

Happy to hear from you and continue the discussion from here.

I go to Dunkin Donuts. I might choose plain donuts or glazed.
Today I choose glazed.
I have free will.
The discussion is over.

 

[Bahman]

I go to Dunkin Donuts. I might choose plain donuts or glazed.
Today I choose glazed.
I have free will.
The discussion is over.

The main question is that your decision was based on your consciousness or subconsciousness. If all your decisions are based on your consciousness then you are an agent who just digitize the knowledge. In other world, state of your mind could be known , then the outcome could be predicted which means that you have no free will.

 

[empther]

If all your decisions are based on your consciousness then you are an agent who just digitize the knowledge. In other world, state of your mind could be known , then the outcome could be predicted which means that you have no free will.

This raises the bar on the old question:
“What’s the most ridiculous thing you ever heard?”

 

[tonyrey]

The main question is that your decision was based on your consciousness or subconsciousness. If all your decisions are based on your consciousness then you are an agent who just digitize the knowledge. In other world, state of your mind could be known , then the outcome could be predicted which means that you have no free will.

If you have no free will your conclusions are worthless because they are the result of processes which are entirely beyond your control - and for which you are not responsible!

 

[Bahman]

This raises the bar on the old question:
“What’s the most ridiculous thing you ever heard?”

Every truth passes through three states before it is recognized:

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is opposed.

Third, it is regarded as self evidence.

 

[dshix]

Hi OP,

I’m having a little difficulty understanding what you are trying to say, because your sentences are quite ambiguous and difficult to understand. Would you permit me to rephrase your argument, and you tell me if I’m correct?

Empther, your sarcastic comment is “correct,” in the sense that it does make a proof for free will, but it entirely unhelpful in helping this poster understand the Catholic position on free will. You basically just showed that you think you are in a higher state of intelligence than him because he is a dunce. Not helpful in the least.

An agent (human, animal, anything with a state of mind) reaches to situation at a given time and its mind go to state of A. This state of mind is partially defined by a part that the agent has consciousness on it and another part which is undefined namely subconsciousness. The problem is to choose one scenario between two scenarios, lets say X and Y, each with the known outcome to simply to problem. From starting of the the process the sate of mind chances from A to B and decision is made. If consciousness is dominant part in making the decision which means the decision is made based on the knowledge or preference toward outcome X or Y then we say we made an conscious decision otherwise we say we maid an unconscious decision, or in another word say “I” made that decision. The so called free is when we make an unconscious decision since if it was conscious then the outcome could be priory known. Happy to hear from you and continue the discussion from here.

Ok. So, the agent’s mind is in a state of mind which you call “A.” You say that this state of mind has two parts; consciousness and subconsciousness. Then you bring in two situations and call them situation X and situation Y. Then you say that each of these scenarios has “each with the known outcome to simply to problem.” I am at a loss to understand what you mean by this; could you explain?

Then you say that the state of mind changes from A to B. What is B? Does B have both consciousness and subconsciousness? What is the purpose of outlining the difference between the two?

Then you say that if the decision made was because of knowledge or preference toward X or Y, then it was a conscious decision, but it it was made without knowledge or preference it was subconscious. I agree, that’s obvious. Then you say: “The so called free is when we make an unconscious decision since if it was conscious then the outcome could be priory known.”

This sentence is a non-sequitur and I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion. Free will is based on conscious, not subconscious decisions.

I look forward to reading your answer. Please try to phrase your sentences more clearly so that it is easier to follow your argument.

 

[Bahman]

If you have no free will your conclusions are worthless because they are the result of processes which are entirely beyond your control - and for which you are not responsible!

You are responsible for what you are conscious about. I mean those decision that that you are aware of outcome. This is a new line of discussion that I would be happy to discuss about it but it is beyond the current state our discussion.

 

[po18guy]

Atheists who post on religious forums have done so for one of three reasons:

1. They have exercised free will.
2. They have been remote-controlled by something greater than themselves.
3. It’s the law. (Polar attraction/repulsion may or may not be a factor).

 

[dshix]

CAFers, note:

The OP was responding briskly to each person until I posted, and was online for a good 45 minutes after I posted. The account was active, because I saw its status change several times during this period.

Seems he does not wish to found his argument upon reason and have a discussion, but only to state an opinion and back it up with false evidence. Troll alert!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Sorry OP, but you’re just blowing smoke. You use ambiguous language and, frankly, poor sentence structure (sorry for the straw man, but it had to be said), making intelligent discussion impossible.

State your argument, state it clearly, and then perhaps we can start a true dialogue.

Also, please, for the love of the Almighty, use proper punctuation.

 

[dshix]

OP, why have you been “Viewing” this thread for 45 minutes and not said anything?

Troll alert…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

OP, why have you been “Viewing” this thread for 45 minutes and not said anything?

Troll alert…

Well, obviously, but we should still give him a chance to prove us wrong on that presumption.

 

[polytropos]

The main question is that your decision was based on your consciousness or subconsciousness. If all your decisions are based on your consciousness then you are an agent who just digitize the knowledge. In other world, state of your mind could be known , then the outcome could be predicted which means that you have no free will.

When you can monitor the state of my brain precisely enough to ascribe any one of my choices to to deterministic material phenomena, come talk to me. Then I will stop believing in free will.

You are operating under the assumption that the “state of your mind could be known.” You are assuming as a premise that the mind is wholly material. This is a model of your own contrivance that psychology cannot empirically substantiate. (Common experience would actually contradict your model. I just snapped my fingers - I think freely.) I agree, if this model is correct, then we have no free will. But this model is not correct.

 

[tonyrey]

You are responsible for what you are conscious about. I mean those decision that that you are aware of outcome.

Consciousness of the outcome by itself is not sufficient to make you responsible. Without free will you are merely an impotent spectator of events!

 

[Lancer]

Your ideas and hypothesis are interesting for discussion…but here is the bottom line of 2000+ years of knowledge of God and the human person…from the Catechism…it answers your questions/points with authority and infallibility promised by Our Lord Jesus to his Church.

For your consideration…formulated by some pretty impressive minds and intellects: Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas…based on God’s revelations and scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. If in Las Vegas…my money is on the sure bet…risks are too high for speculation and theories.

Pax Christi

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 3
MAN’S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27
I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

 

[Bahman]

Hi OP,

I’m having a little difficulty understanding what you are trying to say, because your sentences are quite ambiguous and difficult to understand. Would you permit me to rephrase your argument, and you tell me if I’m correct?

Empther, your sarcastic comment is “correct,” in the sense that it does make a proof for free will, but it entirely unhelpful in helping this poster understand the Catholic position on free will. You basically just showed that you think you are in a higher state of intelligence than him because he is a dunce. Not helpful in the least.

Ok. So, the agent’s mind is in a state of mind which you call “A.” You say that this state of mind has two parts; consciousness and subconsciousness. Then you bring in two situations and call them situation X and situation Y. Then you say that each of these scenarios has “each with the known outcome to simply to problem.” I am at a loss to understand what you mean by this; could you explain?

Then you say that the state of mind changes from A to B. What is B? Does B have both consciousness and subconsciousness? What is the purpose of outlining the difference between the two?

Then you say that if the decision made was because of knowledge or preference toward X or Y, then it was a conscious decision, but it it was made without knowledge or preference it was subconscious. I agree, that’s obvious. Then you say: “The so called free is when we make an unconscious decision since if it was conscious then the outcome could be priory known.”

This sentence is a non-sequitur and I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion. Free will is based on conscious, not subconscious decisions.

I look forward to reading your answer. Please try to phrase your sentences more clearly so that it is easier to follow your argument.

We need to open a long line of discussion so I can explain what I mean with free will and the role played with mind/soul in it. This might open a better understanding of place of soul/spirit and its interplay with our mind. This problem also is related to the dilemma of God’s omniscience and our freewill.

Lets discuss the problem from another point of view by raising this question that could state of our mind be exactly known at all? I mean, are we simple agents that with minds filled with the knowledge on different form of beings which are outcome of our experiences with sole material world. And also dose our minds solely digitize the state of knowledge to come with a solution when we are facing with a problem. The answer is yes in the materialistic point of view and we are soulless agents without free will capacity since our decisions are simply based on outcome of the process of our mind on what is known. In this point of view, the awareness is sole state of mind on what we know through our experience with material world, we have no free will and only experience things unconditionally.

What I am trying to say is that the state of our mind can not be completely defined since a big part of it belongs to our subconsciousness which is the source of the free will, spirit/soul and our decision on a general situation is outcome of our understanding from the situation, consciousness, and its interplay with subconsciousness which can not be completely determined at all. It cannot be determined since the free will is lost once the state of mind is completely determined. In another word the state subconsciousness/spirit/soul cannot be determined at all with any experiment.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The main question is that your decision was based on your consciousness or subconsciousness. If all your decisions are based on your consciousness then you are an agent who just digitize the knowledge. In other world, state of your mind could be known , then the outcome could be predicted which means that you have no free will.

Congratulations! You have given us an excellent example of a reduction ad absurdum.

 

[polytropos]

Lets discuss the problem from another point of view by raising this question that could state of our mind be exactly known at all? I mean, are we simple agents that with minds filled with the knowledge on different form of beings which are outcome of our experiences with sole material world. And also dose our minds solely digitize the state of knowledge to come with a solution when we are facing with a problem. The answer is yes in the materialistic point of view and we are soulless agents without free will capacity since our decisions are simply based on outcome of the process of our mind on what is known. In this point of view, the awareness is sole state of mind on what we know through our experience with material world, we have no free will and only experience things unconditionally.

Your argument is tautological. You concede that our minds respond materialistically in the materialistic point of view. Yes, in a worldview that presupposes that our minds are only material (ie. we have no soul or intellect), we do not have souls. Your conclusion is your premise. You cannot prove that our minds and the world are only material.

What I am trying to say is that the state of our mind can not be completely defined since a big part of it belongs to our subconsciousness which is the source of the free will, spirit/soul and our decision on a general situation is outcome of our understanding from the situation, consciousness, and its interplay with subconsciousness which can not be completely determined at all. It cannot be determined since the free will is lost once the state of mind is completely determined. In another word the state subconsciousness/spirit/soul cannot be determined at all with any experiment.

Generally, the subconscious is taken to be the part of the mind that is not free. When we make conscious decisions, they are volitional, we choose to do them, ie. they are free.

Have you studied psychology? Are you aware of how far we are from “completely determining” the state of the mind? If so, why should you assume that it is possible? We can map out brain activity of both the consciousness and subconsciousness. The problem is not seeing how they interact but in apprehending the full detail that would be necessary to substantiate a purely material model of the mind. We do not know with much specificity, for instance, how memories are stored or retrieved; we just know where they are stored (kind of) and what some of the “effects” are.

 

[empther]

From post 6 by Bahman:

Originally Posted by empther
This raises the bar on the old question:
“What’s the most ridiculous thing you ever heard?”

Every truth passes through three states before it is recognized:

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is opposed.

Third, it is regarded as self evidence.

Every atheist’s absurdity goes through six states before it’s recognized for what it is:

First, some ridiculous idea is dreamed up.

Second, it’s posted so that people will run around forever trying to discuss it seriously.

Third, people run around trying to discuss it seriously.

Fourth, the originator laughs himself silly watching people run around trying to discuss it seriously. :extrahappy:

Fifth, after 100 useless posts by people trying to discuss it seriously, the thread dies from exhaustion.

Sixth, the ridiculous idea with a few words changed is resurrected later to start a new thread.