S
STT
Guest
Yes, I am saying that the decision of a person is unpredictable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, yes that’s true. We cannot fully predict what another person will do.Yes, I am saying that the decision of a person is unpredictable.
We can come pretty close at times. For example, I predict you will say something else on this thread, or another thread on CAF, at some time in the future.
So, if I’m right - yes, I did predict that.
But I still will not know what you are going to say.
Now, there are several methods that people are using to try to predict human behavior, but it’s usually done in groups. So, we watch people who shop at Walmart for example. And we notice that more products are sold on the middle shelf than on the bottom shelf. So, we predict, if we move one product from the bottom to the middle, it will sell more.
Things like that, would be a theory that you could use.
S
STT
Guest
Not fully. We cannot predict people’s decision at all.Ok, yes that’s true. We cannot fully predict what another person will do.
You are anticipating my thought, not decision.We can come pretty close at times. For example, I predict you will say something else on this thread, or another thread on CAF, at some time in the future.
Well, you cannot predict my decision. Suppose that I am in a situation which I have to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Could you predict which one do I pick up?So, if I’m right - yes, I did predict that.
But I still will not know what you are going to say.
R
reggieM
Guest
No, and I don’t think any human being - via science, mechanics, or anything else can predict it either. Even if we knew what your favorite flavor is or anything like that. We cannot observe how you make the decision - so we cannot predict it.Well, you cannot predict my decision. Suppose that I am in a situation which I have to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Could you predict which one do I pick up?
S
STT
Guest
Great. Then the rest of my argument follows.No, and I don’t think any human being - via science, mechanics, or anything else can predict it either. Even if we knew what your favorite flavor is or anything like that. We cannot observe how you make the decision - so we cannot predict it.
R
reggieM
Guest
A human being cannot predict how you made that decision.Great. Then the rest of my argument follows.
No, I don’t see anything you’ve said that follows from that.
I’ve tried to understand your OP but I couldn’t do it.
S
STT
Guest
So I try it another way: Mind is anomalous (anomalous means that it does not exist a theory which can predict your decision) since you have free will. Knowledge is required for the act of creation but it does not exist any theory which can describe mind therefore God cannot create mind.A human being cannot predict how you made that decision.
No, I don’t see anything you’ve said that follows from that.
I’ve tried to understand your OP but I couldn’t do it.
R
reggieM
Guest
What do you think the difference between God’s knowledge and human knowledge is?So I try it another way: Mind is anomalous (anomalous means that it does not exist a theory which can predict your decision) since you have free will. Knowledge is required for the act of creation but it does not exist any theory which can describe mind therefore God cannot create mind.
S
STT
Guest
Knowledge is knowledge. There is no difference between God’s knowledge and our knowledge. God however knows everything and we learn things.What do you think the difference between God’s knowledge and human knowledge is?
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, that is what I meant. God knows everything.God however knows everything and we learn things.
Now, could you explain what you meant about a theory of free will?
What do you mean by a “theory”? What is that, in your view?
S
STT
Guest
A theory is a system of ideas which explain how things are. The only way to understand a thing is to interact with it and find out its response. We then can establish a theory for the thing based on our observation. A theory therefore is able to provide the response given circumstances. A theory for free will is a system of ideas which can predict one’s decision given circumstances.Ok, that is what I meant. God knows everything.
Now, could you explain what you meant about a theory of free will?
What do you mean by a “theory”? What is that, in your view?
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok that seems good. Why is a theory needed for anything? Why do things need to be explained?A theory is a system of ideas which explain how things are.
To understand a thing is to know it, right?The only way to understand a thing is to interact with it and find out its response.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Your thread title gives this:Will is one of faculty of mind. Will is ability to decide irrespective of circumstances. This means that decision cannot be known before the act of decision. This means that one cannot find a theory which explain will since a theory by definition gives the outcome a situation given circumstances (this is what I mean with “mind is anomalous”). This include all theories and even exhaust God’s knowledge. Knowledge however is need for any act, in God case act of creation. Therefore mind cannot be created.
P: The mind is anomalous
P: Created things are non-anomalous
C: The mind is not created
As usual, this is a question of soundness. I don’t think either premise is indubitably true. As such, the conclusion cannot be indubitably true.
You need to proof your premises, STT.
R
reggieM
Guest
What would agree with:P: The mind is anomalous
P: Created things are non-anomalous
C: The mind is not created
P The mind is anomalous
P Natural things are non-anomalous.
C The mind is transcendent to natural things.
P Unique characteristics of mind are intelligence and free will
P Physically determined, blind, unguided, unintelligent processes cannot produce intelligence or free will
C The mind is not the product of blind, unguided, deterministic, unintelligent processes
P Physical processes are either determined or random
P Free will is, by definition, not determined or random
C Free will is not the product of physical processes
S
STT
Guest
Because we want to know things.Ok that seems good. Why is a theory needed for anything?
We are curious.Why do things need to be explained?
Yes.To understand a thing is to know it, right?
R
reggieM
Guest
God knows everything.Because we want to know things.
What is God curious about? What does He not know?We are curious.
S
STT
Guest
P1: We (entities with minds) have free will (one cannot predict our decision by definition).Your thread title gives this:
P*1: The mind is anomalous
P2: A theory (a theory is a system of ideas intended to explain the behavior of things) is needed to predict the behavior of beings.
P3: Some part of our behavior is the result of our decision
C1: This means that there exist not a theory which can explain our decision/behavior which are based on decision.
P4: An anomalous entity is a thing which cannot be explained by a theory.
C2: Therefore we are anomalous.
P1: Any act requires a specific knowledge.P*2: Created things are non-anomalous
P2: The act of creation (bringing something out of nothing) is possible.
C1: This means that the act of creation is possible given the knowledge.
P3: There exists a theory which can explain non-anomalous thing (the definition of non-anomalous).
C2: A non-anomalous thing can be created.
Here we can argue more given previous premises (P*1):
C3: Mind cannot be created since it is anomalous
P4: Things exist
P5: Things are created
C4: Therefore non-anomalous things are created
I think one should show that the mind cannot be created!C: The mind is not created
I hope things are clear.As usual, this is a question of soundness. I don’t think either premise is indubitably true. As such, the conclusion cannot be indubitably true.
You need to proof your premises, STT.
S
STT
Guest
P1: A theory which can explain mind does not exist.God knows everything.
P2: Mind exists.
C: Therefore God cannot know everything.
God by definition knows everything and is not curious. We however showed that God cannot know everything (previous comment). Therefore, God is not possible.What is God curious about? What does He not know?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I was going to attempt to address your very non-standard syllogistic sets, but saw this line at the bottom and thought it would be more pertinent.I think one should show that the mind cannot be created!
If you would like to declare “the mind cannot be created” as self-evident, then you shouldn’t have attempted to base it on a premise like “the mind is anomalous”. You simply declare self-evident things and leave them for people to freely accept or reject with no penalty to their rationale either way.
Not even a little. To your original argument (simplified for assistance):I hope things are clear.
P: The mind is anomalous (All M is A)
P: Created things are non-anomalous (All C are non-A)
C: The mind is not created (All M is non-C).
Premise #1 is under dispute this very moment. I know which way I lean on the matter. But to declare it as “true” would be unsound.
Premise #2 is flatly wrong. We old dogs remember our Nintendos in the 80s. They weren’t designed to flash the color screens when the cartridge/system had some sort of read error. But they sure did. Anomaly creeps into designed systems as a matter of expected course. Chaos theory dictates that the more sophisticated a system is, designed or no, the greater the chance of anomalous manifestation.
R
reggieM
Guest
P1 Theories are constructs required by contingent agents who lack knowledge about things.P1: A theory which can explain mind does not exist.
P2: Mind exists.
C: Therefore God cannot know everything.
P2 God is a non-contingent agent who created everything and therefore does not lack knowledge.
C God does not need or use theories
P1 Theories are used to explain things to someone
P2 God possesses all being and has no need to explain things to Himself
C God does not need or use theories
- Status
- Not open for further replies.