Mind is anomalous therefore it cannot be created

[Vico]

I meant in the new version of my argument which is posted #49.

From #49

ARGUMENT:

P1: Will is faculty of mind.
P2: There exist not any theory which can predict will.
C1: Mind is anomalous (from D1, P1 and P2).
P3: Knowledge is structured by theories.
C2: The knowledge for explaining mind does not exist (from C1 and P3).
P4: Knowledge is required for any act.
C3: Therefore God cannot create mind (from C2 and P4).

A human being consists of a soul and a body per St. Thomas Aquinas. The human soul has rational, sensitive, and vegetative functions. See Aristotle and Aquinas, and some of the Arabic philosophers, for example. Since the human rational soul is immaterial and the body is not, the rational soul is informed through phantasms (imaginations).

 

[STT]

From #49

ARGUMENT:

P1: Will is faculty of mind.
P2: There exist not any theory which can predict will.
C1: Mind is anomalous (from D1, P1 and P2).
P3: Knowledge is structured by theories.
C2: The knowledge for explaining mind does not exist (from C1 and P3).
P4: Knowledge is required for any act.
C3: Therefore God cannot create mind (from C2 and P4).

A human being consists of a soul and a body per St. Thomas Aquinas. The human soul has rational, sensitive, and vegetative functions. See Aristotle and Aquinas, and some of the Arabic philosophers, for example. Since the human rational soul is immaterial and the body is not, the rational soul is informed through phantasms (imaginations).

I don’t understand how what you said is related to the argument.

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand how what you said is related to the argument.

You do not understand that the word mind in your argument is soul?

 

[STT]

You do not understand that the word mind in your argument is soul?

Yes, I agree with that. Thanks for the complement.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I agree with that. Thanks for the complement.

So there is a conflict to say that “therefore God cannot create mind” if mind is soul, since it is given that God creates the soul of all humans.

 

[STT]

So there is a conflict to say that “therefore God cannot create mind” if mind is soul, since it is given that God creates the soul of all humans.

For that one needs to show that a part of my argument is wrong.

 

[Vico]

For that one needs to show that a part of my argument is wrong.

God is not constrained by time, so knows all that will happen, in time, through the free will choices that will occur in time. This is not a theory of prediction but divine omniscience.

 

[STT]

God is not constrained by time, so knows all that will happen, in time, through the free will choices that will occur in time. This is not a theory of prediction but divine omniscience.

Knowledge is structured in terms of theories. Isn’t it? Moreover God sees our decisions.

 

[davidv]

Knowledge is structured in terms of theories. Isn’t it? Moreover God sees our decisions.

Reality is what it is and exists independent of theories.

Theories are an effect of the human intellect attempting to explain the reality in which we exist.

 

[STT]

Reality is what it is and exists independent of theories.

Theories are an effect of the human intellect attempting to explain the reality in which we exist.

That I agree. An entity either has free will or not. Free will sits in the core of the argument. The only way that one can check that an entity has free will is to test all possible theories against it. If the all possible theories (a finite set) which can describe free will doesn’t exist then we have free will. The problem is that all possible theories constitute what we call knowledge and the act of creation is not possible without knowledge.

 

[Vico]

Knowledge is structured in terms of theories. Isn’t it? Moreover God sees our decisions.

The creator knows all theories.

 

[STT]

The creator knows all theories.

Yes, that is true. But there is no theory which can explain free will. Therefore mind cannot be created. The only way to solve the problem of free will and existence of mind in my opinion is that if the number of all theories is infinite and things are created based on all theories. There is no determinacy when number of theories is infinite since infinity+infinity=infinity. That is how I see the situation.

 

[Vico]

Yes, that is true. But there is no theory which can explain free will. Therefore mind cannot be created. The only way to solve the problem of free will and existence of mind in my opinion is that if the number of all theories is infinite and things are created based on all theories. There is no determinacy when number of theories is infinite since infinity+infinity=infinity. That is how I see the situation.

Of course there is, it is the one that the Creator knows.

 

[John_Martin]

First:
Every person I have met so far has free will
There across the room is a person I have not yet met.
Theory: - that person I have not yet met will have free will.

And it works, the theory works, every new person I meet has free will.
Thus, my knowledge is: all people have free will.

Second:
Every person I have met so far has “mind”.
There across the room is a person I have not yet met.
Theory: - that person I have not yet met will have “mind”.

And it works, the theory works, every new person I meet has “mind”.
Thus, my knowledge is: all people have “mind”.

Third:
Every person I have met so far is a created being.
There across the room is a person I have not yet met.
Theory: - that person I have not yet met will be a created being.

And it works, the theory works, every new person I meet is a created being
Thus, my knowledge is: all people are created, have free will and have “mind”.

The person, with free will and with mind, was created, therefore the person’s free will and mind were created in the creation of the person.
(no matter where I look or experiment, I cannot find a free will or a mind somewhere where there is not a person, thus a new theory: mind and free will do not exist apart from the creation of a person).

 

[STT]

First:
Every person I have met so far has free will
There across the room is a person I have not yet met.
Theory: - that person I have not yet met will have free will.
And it works, the theory works, every new person I meet has free will.
Thus, my knowledge is: all people have free will.

How did you get sure that you and others have free will? By checking internally?

Second:
Every person I have met so far has “mind”.
There across the room is a person I have not yet met.
Theory: - that person I have not yet met will have “mind”.

And it works, the theory works, every new person I meet has “mind”.
Thus, my knowledge is: all people have “mind”.

Yes, that comes with induction but not deduction.

Third:
Every person I have met so far is a created being.
There across the room is a person I have not yet met.
Theory: - that person I have not yet met will be a created being.

And it works, the theory works, every new person I meet is a created being
Thus, my knowledge is: all people are created, have free will and have “mind”.

You have no witness for this part no evidence. No one was there.

The person, with free will and with mind, was created, therefore the person’s free will and mind were created in the creation of the person.
(no matter where I look or experiment, I cannot find a free will or a mind somewhere where there is not a person, thus a new theory: mind and free will do not exist apart from the creation of a person).

Three is problematic.

 

[John_Martin]

STT: How did you get sure that you and others have free will? By checking internally?
JM: By asking them if they were doing what they were doing “willingly” or if under compulsion by some force. Willingly means free will. Compulsion means acting contrary to will, meaning the persons act is coerced.

STT: Yes, that comes with induction but not deduction.
JM: Either way it is knowledge. Since you do not admit that there is knowledge prior to experience, all knowing will be inductive. And even so, my experimentation was deductive in defining the experiment to verify the inductive theory and confirming its validity.

STT: You have no witness for this part no evidence. No one was there.
JM: Parents are there conceiving and bearing children, thus people are creatures, rather than eternal in being.

STT: Three is problematic
JM: Not really. I find no problem or difficulty in it. It works very well for everyone I meet.

 

[STT]

STT: How did you get sure that you and others have free will? By checking internally?
JM: By asking them if they were doing what they were doing “willingly” or if under compulsion by some force. Willingly means free will. Compulsion means acting contrary to will, meaning the persons act is coerced.

Lets accept that we have free will for sake of argument.

STT: Yes, that comes with induction but not deduction.
JM: Either way it is knowledge. Since you do not admit that there is knowledge prior to experience, all knowing will be inductive. And even so, my experimentation was deductive in defining the experiment to verify the inductive theory and confirming its validity.

I agree that every being has mind. So lets skip this premise.

STT: You have no witness for this part no evidence. No one was there.
JM: Parents are there conceiving and bearing children, thus people are creatures, rather than eternal in being.

That is not really a good premise. We know that Earth was formed and then creatures came to existence and evolved. This is pure materialistic view but I think it rules.

STT: Three is problematic
JM: Not really. I find no problem or difficulty in it. It works very well for everyone I meet.

The problem with three stands therefore your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[John_Martin]

Lets accept that we have free will for sake of argument.

I agree that every being has mind. So lets skip this premise.

That is not really a good premise. We know that Earth was formed and then creatures came to existence and evolved. This is pure materialistic view but I think it rules.

The problem with three stands therefore your conclusion doesn’t follow.

Since you cannot find a “free will or a mind somewhere where there is not a person”, I guess I will say that my premise and conclusion have not been successfully challenged.

 

[STT]

Since you cannot find a “free will or a mind somewhere where there is not a person”, I guess I will say that my premise and conclusion have not been successfully challenged.

I have no problem with the second premise. I accept the first premise for sake of argument. I however have problem with the third argument. You unfortunately didn’t address my objection.

 

[John_Martin]

I have no problem with the second premise. I accept the first premise for sake of argument. I however have problem with the third argument. You unfortunately didn’t address my objection.

Sorry, but your saying, “That is not really a good premise. We know that Earth was formed and then creatures came to existence and evolved. This is pure materialistic view but I think it rules.” doesn’t amount to a valid objection.
Just because you “think it rules” is not a valid objection, and we do not all know what you say we all know.
So, I guess I will stand with my findings.