There is no need for soul to explain free will

[Bahman]

And in fact you cannot prove that. As I have explained to you ad infinitum, the act of making a choice is free, however the soul has been given a nature by God such that it is impowered to make decisions. In other words its functional ability has been caused ( crated ) by God, and it responds to what the intellect knows and provides it ( caused to act or to refrain from acting). So when you say that the will is uncaused, that is incorrect. It is caused it its functionality and operation, but it is not forced ( caused ) to act or not to act ( it is free to do either ).
Linus2nd

Lets discuss it to see where is the source of problem and if anybody can provide a proof.

Let consider that an agent is faced with a new situation needed a decision. This means that three things should happen:

1. The infomation (physical cause) regarding that situation has to be received by the agent as initial cause to create knowledge in intelect about the situation. The situation has to lead to at least two seperate mind states, so called knowledge, otherwise no decision is needed.
2. Minds states persist to exist unless it is disturbed with other physical cause but only one survive after decision is made. Decision must be done in mind hence, first the mind either should be informed about the existence of the situation or those mind states should persist to exist in the mind but regardless those mind states should exist at the time of decision. Now we need to get ride of all mind states but one otherwise we cannot take action since we cannot possibly do two different things at the same time, example: we cannot turn to left and right at the same time so called physical constraint that intelect is aware of it.
3. Once all mind states but one are cut then it can be translated to information which eventually turns to action.

This is how I uderstand the thing in the framework of mind and body. And here are the serious problems for this framework:

1. How the information can cuase knowledge?
2. How the chain of causality could be broken?
3. Once the chain of causality is broken how knoweldge about the situation can turns into action?

What are your answer my friend?

 

[orang]

Lets discuss it to see where is the source of problem and if anybody can provide a proof.

Let consider that an agent is faced with a new situation needed a decision. This means that three things should happen:

1. The infomation (physical cause) regarding that situation has to be received by the agent as initial cause to create knowledge in intelect about the situation. The situation has to lead to at least two seperate mind states, so called knowledge, otherwise no decision is needed.
2. Minds states persist to exist unless it is disturbed with other physical cause but only one survive after decision is made. Decision must be done in mind hence, first the mind either should be informed about the existence of the situation or those mind states should persist to exist in the mind but regardless those mind states should exist at the time of decision. Now we need to get ride of all mind states but one otherwise we cannot take action since we cannot possibly do two different things at the same time, example: we cannot turn to left and right at the same time so called physical constraint that intelect is aware of it.
3. Once all mind states but one are cut then it can be translated to information which eventually turns to action.

This is how I uderstand the thing in the framework of mind and body. And here are the serious problems for this framework:

1. How the information can cuase knowledge?
2. How the chain of causality could be broken?
3. Once the chain of causality is broken how knoweldge about the situation can turns into action?

What are your answer my friend?

Good questioning fellow member, I’m looking forward to the answers from my fellow Catholic’s, questions should be as tough as possible this is an important area. ( following closely. / gotta get back to work.

 

[ngill09]

No. Of course we have reasons. If we didn’t we would be in a mental hospital. We may choose from one of any number of reasons for acting or not acting. We are not determined to select any particular one. Therefore, the actual choice is free. Therefore our will is free in its act of choice, its act is free. It is its existence as a power and its functionality which are not free. It must be, because it is a power of the soul, which is created by God. It must act, because the intellect is " calling " upon it. But its Act of choosing various alternatives is free, not determined…

Example: My neighbors house on fire, they have been a pain in the rear ever since they moved in. But their three year old is still in the house, and only the wife is at home, and no police or firemen have come yet. She is in the yard screaming, the hous is heavily ingulfed. I am able bodied and a bachelor. I have a number of reasons to try to save the child and to not try and save the child. None of the alternatives are particularly attractive. But I must choose to act to save the child or not. But the actual choice is free.

Linus2nd

Yes, there are factors pulling you in either direction, but the weight of those factors and how they play off your character and values will determine which way you go. The idea is this; if we could watch what you do in the fire situation, then turn back the clock and watch it again, you would do the same thing every time. Under the exact same conditions, a person’s decisions will be consistent.

That’s the idea, anyway.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lets discuss it to see where is the source of problem and if anybody can provide a proof.

Let consider that an agent is faced with a new situation needed a decision. This means that three things should happen:

1. The infomation (physical cause) regarding that situation has to be received by the agent as initial cause to create knowledge in intelect about the situation. The situation has to lead to at least two seperate mind states, so called knowledge, otherwise no decision is needed.
2. Minds states persist to exist unless it is disturbed with other physical cause but only one survive after decision is made. Decision must be done in mind hence, first the mind either should be informed about the existence of the situation or those mind states should persist to exist in the mind but regardless those mind states should exist at the time of decision. Now we need to get ride of all mind states but one otherwise we cannot take action since we cannot possibly do two different things at the same time, example: we cannot turn to left and right at the same time so called physical constraint that intelect is aware of it.
3. Once all mind states but one are cut then it can be translated to information which eventually turns to action.

This is how I uderstand the thing in the framework of mind and body. And here are the serious problems for this framework:

1. How the information can cuase knowledge?
2. How the chain of causality could be broken?
3. Once the chain of causality is broken how knoweldge about the situation can turns into action?

What are your answer my friend?

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Let me give you an example.

The house next door is on fire. I don’t like the people who live there. The man and woman are rude and their kids are offensive and crude. The husband is at work and the woman is standing in the yard screaming. I am a bachelor in good health and strong. But I can’t stand these people. But the woman is screaming that her kids are inside the burning house.

My senses are receiving all this information and my intellect is processing all this information and is telling me that I have a decision to make. Shall I try to save this woman’s children, none of whom I like, at a serious risk to my own life? My conscience is also telling me I have an obligation to forget my personal distaste and do the charitable thing and save the children. I am free to choose either way. But all the details passing through my intellect will remain with me forever, even after I make my choice.

What this tells me is that my intellect is telling me I need to make a choice. It gives the pros and cons for making the choice. My will freely chooses from these choices.

Does that describe what you are trying to say?

Linus2nd, .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, there are factors pulling you in either direction, but the weight of those factors and how they play off your character and values will determine which way you go. The idea is this; if we could watch what you do in the fire situation, then turn back the clock and watch it again, you would do the same thing every time. Under the exact same conditions, a person’s decisions will be consistent.

That’s the idea, anyway.

That is not determinism, because I do not have to choose one way or another. I am free to follow the logic or morality of the situation or reject it and act irrationally and uncharitably. I am not forced to choose either way. The intellect simply puts the choices before me, with the accompanying pros and cons.

And at another time I may choose differently. People do not always make the same choices in the same circumstances. So I would disagree with you there.

One day I pack a lunch for work, another day I do not. The circumstances surrounding my decision are the same. I have bills to pay and it will be easier to pay them if I pack a lunch and save what I would spend at the local Diner. One day my will power is weak and I eat at the Diner. One day my will poser is stronger and I pack my lunch.

We play these games every day.

Linus2nd

 

[ngill09]

That is not determinism, because I do not have to choose one way or another. I am free to follow the logic or morality of the situation or reject it and act irrationally and uncharitably. I am not forced to choose either way. The intellect simply puts the choices before me, with the accompanying pros and cons.

And at another time I may choose differently. People do not always make the same choices in the same circumstances. So I would disagree with you there.

One day I pack a lunch for work, another day I do not. The circumstances surrounding my decision are the same. I have bills to pay and it will be easier to pay them if I pack a lunch and save what I would spend at the local Diner. One day my will power is weak and I eat at the Diner. One day my will poser is stronger and I pack my lunch.

We play these games every day.

Linus2nd

Actually I’ve done some study on decision theory - it’s a lot more determined than you might think. Even your will power in a given circumstance is determined by the circumstance. Even the things you think you do on the most arbitrary whim have some rationale behind them.

And the language of being “forced” to do something is misleading. You do choose to do things. But the outcome of your choices, as determined by your value, character, and the circumstances of the choice, cannot be other than what they are.

The circumstances surrounding your decision to pack or buy lunch are not exactly the same every time. Maybe you’re running a little later in the morning and skip packing. Maybe you feel like you deserve a better lunch that morning. But there’s always something.

 

[ccmnxc]

Actually I’ve done some study on decision theory - it’s a lot more determined than you might think. Even your will power in a given circumstance is determined by the circumstance. Even the things you think you do on the most arbitrary whim have some rationale behind them.

And the language of being “forced” to do something is misleading. You do choose to do things. But the outcome of your choices, as determined by your value, character, and the circumstances of the choice, cannot be other than what they are.

The circumstances surrounding your decision to pack or buy lunch are not exactly the same every time. Maybe you’re running a little later in the morning and skip packing. Maybe you feel like you deserve a better lunch that morning. But there’s always something.

This sounds a lot like compatibilism. Would that be correct?

 

[ngill09]

This sounds a lot like compatibilism. Would that be correct?

ehhhh I’m not sure. I don’t have a label for what I believe, but I don’t think libertarian free will is applicable to how people make decisions, and I don’t see what the soul has to do with any of it.

 

[Richca]

1. What we call physical is an approximation of reality. It comes from a close look at subject matter ignoring the effect of the whole with the outcome so called laws of nature. There is no set of laws that can grasp the effect of the whole hence the reality at the edge is not physical.
2. The memory is what is left from experiencing an event so called consciousness. The consciousness itself is the awareness from state of existence hence it is related to the whole subject matter. Thus, memory cannot be physical.
3. The action is the result of reflection of our collective memory when dealing with an new subject matter, so called free will.

Hello bahman,
Then what is a soul? That living things and human beings have souls has been in the human vocabulary for time immemorial. And if living things have souls, how is the soul of a human being different from all other living things for we definitely are a different animal than all other animals and living things?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually I’ve done some study on decision theory - it’s a lot more determined than you might think. Even your will power in a given circumstance is determined by the circumstance. Even the things you think you do on the most arbitrary whim have some rationale behind them.

And the language of being “forced” to do something is misleading. You do choose to do things. But the outcome of your choices, as determined by your value, character, and the circumstances of the choice, cannot be other than what they are.

The circumstances surrounding your decision to pack or buy lunch are not exactly the same every time. Maybe you’re running a little later in the morning and skip packing. Maybe you feel like you deserve a better lunch that morning. But there’s always something.

I readily agree that there are factors which influence my choices, I even applaude it. But that does not mean my choices are deterministic as usually understood. " Influence " is not the same as " determineded. " My choices are absolutely free, they are not predetermined. If that were so we could never be morally responsible agents.

Linus2nd

 

[orang]

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Let me give you an example.

The house next door is on fire. I don’t like the people who live there. The man and woman are rude and their kids are offensive and crude. The husband is at work and the woman is standing in the yard screaming. I am a bachelor in good health and strong. But I can’t stand these people. But the woman is screaming that her kids are inside the burning house.

My senses are receiving all this information and my intellect is processing all this information and is telling me that I have a decision to make. Shall I try to save this woman’s children, none of whom I like, at a serious risk to my own life? My conscience is also telling me I have an obligation to forget my personal distaste and do the charitable thing and save the children. I am free to choose either way. But all the details passing through my intellect will remain with me forever, even after I make my choice.

What this tells me is that my intellect is telling me I need to make a choice. It gives the pros and cons for making the choice. My will freely chooses from these choices.

Does that describe what you are trying to say?

Linus2nd, .

And how can this position assert with any reasonable explanation the conscience is NOT simply a product of survival produced by the unconscious ? ( because the statement is inferring otherwise, wheres the explanation.

Man is part of a surviving species, there is no brownie cookie for chancing self in order to save future generations of the species being children, none. It is a positive…because it suggests a community is in order with at least the animal. The suggestion is the community is not in a state of panic and can go forward, that’s all. (progress.

To refuse would be less then the instinctive order within animals and completely un acceptable by any community of people, people know this unconsciously, it would be an act of in-humanity bordering insanity. The community would eventually reject . So, survival. Example has little use .

 

[ngill09]

I readily agree that there are factors which influence my choices, I even applaude it. But that does not mean my choices are deterministic as usually understood. " Influence " is not the same as " determineded. " My choices are absolutely free, they are not predetermined. If that were so we could never be morally responsible agents.

Linus2nd

I don’t see why our decisions being determined by the factors surrounding them absolves us of moral responsibility or negates the need for justice.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, there are factors pulling you in either direction, but the weight of those factors and how they play off your character and values will determine which way you go. The idea is this; if we could watch what you do in the fire situation, then turn back the clock and watch it again, you would do the same thing every time. Under the exact same conditions, a person’s decisions will be consistent.

That’s the idea, anyway.

That is a nice example which explain the whole, but not us, is a machine and that is true if and only if turning back the time was possible which to me is logically impossible. Needlees to say that you are making my life easier and you are in half of way of what I am trying to say.

 

[Bahman]

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Let me give you an example.

The house next door is on fire. I don’t like the people who live there. The man and woman are rude and their kids are offensive and crude. The husband is at work and the woman is standing in the yard screaming. I am a bachelor in good health and strong. But I can’t stand these people. But the woman is screaming that her kids are inside the burning house.

My senses are receiving all this information and my intellect is processing all this information and is telling me that I have a decision to make. Shall I try to save this woman’s children, none of whom I like, at a serious risk to my own life? My conscience is also telling me I have an obligation to forget my personal distaste and do the charitable thing and save the children. I am free to choose either way. But all the details passing through my intellect will remain with me forever, even after I make my choice.

What this tells me is that my intellect is telling me I need to make a choice. It gives the pros and cons for making the choice. My will freely chooses from these choices.

Does that describe what you are trying to say?

Linus2nd, .

Let me give you a simpler example. You are walking in a street and you don’t know if it is dead end or not. After a while you suddenly see a sign that the street is dead end. You of course return if you were not expecting to face a dead end street. This is a simple action we perform 1000 of times each day.

There are again three steps in perfrom the action: 1) receiving the information about the street which is initial cause for the final action, 2) converting information to knowledge, namely you become conscious of the fact that the street has dead end and deciding accordigly, 3) this decision which has the form of knoweldge again has to turn into infomation in order to cause action.

Here are my question again:

1. How the information can cuase knowledge?
2. How the chain of causality could be broken?
3. Once the chain of causality is broken how knoweldge about the situation can turns into action?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And how can this position assert with any reasonable explanation the conscience is NOT simply a product of survival produced by the unconscious ? ( because the statement is inferring otherwise, wheres the explanation.

" Conscience " is a part of the function of the intellect. As such, it evidences that the soul is the immaterial component of man. The job of the intellect is to collate the information received from the senses into intelligible concepts and then to associate these concepts into complete cogent thoughts ( i.e. There is a stop light, stop lights mean I may proceed or I may not proceed. This stop light is red. That means I must stop.). My conscience reminds me that I must do what is good and avoid what is bad,.In this instance, it warns me that I must stop. How conscience know what is good and what is bad is the interesting question.

I would answer that, since the soul is the informative constituent of our human nature, God has given the intellect the power to recognize what is good and bad through a long comparative process to the Standard of the Good which God has programed into the operative parameters of the intellect. So we have an instinctive understanding of the Good to which we compare every act and thought.

Conscience also has a " punitive, reward " aspect as well. This is the so called " voice " of conscience. If we do good, we often experience a " feeling " of elation or well being, even happiness. If we do the bad, we frequently experience a " feeling " of discomfort, guilt, or remorse, even disgust. Of course cultural and educational factors have a lot to do with what we recognize as good or bad. That is why we must make every effort to educate ourselves properly.

Man is part of a surviving species, there is no brownie cookie for chancing self in order to save future generations of the species being children, none.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

It is a positive…because it suggests a community is in order with at least the animal. The suggestion is the community is not in a state of panic and can go forward, that’s all. (progress.

What is positive? I’m glad you at least allow us into the animal kingdom.

To refuse would be less then the instinctive order within animals and completely un acceptable by any community of people, people know this unconsciously, it would be an act of in-humanity bordering insanity. The community would eventually reject . So, survival. Example has little use .

Don’t know what you are trying to say here.

I sometimes think you and I reside on different planets.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Hello bahman,
Then what is a soul? That living things and human beings have souls has been in the human vocabulary for time immemorial. And if living things have souls, how is the soul of a human being different from all other living things for we definitely are a different animal than all other animals and living things?

I don’t know what soul is and what is use of it but to me every living being is conscious.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let me give you a simpler example. You are walking in a street and you don’t know if it is dead end or not. After a while you suddenly see a sign that the street is dead end. You of course return if you were not expecting to face a dead end street. This is a simple action we perform 1000 of times each day.

There are again three steps in perfrom the action: 1) receiving the information about the street which is initial cause for the final action, 2) converting information to knowledge, namely you become conscious of the fact that the street has dead end and deciding accordigly, 3) this decision which has the form of knoweldge again has to turn into infomation in order to cause action.

Good example May I offer the suggestion that you use " decide accordingly " rather than " deciding accordingly. "

Here are my question again:

1. How the information can cuase knowledge?

God has given the intellect the power to do this. How he does this we don’t know.

1. How the chain of causality could be broken?

Not quite sure what you are trying to say. Once we have the information, the intellect " thinks " about it, " organizes " it, " reflects " on it, and either stores it in memory for future reference, or acts on it. Causality, in the sense of " agent causality " stops once the intellect has the information. From there on the intellect operates according to the powers and parameters of its nature. It operates naturally, it does what God has given it the power to do. God is the agent cause of the soul and all its powers - knowing, associating, judging, willing, remembering. The impressions made upon the senses are also considered agent causes in that they supply the intellect with the information by which it learns, and upon which it acts - reflects.

1. Once the chain of causality is broken how knoweldge about the situation can turns into action?

May I suggest that you rephrase the question thusly; " Once the chain of causality is broken how is our knowledge about the situation turned into action? "

Good question. I would say that it is the natural function of the intellect to make us act on what it knows. But this is in no sense any kind of determinism. It is in accord with the nature of the intellect that it do so. But how we decide to act is absolutely free. The chain of causality stops once the senses receive the information upon which the intellect acts.
The intellect itself operates naturally on this information.

You do understand that I reject the notion of determinism in this chain because of the connotatons that term has. It is associated with a school of thought that would have man be nothing but a mindless robot or a mindless brute animal.

It is true that the intellect has powers and parameters of operation and that it forces us to act. But all this time we are aware of what is going on and we give our consent to what we are doing. We are not functioning blindly as a robot or animal. We can guide our thoughts and tailor our response to these thoughts and how we respond is totally free.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

God has given the intellect the power to do this. How he does this we don’t know.

To be honest, I am tired of accepting a black box with the content that does something but, we are not aware of it. So I try my best to get rid of them.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say. Once we have the information, the intellect " thinks " about it, " organizes " it, " reflects " on it, and either stores it in memory for future reference, or acts on it. Causality, in the sense of " agent causality " stops once the intellect has the information. From there on the intellect operates according to the powers and parameters of its nature. It operates naturally, it does what God has given it the power to do. God is the agent cause of the soul and all its powers - knowing, associating, judging, willing, remembering. The impressions made upon the senses are also considered agent causes in that they supply the intellect with the information by which it learns, and upon which it acts - reflects.

What I am trying to say is very simple. Once you are faced with any sign which inform you about the fact that the street is a dead end, you go to double mind state, in which one is related to getting farther and another turn back. This is the duty of intellect to inform the agent about the situation. My problem however is, how the preference is given to one mind state over another? That is very important question since the chain of causality breaks when the agent is in a state of doubt/performing decision.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t know what soul is and what is use of it but to me every living being is conscious.

Soul is life.

Every live being has soul.

But only when there is enough of a brain is there consciousness.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

I don’t see why our decisions being determined by the factors surrounding them absolves us of moral responsibility or negates the need for justice.

We only have a “need for justice” because we are conditioned to see that need.

Bullies and thugs, and others who gleefully commit injustice, see no need for justice.

ICXC NIKA