There is no need for soul to explain free will

[Bahman]

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.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I disagree with 1) and 2), but even taking them as true, what you describe in 3) is not free will. Free will is not merely saying that how a being makes a choice is dependent on the configuration of that being (physical or not), but that there is an actual thing called a will that can decide one way or another, that may take past things or current things or whatever into account if it decides to but can frankly just do whatever it wants. It may be influenced, but it is not determined.

So whether my memory is wholely physical (as in a hard drive or similar) or not, and regardless of what “physical” means, anything which is THE result of anything is not free will, but determined.

 

[ngill09]

Yeah I don’t even see how the soul escapes causality and determinism.

 

[GEddie]

Yeah I don’t even see how the soul escapes causality and determinism.

It doesn’t.

“Free will” as an absolute is somewhat of a mirage; our wants and behaviors are at least as conditioned as the minds that house them, and the bodies that execute them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Yeah I don’t even see how the soul escapes causality and determinism.

That is in fact the thing about the “free” in free will that seems to cause the most issues. Once it is created, free will is its own “why”. It’s not so much that there’s a reason why it escapes causality and determinism, as that it was never in there to start with.

The idea of determinism is that everything is caused by something preceeding it. But this is actually a large amount of assertions: it is the collection of assertions for every object that ever has or ever will exist that its state of being is completely dependent on other things.

Free will says, more or less, both that there are some things (free wills) for which no such assertion holds, and that these things can actually come up with stuff on their own. They are causes themselves.

The first part there is just a refusal to extend determinism beyond where it’s been shown to exist for no reason. Just because we’ve seen that somethings appear to be wholely dependent on other things is no reason to assume that everything is.

 

[ngill09]

That is in fact the thing about the “free” in free will that seems to cause the most issues. Once it is created, free will is its own “why”. It’s not so much that there’s a reason why it escapes causality and determinism, as that it was never in there to start with.

The idea of determinism is that everything is caused by something preceeding it. But this is actually a large amount of assertions: it is the collection of assertions for every object that ever has or ever will exist that its state of being is completely dependent on other things.

Free will says, more or less, both that there are some things (free wills) for which no such assertion holds, and that these things can actually come up with stuff on their own. They are causes themselves.

The first part there is just a refusal to extend determinism beyond where it’s been shown to exist for no reason. Just because we’ve seen that somethings appear to be wholely dependent on other things is no reason to assume that everything is.

I just don’t see free will as being applicable to how people make decisions. People make decisions for reasons, and those reasons are causally prior to the decisions. Libertarian free will seems to imply that people do things for no reason at all - that decisions are divorced entirely from a causal chain of events. If there are reasons that you do the things you do, then your actions are determined by those reasons.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is disturbing when even Catholics seem unsure what the human soul and its powers of intellect and free will are. So let’s begin with what the Church teaches and which all Catholics must believe.

" Catechism of the Catholic Church,

Para 326
327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."187

355

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

362-367

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238 "

To be continued

Linus2nd,

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 7 continued

Here is how the Baltimore Catechism ( Book 4 ) explains the soul…

" Baltimore Catechism, Book 4, ques 3-5 and explanations

1. Q. What is man?
   A. Man is a creature composed of a body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

“Creature,” i.e., a thing created. Man differs from anything else in creation. All things else are either entirely matter, or entirely spirit. An angel, for example, is all spirit, and a stone is all matter; but man is a combination of both spirit and matter–of soul and of body.

1. Q. Is this likeness in the body or in the soul?
   A. This likeness is chiefly in the soul.
2. Q. How is the soul like to God?
   A. The soul is like God because it is a spirit that will never die, and has understanding and free will.

My soul is like to God in four things.

It is "a spirit:’ It really exists, but cannot be seen with the eyes of our body. Every spirit is invisible, but every invisible thing is not a spirit. We cannot see the wind. We can feel its influence, we can see its work-for example, the dust flying, trees swaying, ships sailing, etc.-but the wind itself we never see. Again, we never see electricity. We see the light or effect it produces, but we never see the electricity itself. Yet no one denies the existence of the wind or of electricity on account of their being invisible. Why then should anyone say there are no spirits-no God, no angels, no souls-simply because they cannot be seen, when we have other proofs, stronger than the testimony of our sight, that they really and truly exist?
My soul will "never die;’ i.e., will never cease to exist; it is immortal. This is a very wonderful thing to think of. It will last as long as God Himself.
My soul “has understanding,” i.e., it has the gift of reason. This gift enables man to reflect upon all his actions the reasons why he should do certain things and why he should not do them. By reason he reflects upon the past, and judges what may happen in the future. He sees the consequences of his actions. He not only knows what he does, but why he does it. This is the gift that places man high above the brute animals in the order of creation; and hence man is not merely an animal, but he is a rational animal-an animal with the gift of reason.
Brute animals have not reason, but only instinct, i.e., they follow certain impulses or feelings which God gave them at their creation. He established certain laws for each class or kind of animals, and they, without knowing it, follow these laws; and when we see them following their laws, always in the same way, we say it is their nature. Animals act at times as if they knew just why they were acting; but it is not so. It is we who reason upon their actions, and see why they do them; but they do not reason, they only follow their instinct.
If animals could reason, they ought to improve in their condition. Men become more civilized day by day. They invent many things that were unknown to their forefathers. One man can improve upon the works of another, etc. But, we never see anything of this kind in the actions of animals. The same kind of birds, for instance, build the same kind of nests, generation after generation, without ever making change or improvement in them. When man teaches an animal any action, it cannot teach the same to its young. It is clear, therefore, that animals cannot reason.
Though man has the gift of reason by which he can learn a great deal, he cannot learn all through his reason; for there are many things that God Himself must teach him. When God teaches, we call the truths He makes known to us Revelation. How could man ever know about the Trinity through his reason alone, when, after God has made known to him that It exists, he cannot understand it? It is the same for all the other mysteries.
My soul has "free will:’ This is another grand gift of God, by which I am able to do or not do a thing, just as I please. I can even sin and refuse to obey God. God Himself-while He leaves me my free will-could not oblige me to do anything, unless I wished to do it; neither could the devil. I am free therefore, and I may use this great gift either to benefit or injure myself. If I were not free I would not deserve reward or punishment for my actions, for no one is or should be punished for doing what he cannot help. God would not punish us for sin if we were not free to commit or avoid it. I turn this freedom to my benefit if I do what God wishes when I could do the opposite; for He will be more pleased with my conduct, and grant a greater reward than He would bestow if I obeyed simply because obliged to do so. Animals have no free will. If, for example, they suffer from hunger and you place food before them, they will eat; but man can starve, if he wills to do so, with a feast before him. For the same reason man can endure more fatigue than any other animal of the same bodily strength. In traveling, for instance, animals give up when exhausted, but man may be dying as he walks, and still, by his strong will-power, force his wearied limbs to move. But you will say, did not the lions in the den into which Daniel was cast because he would not act against his conscience, obey the wicked king and offend God-as we read in Holy Scripture (Dan. 6:16)refrain from eating him, even when they were starving with hunger? Yes; but they did not do so of themselves, but by the power of God preventing them: and that is why the delivery of Daniel from their mouths was a miracle. It is clear, because the same lions immediately tore in pieces Daniel’s enemies when they were cast into the den. "

To be continued

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 8 continued.

Here is how Thomas Aquinas explains the soul speculatively or philosophically

He begins with objections, then answers them.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Ques.75,ans ad 1

Whether the soul is a body ( by " body " the philosophers always mean something made of matter, corporeal ).

Article 1. Whether the soul is a body?
Objection 1. It would seem that the soul is a body. For the soul is the moving principle of the body. Nor does it move unless moved.

First, because seemingly nothing can move unless it is itself moved, since nothing gives what it has not; for instance, what is not hot does not give heat.

Secondly, because if there be anything that moves and is not moved, it must be the cause of eternal, unchanging movement, as we find proved Phys. viii, 6; and this does not appear to be the case in the movement of an animal, which is caused by the soul. Therefore the soul is a mover moved. But every mover moved is a body. Therefore the soul is a body.

Objection 2. Further, all knowledge is caused by means of a likeness. But there can be no likeness of a body to an incorporeal thing. If, therefore, the soul were not a body, it could not have knowledge of corporeal things.

Objection 3. Further, between the mover and the moved there must be contact. But contact is only between bodies. Since, therefore, the soul moves the body, it seems that the soul must be a body.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 6) that the soul “is simple in comparison with the body, inasmuch as it does not occupy space by its bulk.”

I answer that, To seek the nature of the soul, we must premise that the soul is defined as the first principle of life of those things which live: for we call living things “animate,” *, and those things which have no life, “inanimate.” Now life is shown principally by two actions, knowledge and movement. The philosophers of old, not being able to rise above their imagination, supposed that the principle of these actions was something corporeal: for they asserted that only bodies were real things; and that what is not corporeal is nothing: hence they maintained that the soul is something corporeal. This opinion can be proved to be false in many ways; but we shall make use of only one proof, based on universal and certain principles, which shows clearly that the soul is not a body.

It is manifest that not every principle of vital action is a soul, for then the eye would be a soul, as it is a principle of vision; and the same might be applied to the other instruments of the soul: but it is the “first” principle of life, which we call the soul. Now, though a body may be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, as the heart is a principle of life in an animal, yet nothing corporeal can be the first principle of life. For it is clear that to be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, does not belong to a body as such; since, if that were the case, every body would be a living thing, or a principle of life. Therefore a body is competent to be a living thing or even a principle of life, as “such” a body. Now that it is actually such a body, it owes to some principle which is called its act. Therefore the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat, which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a body.

Reply to Objection 1. As everything which is moved*( see footnote ) must be moved by something else, a process which cannot be prolonged indefinitely, we must allow that not every mover is moved. For, since to be moved is to pass from potentiality to actuality, the mover gives what it has to the thing moved, inasmuch as it causes it to be in act. But, as is shown in Phys. viii, 6, there is a mover which is altogether immovable, and not moved either essentially, or accidentally; and such a mover can cause an invariable movement. There is, however, another kind of mover, which, though not moved essentially, is moved accidentally; and for this reason it does not cause an invariable movement; such a mover, is the soul. There is, again, another mover, which is moved essentially–namely, the body. And because the philosophers of old believed that nothing existed but bodies, they maintained that every mover is moved; and that the soul is moved directly, and is a body.

Reply to Objection 2. The likeness of a thing known is not of necessity actually in the nature of the knower; but given a thing which knows potentially, and afterwards knows actually, the likeness of the thing known must be in the nature of the knower, not actually, but only potentially; thus color is not actually in the pupil of the eye, but only potentially. Hence it is necessary, not that the likeness of corporeal things should be actually in the nature of the soul, but that there be a potentiality in the soul for such a likeness. But the ancient philosophers omitted to distinguish between actuality and potentiality; and so they held that the soul must be a body in order to have knowledge of a body; and that it must be composed of the principles of which all bodies are formed in order to know all bodies.

Reply to Objection 3. There are two kinds of contact; of “quantity,” and of “power.” By the former a body can be touched only by a body; by the latter a body can be touched by an incorporeal thing, which moves that body.

Linus2nd*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 9 continued

Article 2. Whether the human soul is something subsistent?

Objection 1. It would seem that the human soul is not something subsistent. For that which subsists is said to be “this particular thing.” Now “this particular thing” is said not of the soul, but of that which is composed of soul and body. Therefore the soul is not something subsistent.

Objection 2. Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does not operate; for, as the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), “to say that the soul feels or understands is like saying that the soul weaves or builds.” Therefore the soul is not subsistent.

Objection 3. Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some operation apart from the body. But it has no operation apart from the body, not even that of understanding: for the act of understanding does not take place without a phantasm, which cannot exist apart from the body. Therefore the human soul is not something subsistent.

I answer that, It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by means of the intellect man can have knowledge of all corporeal things. Now whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them in its own nature; because that which is in it naturally would impede the knowledge of anything else. Thus we observe that a sick man’s tongue being vitiated by a feverish and bitter humor, is insensible to anything sweet, and everything seems bitter to it. Therefore, if the intellectual principle contained the nature of a body it would be unable to know all bodies. Now every body has its own determinate nature. Therefore it is impossible for the intellectual principle to be a body. It is likewise impossible for it to understand by means of a bodily organ; since the determinate nature of that organ would impede knowledge of all bodies; as when a certain determinate color is not only in the pupil of the eye, but also in a glass vase, the liquid in the vase seems to be of that same color.

Therefore the intellectual principle which we call the mind or the intellect has an operation “per se” apart from the body. Now only that which subsists can have an operation “per se.” For nothing can operate but what is actual: for which reason we do not say that heat imparts heat, but that what is hot gives heat. We must conclude, therefore, that the human soul, which is called the intellect or the mind, is something incorporeal and subsistent.

Reply to Objection 1. “This particular thing” can be taken in two senses.

Firstly, for anything subsistent; secondly, for that which subsists, and is complete in a specific nature. The former sense excludes the inherence of an accident or of a material form; the latter excludes also the imperfection of the part, so that a hand can be called “this particular thing” in the first sense, but not in the second. Therefore, as the human soul is a part of human nature, it can indeed be called “this particular thing,” in the first sense, as being something subsistent; but not in the second, for in this sense, what is composed of body and soul is said to be “this particular thing.”

Reply to Objection 2. Aristotle wrote those words as expressing not his own opinion, but the opinion of those who said that to understand is to be moved, as is clear from the context. Or we may reply that to operate “per se” belongs to what exists “per se.” But for a thing to exist “per se,” it suffices sometimes that it be not inherent, as an accident or a material form; even though it be part of something. Nevertheless, that is rightly said to subsist “per se,” which is neither inherent in the above sense, nor part of anything else. In this sense, the eye or the hand cannot be said to subsist “per se”; nor can it for that reason be said to operate “per se.” Hence the operation of the parts is through each part attributed to the whole. For we say that man sees with the eye, and feels with the hand, and not in the same sense as when we say that what is hot gives heat by its heat; for heat, strictly speaking, does not give heat. We may therefore say that the soul understands, as the eye sees; but it is more correct to say that man understands through the soul.

Reply to Objection 3. The body is necessary for the action of the intellect, not as its origin of action, but on the part of the object; for the phantasm is to the intellect what color is to the sight. Neither does such a dependence on the body prove the intellect to be non-subsistent; otherwise it would follow that an animal is non-subsistent, since it requires external objects of the senses in order to perform its act of perception.

To be continued

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 10 continued

Some of My Thoughts on this Question

In summary. The human soul is non-corporeal, it is not a body. Rather it is incorporeal or immaterial. This being so, the human soul is a spirit and has a nature similar to that of the Angels and to God. The difference is that the soul ( the spirit of man ) was created specifically for man’s body, its proper mode of existence is as the " form " of the body. And when we say that the soul is a spirit we do not mean it is a ghost for a ghost is a very subtle material form of a body. The soul is a spiritual form just as an Angel is a spiritual form. The difference is that an Angel’s proper mode of existence is as a Spirit. Whereas the soul’s proper mode of existence is its union with a human body, in which it functions as the form ( philosophers would say substantial form ) of the body.

A spiritual being has no matter. The spirit of an Angel and the soul of man and the Spirit of God are similar, but the spirit of an Angel and the soul of man are dependent and limited forms, where as God is an independent Form or Spirit. They depend on God for their existence. The Angels are limited as to species and the human soul is limited as to species but not as to number. There being one Angel to a species, whereas there are many individual souls in the species of man.

Notice how when the Church in speaking of the soul it always contrasts it to the corporeal, as spiritual is contrasted with the material. The soul is further compared to the " invisible " and is called a spirit as Angels and God are Spirits

Futher, the soul is identified as the first principle of life, reason, and will in man. And through the soul man lives, uhderstands, wills, knows right from wrong, and is conscious of himself. These are spiritual powers that matter does not have, therefore also, the soul is identified as a spiritual principle.

Men have a hard time visualizing or imagining a human soul ( or any spiritual being - though the soul is not a being per se since it normally and properly exists as the form of the body). I think the best way to explain the nature of the soul is to consider all that has been said above and then visualize a being with all those qualities but without any matter of any kind, even the most subtle. What you are left with is something like pure intellect, will, memory, an entity totally outside the realm of the physical, yet dependent on the physical for many of its operations.

And since the soul can think and understand and will and remember and is conscious of good and evil and is conscious of its own existence in its human unity, the soul is immaterial, incorporeal, spiritual, having in it no matter which is subject to corruption. Only matter is corruptible. Therefore the soul is immortal. And nothing physical is immortal except by Divine Decree.

The reason for making a point of discussing this is because I have seen dozens of Catholics on Catholic Ansewers Forums who cannot grasp the nature of a spiritual being and because of that, they deny the incorpreal nature of man’s soul and even of Christ’s Divine Nature and, indeed, the Nature of God Who is an Independent and Limitless Spirit.
They do not formally deny these things but their language clearly indicates that their concept of a spiritual being is incorrect and this leads them to material heresy and causes some to loose Faith.

Just week I discovered that one of our leading posters is succumbing to the notion that the soul is a very subtle form of matter like the " week forces " of the atom. There is a web site that is using this idea in an attempt to make traditional Aristotelian-Thomism palatable to the modern mind which has been indoctrinated by Newtonean Mechanism. hylemorphist.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/substances-and-porphyrian-trees/

So just how does one put the idea of a spirit into the modern mind?
You just have to keep drilling that however subtle one may imagine matter, whether as pure energy, quarks, forces, waves, quanta, etc. a spirit such as the soul of man, Angel, or God is absolutely other than that. For one thing, every form of energy or ultimate material entity can be detected or measured or touched or seen. But the human soul, the Angel, God cannot, even in principle, be touched or measured or detected in any way. And even when an Angel appears or God appears we do not see the essence of their nature but merely a form they have assumed for our benefit.

Personally, I like to think of the soul or an Angel or God as pure intellect ( not mind because too many confuse that with brain. ), an intellect that exsists but which does not exist in anything else, which is not composed of any parts and cannot be touched, measured, or detected, even in principle.

Thomas Aquinas reasons that God is utterly simple ( also Catholic Dogma ), by which he means that God is Pure Subsistent Existence ( with which all His " attributes " are absolutley included in and identified with His existence - His Existence is His Nature, His Form). Thomas says He simply Is, " I Am Who Am. " But an Angel or a soul is a nature or form which has/] existence, it has received existence from God. The contrast is between that which Has and that which simply Is.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I disagree with 1) and 2), but even taking them as true, what you describe in 3) is not free will.

The fact that you disagree with one and two leads to an anamoulus entity so called free will. By the way can you define free will and how it manage to break the chain of causality.

Free will is not merely saying that how a being makes a choice is dependent on the configuration of that being (physical or not), but that there is an actual thing called a will that can decide one way or another,

Can you define will and explaine how it mannage to do so?

that may take past things or current things or whatever into account if it decides to but can frankly just do whatever it wants. It may be influenced, but it is not determined.

Could you define “want” in absense of external and inter reality? If there is no external and internal reality then there is no option hence the concept of want becomes meaningless.

So whether my memory is wholely physical (as in a hard drive or similar) or not, and regardless of what “physical” means, anything which is THE result of anything is not free will, but determined.

Free will in this scheme is the result of dividing the whole to external and internal. In another word the whole cannot want since in that scale there is no external reality.

 

[Bahman]

Yeah I don’t even see how the soul escapes causality and determinism.

The main problem is that how could merge a being, our body which is causal, with something so called free will which is not causal becuase the first one obey the law of nature and casuality while the second one does not and in fact breaks casuality!

 

[Bahman]

It doesn’t.

“Free will” as an absolute is somewhat of a mirage; our wants and behaviors are at least as conditioned as the minds that house them, and the bodies that execute them.

ICXC NIKA

Can you please explain how “want” is translated to action? In another word, you wish to move your body, how this wish which is non-physical can cause something physical to happen?

 

[GEddie]

Can you please explain how “want” is translated to action? In another word, you wish to move your body, how this wish which is non-physical can cause something physical to happen?

“The wish” is experienced by ourself as nonphysical, but is encoded as a synaptic event in our head; which sends a nervous pulse down the neck to the limbs.

Although we are conscious only of the nonphysical motivation (filtered through the informational process that is our mind), a brain-scan operator would see only the cerebral event (physical) cascading down our neck. And both would be right.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The main problem is that how could merge a being, our body which is causal, with something so called free will which is not causal becuase the first one obey the law of nature and casuality while the second one does not and in fact breaks casuality!

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I just don’t see free will as being applicable to how people make decisions. People make decisions for reasons, and those reasons are causally prior to the decisions. Libertarian free will seems to imply that people do things for no reason at all - that decisions are divorced entirely from a causal chain of events. If there are reasons that you do the things you do, then your actions are determined by those reasons.

What you just said is incoherent, logically impossible. First you posit that there are " reasons " for the choices we make and then you infere that means our choices are determined. Certainly there are reasons, which the intellect provides and considers from a number of angles. But the will is not forced to choose any of the reasons offered, it may choose one of those offered, or it my choose not to act at all. Its act of decision is free, not determined. Of couse, due to past choices, habit, or environmental or cultural factors, or phychological conditions or predispositionsns, it may be influenced to choose one rather than the other. But, it is still absolutely free, it can will to overcome these factors and make a difficult choice.

Linus2nd

 

[ngill09]

What you just said is incoherent, logically impossible. First you posit that there are " reasons " for the choices we make and then you infere that means our choices are determined. Certainly there are reasons, which the intellect provides and considers from a number of angles. But the will is not forced to choose any of the reasons offered, it may choose one of those offered, or it my choose not to act at all. Its act of decision is free, not determined. Of couse, due to past choices, habit, or environmental or cultural factors, or phychological conditions or predispositionsns, it may be influenced to choose one rather than the other. But, it is still absolutely free, it can will to overcome these factors and make a difficult choice.

Linus2nd

It isn’t logically impossible at all, in fact it follows logically. If you do things for reasons then your actions are determined by those reasons. If you choose A over B for reasons X, Y, and Z, then your decisions was determined by X, Y and Z. Only if you choose A over B for no reason at all can you say that the choice was made freely independent of external factors.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It isn’t logically impossible at all, in fact it follows logically. If you do things for reasons then your actions are determined by those reasons. If you choose A over B for reasons X, Y, and Z, then your decisions was determined by X, Y and Z. Only if you choose A over B for no reason at all can you say that the choice was made freely independent of external factors.

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

 

[Bahman]

“The wish” is experienced by ourself as nonphysical, but is encoded as a synaptic event in our head; which sends a nervous pulse down the neck to the limbs.

Although we are conscious only of the nonphysical motivation (filtered through the informational process that is our mind), a brain-scan operator would see only the cerebral event (physical) cascading down our neck. And both would be right.

ICXC NIKA

You need to explain two things:

1. Soul is not physical so it is not located anywhere hence how could it inform matter and vise versa?
2. Soul does not have a form so how the information could be comprehended there, turned to wishes and finally decisions are made?