Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:16 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:53 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:30 am
I see. But I think I cleared that a long time ago.
But I asked you to CLEAR THIS UP. You said you ALREADY HAVE and PROVIDED EXAMPLES. I have now INFORMED you that you are STILL BLIND and CONFUSED. So, 'trying to' say "that you think you cleared this up a long time ago", is just ANOTHER DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of yours.

You OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET CLEARED this up. This is because you still have NOT YET SEEN the CONTRADICTION, ITSELF.
What other contradiction you are talking about?
LOL WHY do you want to LOOK AT and/or DISCUSS "another" contradiction?

I want you to CLEAR UP 'this' contradiction. That is; IF YOU CAN.

THEN we can move onto the 'other' contradictions of YOURS.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:44 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:16 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:53 am

But I asked you to CLEAR THIS UP. You said you ALREADY HAVE and PROVIDED EXAMPLES. I have now INFORMED you that you are STILL BLIND and CONFUSED. So, 'trying to' say "that you think you cleared this up a long time ago", is just ANOTHER DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of yours.

You OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET CLEARED this up. This is because you still have NOT YET SEEN the CONTRADICTION, ITSELF.
What other contradiction you are talking about?
LOL WHY do you want to LOOK AT and/or DISCUSS "another" contradiction?

I want you to CLEAR UP 'this' contradiction. That is; IF YOU CAN.

THEN we can move onto the 'other' contradictions of YOURS.
I hope that we clear up that conflict in the definition that you consider as a contradiction. What is next?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:44 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:16 am
What other contradiction you are talking about?
LOL WHY do you want to LOOK AT and/or DISCUSS "another" contradiction?

I want you to CLEAR UP 'this' contradiction. That is; IF YOU CAN.

THEN we can move onto the 'other' contradictions of YOURS.
I hope that we clear up that conflict in the definition that you consider as a contradiction. What is next?
I hope that YOU clear that up ALSO.

I am just WAITING patiently until you even START TO.

You OBVIOUSLY are just 'trying' your hardest here to DEFLECT, once again.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:33 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:44 am

LOL WHY do you want to LOOK AT and/or DISCUSS "another" contradiction?

I want you to CLEAR UP 'this' contradiction. That is; IF YOU CAN.

THEN we can move onto the 'other' contradictions of YOURS.
I hope that we clear up that conflict in the definition that you consider as a contradiction. What is next?
I hope that YOU clear that up ALSO.

I am just WAITING patiently until you even START TO.

You OBVIOUSLY are just 'trying' your hardest here to DEFLECT, once again.
Off-topic.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Dimebag »

If mind exists outside of causality, what principles does it use for decisions? If these principles are not causally arrived upon, how else could they be other than random chaos?
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:22 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:16 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:13 am
And I explained several times that there is nothing wrong with what I said. It totally depends on what I mean with "we". Do you remember my explanation?
No.

Will you repeat your, so called, "explanation"?

And, how do 'I' KNOW what 'you' mean by 'we' if you mean different things at different times?
"We" in "we have minds" refers to human beings. "We" in "we are minds" obviously refers to collection of minds.
You’ve just “explained” that humans have minds and a collection of minds are minds.

Your explanation needs to be explained.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 am If mind exists outside of causality, what principles does it use for decisions?
No principle. The mind can even cause an unconditional situation by making a free decision.
Dimebag wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 am If these principles are not causally arrived upon, how else could they be other than random chaos?
You want it, therefore, it is not random. There is an element of wanting in it. That is why you are kept responsible for your actions.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:47 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:22 am
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:16 am No.

Will you repeat your, so called, "explanation"?

And, how do 'I' KNOW what 'you' mean by 'we' if you mean different things at different times?
"We" in "we have minds" refers to human beings. "We" in "we are minds" obviously refers to collection of minds.
You’ve just “explained” that humans have minds and a collection of minds are minds.

Your explanation needs to be explained.
I am a dualist. I think that there are a mind and a body in each agent, human, and animal for example. I think that reality is caused and sustained by the minds. It is through the media of matter (information) that we can communicate with each other. Each mind that is connected to physical needs to have a body to get the information (sensory system) from physical (experience), store information for later use (brain for example), and finally causes and affects reality (the body is needed for this). Let me know if you need further elaboration.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:43 pm
Dimebag wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 am If mind exists outside of causality, what principles does it use for decisions?
No principle. The mind can even cause an unconditional situation by making a free decision.
Dimebag wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 am If these principles are not causally arrived upon, how else could they be other than random chaos?
You want it, therefore, it is not random. There is an element of wanting in it. That is why you are kept responsible for your actions.
But a mind can also be logical. Surely this is an expression of causality, if then statements, etc. That means at minimum, the mind can mimic a logical causally functioning system. But, it may also operate according to other principles according to desires. We would need to determine if those desires were logical and probably causally arrived upon, or not so.

But, desire typically is logical. For example, I desire to eat because I am hungry, I am hungry so as to maintain particular energy levels within the body, which, when those levels go outside certain set points, show as the feeling of hunger, which then trigger in us the need to find food. Now I will admit, we can override those desires, at least once we reach a certain age and maturity of brain development, presumably in the prefrontal cortex which is associated with control and regulation of behaviour. Is this a case of non causal behaviour? I don’t think so, because we learn over time that our immediate desires cannot always be satisfied, for whatever reason, be it that our initial desire is simply not currently available, or maybe our desire doesn’t align with those of for example a parent or authority figure whom we may be beholden to, like your boss or teacher. So the ability to control and change one’s own behaviour is still a case of logical and likely causally consistent behaviour.

Can you give me an example of behaviours which would not be causally determined?

The typical one given is the choice between two equally similar options, which the person has no preference towards either. Obviously it wouldn’t be a case where the person is operating on autopilot, because that is not a case of choice, when we are not aware of our behaviours, so consciousness and awareness are prerequisites for any possible case of free willing.

So imagine a person is put in a white room and told to make a choice between two balls, a blue ball sitting on the left hand side, and a red ball sitting on the right hand side. This particular person has been screened so that they have no preference between blue or red colours, because the experimenters don’t want personal preference to influence the choice, as this would clearly not be an uncaused choice, but would be influenced by colour preference.

Now the problem is, this person also has a handedness, let’s say they are right handed. So they see the ball on the right and somehow this ball seems to have some increased salience and pull to the subject, so they choose the ball on the right.

Now, the experimenters start to notice this pattern of handedness preference, so, they design a different experiment, when they enter the room the balls are placed one above the other, let’s say the blue is placed on top 50% of the time, and the red on top 50% of the time. Now it seems 2/3 of people prefer the ball on top based on the results of their experiment. The experimenters determine that this result seems to coincide with certain “type A” personality traits found on the “OCEAN” personality model, with type A people (more assertive) tending to choose the upper ball almost always compared to non type A personalities, choosing either ball equally.

So now, the experimenters change the experiment again. A person enters a room, and 50% of the time the ball on the left is blue, the other 50% the ball is red. Now it seems, there is still a preference, but it seems to correlate with the particular mood the person is in, with people in a lower mood choosing the blue ball more often, and people in a more positive energetic mood choosing the red ball more often.

So, the experimenters decide to eliminate ball colour altogether, and instead, make both balls white. They label one ball A and one ball b, but, don’t let the participants know which ball is a or b, the label is only visible under a secret UV light which the experimenters have access to. Again, ball A and B are swapped 50% of the time, so as to eliminate handedness preference.

The result is now exactly 50% of people choose ball A (unknowingly) and 50% choose ball B. It seems that now, the participants are choosing completely at random. Now, would you say this is a case of free will? There are two possibilities, to choose for reasons, either known or unknown, or to choose at complete randomness. To choose for reasons, seems to me a case of a causally determined choice. To choose at random seems not to be a case of free will, because if a person has no reason to make a choice, they are not really invested in the choice, and thus there is no motivation to choose, the choice is like flipping a coin, which is random, not choice.

So, choice can either be motivated by reasons, which seem to be a good case of a causally motivated choice, or they can be completely random, which is not free but simply a case of chance. I don’t see any room for “free will” to exist here. Now, there is obviously choice. Choice is just a case where two or more options exist for a possible action. But, actions are always motivated by reasons. If they weren’t, people would far more often break out in completely illogical random behaviour such as saying nonsensical things, or performing strange bodily motions for no reason. Reasons are the causes of behaviour, and thus, are what determines the outcomes of choices. They aren’t random. And if they seem random, that is because we don’t have access to the information of all the causal factors affecting a choice. Furthermore, the person making the choice might also not have access to the reasons motivating their choices. Their mood might affect whether they make one choice vs another and they might not even be aware of this, not to mention all the other previously mentioned reasons which motivate choices. But, suffice to say, there are reasons, and they exist based on causal conditions. So, the outcome of a choice has to be causally determined.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Dimebag wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:11 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:43 pm
Dimebag wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 am If mind exists outside of causality, what principles does it use for decisions?
No principle. The mind can even cause an unconditional situation by making a free decision.
Dimebag wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 am If these principles are not causally arrived upon, how else could they be other than random chaos?
You want it, therefore, it is not random. There is an element of wanting in it. That is why you are kept responsible for your actions.
But a mind can also be logical. Surely this is an expression of causality, if then statements, etc. That means at minimum, the mind can mimic a logical causally functioning system. But, it may also operate according to other principles according to desires. We would need to determine if those desires were logical and probably causally arrived upon, or not so.

But, desire typically is logical. For example, I desire to eat because I am hungry, I am hungry so as to maintain particular energy levels within the body, which, when those levels go outside certain set points, show as the feeling of hunger, which then trigger in us the need to find food. Now I will admit, we can override those desires, at least once we reach a certain age and maturity of brain development, presumably in the prefrontal cortex which is associated with control and regulation of behaviour. Is this a case of non causal behaviour? I don’t think so, because we learn over time that our immediate desires cannot always be satisfied, for whatever reason, be it that our initial desire is simply not currently available, or maybe our desire doesn’t align with those of for example a parent or authority figure whom we may be beholden to, like your boss or teacher. So the ability to control and change one’s own behaviour is still a case of logical and likely causally consistent behaviour.

Can you give me an example of behaviours which would not be causally determined?

The typical one given is the choice between two equally similar options, which the person has no preference towards either. Obviously it wouldn’t be a case where the person is operating on autopilot, because that is not a case of choice, when we are not aware of our behaviours, so consciousness and awareness are prerequisites for any possible case of free willing.

So imagine a person is put in a white room and told to make a choice between two balls, a blue ball sitting on the left hand side, and a red ball sitting on the right hand side. This particular person has been screened so that they have no preference between blue or red colours, because the experimenters don’t want personal preference to influence the choice, as this would clearly not be an uncaused choice, but would be influenced by colour preference.

Now the problem is, this person also has a handedness, let’s say they are right handed. So they see the ball on the right and somehow this ball seems to have some increased salience and pull to the subject, so they choose the ball on the right.

Now, the experimenters start to notice this pattern of handedness preference, so, they design a different experiment, when they enter the room the balls are placed one above the other, let’s say the blue is placed on top 50% of the time, and the red on top 50% of the time. Now it seems 2/3 of people prefer the ball on top based on the results of their experiment. The experimenters determine that this result seems to coincide with certain “type A” personality traits found on the “OCEAN” personality model, with type A people (more assertive) tending to choose the upper ball almost always compared to non type A personalities, choosing either ball equally.

So now, the experimenters change the experiment again. A person enters a room, and 50% of the time the ball on the left is blue, the other 50% the ball is red. Now it seems, there is still a preference, but it seems to correlate with the particular mood the person is in, with people in a lower mood choosing the blue ball more often, and people in a more positive energetic mood choosing the red ball more often.

So, the experimenters decide to eliminate ball colour altogether, and instead, make both balls white. They label one ball A and one ball b, but, don’t let the participants know which ball is a or b, the label is only visible under a secret UV light which the experimenters have access to. Again, ball A and B are swapped 50% of the time, so as to eliminate handedness preference.

The result is now exactly 50% of people choose ball A (unknowingly) and 50% choose ball B. It seems that now, the participants are choosing completely at random. Now, would you say this is a case of free will? There are two possibilities, to choose for reasons, either known or unknown, or to choose at complete randomness. To choose for reasons, seems to me a case of a causally determined choice. To choose at random seems not to be a case of free will, because if a person has no reason to make a choice, they are not really invested in the choice, and thus there is no motivation to choose, the choice is like flipping a coin, which is random, not choice.

So, choice can either be motivated by reasons, which seem to be a good case of a causally motivated choice, or they can be completely random, which is not free but simply a case of chance. I don’t see any room for “free will” to exist here. Now, there is obviously choice. Choice is just a case where two or more options exist for a possible action. But, actions are always motivated by reasons. If they weren’t, people would far more often break out in completely illogical random behaviour such as saying nonsensical things, or performing strange bodily motions for no reason. Reasons are the causes of behaviour, and thus, are what determines the outcomes of choices. They aren’t random. And if they seem random, that is because we don’t have access to the information of all the causal factors affecting a choice. Furthermore, the person making the choice might also not have access to the reasons motivating their choices. Their mood might affect whether they make one choice vs another and they might not even be aware of this, not to mention all the other previously mentioned reasons which motivate choices. But, suffice to say, there are reasons, and they exist based on causal conditions. So, the outcome of a choice has to be causally determined.
You are correct with your observation. The mind can act according to thoughts and feelings too. It gets you from the point of experience and takes you to the point of causation. Therefore, the mind has two abilities, experience and causation. Experience and causation are related when the mind makes the non-free decision. Most of the time we make the non-free decision because most of the situations that we are dealing with are rationally and emotionally investigable. We can give the weight to the options which are available and choose rationally or emotionally. There are situations that the options cannot be investigated emotionally or rationally though. Example? Think of the situation that you are walking along an unknown trail and you don't know which way is the correct way when you reach a fork. The mind cannot find a preferable or right option in here. Yet, we can decide freely and choose one of them. There are lots of other examples. The reality is that most of the time life is about the short forecast of future and deciding and acting accordingly. This makes options very reliable. Longer the term of the forecast is less reliable the options become. There is a point that forecast is not reliable at all yet we need to make a decision. We need to be free otherwise we cannot resolve the situation. So the short answer to you about free will is that it is real since life could become so unreliable yet we need to make the decision.
Post Reply