Mind is free therefore it is immortal

[bahman]

What is the name of that substance? Mind?

Yes.

Lead is a substance, mind is a substance too?

Yes.

That is, does that immaterial spiritual entity experience the material?

Yes.

The spiritual interacts with the material but the material does not interact with the spiritual ???

The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.

Did your belief in the characteristics of the mind come only from your experience of being a mind?

Yes. I have an argument in favor of mind too.

If there are things that you do not know and are possible, you have factors that limit your freedom. You could have chosen this or that but you do not know of that possibility.

Yes, knowledge is the key to absolute freedom.

My guess is that there are things you don't know and that ignorance limits your decisions.

You are mixing free decision with freedom of will. The first one I already defined and the second one is the ability to do things given the required knowledge.

I do not share your concept of freedom.

I hope things are clear now given the definition of freedom of will and free decision.

If freedom is understood as the mere possibility of acting, then that makes the word meaningless. For the concept to be understandable, the possibility that there is no freedom or that it is limited must be considered.

I don't mean that. When I talk about the free decision I am talking about a situation when options are available and known. Of course, we have limited options as a matter of lack of full knowledge.

A person can always act. Until it ceases to be.

What I am arguing is that you will never cease to be as a matter of having the ability to freely decide.

Freedom is the certain and guaranteed possibility that your natural range of action will not be limited.

Yes, but the range of things we can do is limited because we lack knowledge.

It would be wrong to consider that any natural limitation limits your freedom. It is incorrect to assume that you have lost freedom, by not being able to be transparent. That is not within your natural range of action.

Freedom is affected by other willing agents when their judgment of your actions is different from yours and they limit your range of action. Only.

Your comment is badly edited and this results in my quotes looking like yours!

I am concise and precise. You are commenting on freedom of will but I need the existence of free will for my argument.

In other words, lead and spirit are two types of substances.

Yes, they both exist so they are some sort of substance but different.

They are similar in some respects (you call both substances) and yet they are different (obviously). How are they similar and how are they different?

They are similar in the sense that both exist. The mind has the ability to experience and cause material. Material is the intermediate between two minds. It is like a media between minds.

The material affects the spiritual and at the same time does not affect it ???

The material is incoherent by which I mean it cannot exist coherently without mind. It however exists so the mind can experience it.

If it affects it, it must have an effect on the spiritual and yet it cannot affect it because if it did, it would be a factor in the state of the spirit.

The material doesn't affect spiritual in the sense that it causes it but the mind can experience it because it exists.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge kill free will.

I don't think that it is impossible to know the absolute truth.

[psycho]

Yes.


Yes.


Yes.


The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.


Yes. I have an argument in favor of mind too.


Yes, knowledge is the key to absolute freedom.


You are mixing free decision with freedom of will. The first one I already defined and the second one is the ability to do things given the required knowledge.


I hope things are clear now given the definition of freedom of will and free decision.


I don't mean that. When I talk about the free decision I am talking about a situation when options are available and known. Of course, we have limited options as a matter of lack of full knowledge.


What I am arguing is that you will never cease to be as a matter of having the ability to freely decide.


Yes, but the range of things we can do is limited because we lack knowledge.


I am concise and precise. You are commenting on freedom of will but I need the existence of free will for my argument.

In other words, lead and spirit are two types of substances.

Yes, they both exist so they are some sort of substance but different.

They are similar in some respects (you call both substances) and yet they are different (obviously). How are they similar and how are they different?

They are similar in the sense that both exist. The mind has the ability to experience and cause material. Material is the intermediate between two minds. It is like a media between minds.

The material affects the spiritual and at the same time does not affect it ???

The material is incoherent by which I mean it cannot exist coherently without mind. It however exists so the mind can experience it.

If it affects it, it must have an effect on the spiritual and yet it cannot affect it because if it did, it would be a factor in the state of the spirit.

The material doesn't affect spiritual in the sense that it causes it but the mind can experience it because it exists.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge kill free will.

I don't think that it is impossible to know the absolute truth.

I don't share most of your ideas!

I don't think that the spiritual exists. I think that idea results from a misinterpretation of the human mind.

I do not see possible that the human mind causes the material.

The phrase "The material is incoherent" proves that your idea of ​​the interaction between the spiritual and the material is not coherent.

Absolute knowledge implies that the interpretation that you give to a certain phenomenon will not be effectively contradicted by anyone or anything, in any place or time in the universe.

[Dimebag]

The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.

Is experiencing a passive or active thing? That is, does information from the exterior come to and meet the spiritual? Or does the spiritual “reach out and grab” information about the exterior, in your view?

You have mentioned that spiritual can affect physical substance. Why then, could physical not affect spiritual substance? Seems far more logical. But, it seems to violate the sense in which this spiritual substance creates its own destiny, so, you disregard that on purely ideological grounds, because you hold free will as axiomatic, and thus are trying to prove it in reverse. Not very good way of reaching an accurate picture of reality.

It also means, conveniently for you, inconvenient for anyone else who wants to confirm your theory, that mind is undetectable through physical measurement.

Much like dark matter, it seems to affect matter, yet, matter doesn’t seem to affect it, and thus can not detect it through any direct means. It can only be inferred.

Yet, unlike dark matter, we know it directly, because we ARE it, or at least, a particular subset of mind, the subset which is conscious.

What I would like to know from you is, for actions that are reflexive, and seemingly unconscious, are these freely willed actions too? Is mind even involved in these actions in your view? There are obvious cases where information seems to be at play, and thus, a mind must be required, yet there is no room for conscious intervention. Where does consciousness fit into your conception of free will? Can there be behaviours that aren’t willed, reflexive behaviours? If not, how do you account for the countless behaviours that occur without our conscious noticing? How about flow states, where we seemingly don’t even produce our actions with intent, they seem to occur and we seem to be along for the ride, just observing our body reacting? Your model must account for ALL instances of mind, not just those which align with what you are trying to prove, free will. Do you think free will is a constant state of the mind? Or are there simply cases of it, punctuated by instances no potential for free will?

[bahman]

In other words, lead and spirit are two types of substances.

Yes, they both exist so they are some sort of substance but different.

They are similar in some respects (you call both substances) and yet they are different (obviously). How are they similar and how are they different?

They are similar in the sense that both exist. The mind has the ability to experience and cause material. Material is the intermediate between two minds. It is like a media between minds.

The material affects the spiritual and at the same time does not affect it ???

The material is incoherent by which I mean it cannot exist coherently without mind. It however exists so the mind can experience it.

If it affects it, it must have an effect on the spiritual and yet it cannot affect it because if it did, it would be a factor in the state of the spirit.

The material doesn't affect spiritual in the sense that it causes it but the mind can experience it because it exists.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge kill free will.

I don't think that it is impossible to know the absolute truth.

I don't share most of your ideas!

They are not just ideas. I have arguments for each.

I don't think that the spiritual exists. I think that idea results from a misinterpretation of the human mind.

I do not see possible that the human mind causes the material.

It does. Thoughts for example. Movement of your body is a way of causation too.

The phrase "The material is incoherent" proves that your idea of ​​the interaction between the spiritual and the material is not coherent.

It is through the interaction between minds that material is materialized and gets coherent. For example, the mental exchange that we have.

Absolute knowledge implies that the interpretation that you give to a certain phenomenon will not be effectively contradicted by anyone or anything, in any place or time in the universe.

Absolute knowledge is the set of true propositions that part of them explain our reality well.

[psycho]

The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.

Is experiencing a passive or active thing? That is, does information from the exterior come to and meet the spiritual? Or does the spiritual “reach out and grab” information about the exterior, in your view?

You have mentioned that spiritual can affect physical substance. Why then, could physical not affect spiritual substance? Seems far more logical. But, it seems to violate the sense in which this spiritual substance creates its own destiny, so, you disregard that on purely ideological grounds, because you hold free will as axiomatic, and thus are trying to prove it in reverse. Not very good way of reaching an accurate picture of reality.

It also means, conveniently for you, inconvenient for anyone else who wants to confirm your theory, that mind is undetectable through physical measurement.

Much like dark matter, it seems to affect matter, yet, matter doesn’t seem to affect it, and thus can not detect it through any direct means. It can only be inferred.

Yet, unlike dark matter, we know it directly, because we ARE it, or at least, a particular subset of mind, the subset which is conscious.

What I would like to know from you is, for actions that are reflexive, and seemingly unconscious, are these freely willed actions too? Is mind even involved in these actions in your view? There are obvious cases where information seems to be at play, and thus, a mind must be required, yet there is no room for conscious intervention. Where does consciousness fit into your conception of free will? Can there be behaviours that aren’t willed, reflexive behaviours? If not, how do you account for the countless behaviours that occur without our conscious noticing? How about flow states, where we seemingly don’t even produce our actions with intent, they seem to occur and we seem to be along for the ride, just observing our body reacting? Your model must account for ALL instances of mind, not just those which align with what you are trying to prove, free will. Do you think free will is a constant state of the mind? Or are there simply cases of it, punctuated by instances no potential for free will?

This is my actual quote:

In other words, lead and spirit are two types of substances. They are similar in some respects (you call both substances) and yet they are different (obviously). How are they similar and how are they different?

The material affects the spiritual and at the same time does not affect it ???

If it affects it, it must have an effect on the spiritual and yet it cannot affect it because if it did, it would be a factor in the state of the spirit.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge kill free will.

Do not edit my posts and falsifying my comments.

[Dimebag]

The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.

Is experiencing a passive or active thing? That is, does information from the exterior come to and meet the spiritual? Or does the spiritual “reach out and grab” information about the exterior, in your view?

You have mentioned that spiritual can affect physical substance. Why then, could physical not affect spiritual substance? Seems far more logical. But, it seems to violate the sense in which this spiritual substance creates its own destiny, so, you disregard that on purely ideological grounds, because you hold free will as axiomatic, and thus are trying to prove it in reverse. Not very good way of reaching an accurate picture of reality.

It also means, conveniently for you, inconvenient for anyone else who wants to confirm your theory, that mind is undetectable through physical measurement.

Much like dark matter, it seems to affect matter, yet, matter doesn’t seem to affect it, and thus can not detect it through any direct means. It can only be inferred.

Yet, unlike dark matter, we know it directly, because we ARE it, or at least, a particular subset of mind, the subset which is conscious.

What I would like to know from you is, for actions that are reflexive, and seemingly unconscious, are these freely willed actions too? Is mind even involved in these actions in your view? There are obvious cases where information seems to be at play, and thus, a mind must be required, yet there is no room for conscious intervention. Where does consciousness fit into your conception of free will? Can there be behaviours that aren’t willed, reflexive behaviours? If not, how do you account for the countless behaviours that occur without our conscious noticing? How about flow states, where we seemingly don’t even produce our actions with intent, they seem to occur and we seem to be along for the ride, just observing our body reacting? Your model must account for ALL instances of mind, not just those which align with what you are trying to prove, free will. Do you think free will is a constant state of the mind? Or are there simply cases of it, punctuated by instances no potential for free will?

This is my actual quote:

In other words, lead and spirit are two types of substances. They are similar in some respects (you call both substances) and yet they are different (obviously). How are they similar and how are they different?

The material affects the spiritual and at the same time does not affect it ???

If it affects it, it must have an effect on the spiritual and yet it cannot affect it because if it did, it would be a factor in the state of the spirit.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge kill free will.

Do not edit my posts and falsifying my comments.

Apologies, it was not you that made that quote but Bahman, and thus who I was responding to, there was a problem when I used the quote function, I will attempt to edit it, the post I was responding to was this one:

viewtopic.php?p=493270&sid=6dafdd8a25f5 ... 5f#p493270

[Dimebag]

The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.

Is experiencing a passive or active thing? That is, does information from the exterior come to and meet the spiritual? Or does the spiritual “reach out and grab” information about the exterior, in your view?

You have mentioned that spiritual can affect physical substance. Why then, could physical not affect spiritual substance? Seems far more logical. But, it seems to violate the sense in which this spiritual substance creates its own destiny, so, you disregard that on purely ideological grounds, because you hold free will as axiomatic, and thus are trying to prove it in reverse. Not very good way of reaching an accurate picture of reality.

It also means, conveniently for you, inconvenient for anyone else who wants to confirm your theory, that mind is undetectable through physical measurement.

Much like dark matter, it seems to affect matter, yet, matter doesn’t seem to affect it, and thus can not detect it through any direct means. It can only be inferred.

Yet, unlike dark matter, we know it directly, because we ARE it, or at least, a particular subset of mind, the subset which is conscious.

What I would like to know from you is, for actions that are reflexive, and seemingly unconscious, are these freely willed actions too? Is mind even involved in these actions in your view? There are obvious cases where information seems to be at play, and thus, a mind must be required, yet there is no room for conscious intervention. Where does consciousness fit into your conception of free will? Can there be behaviours that aren’t willed, reflexive behaviours? If not, how do you account for the countless behaviours that occur without our conscious noticing? How about flow states, where we seemingly don’t even produce our actions with intent, they seem to occur and we seem to be along for the ride, just observing our body reacting? Your model must account for ALL instances of mind, not just those which align with what you are trying to prove, free will. Do you think free will is a constant state of the mind? Or are there simply cases of it, punctuated by instances no potential for free will?

[bahman]

These are off topics but I will answer them the best I can.

The spiritual affects material. The spiritual also experiences material. It is through these two that minds can interact.

Is experiencing a passive or active thing?

Experience is passive by which I mean that mind is not conditioned by the only experience but it can decide how to respond to the experience.

That is, does information from the exterior come to and meet the spiritual? Or does the spiritual “reach out and grab” information about the exterior, in your view?

The mind simply experiences physical. What is the function of the sensory system?, why mind experience limited things?, etc. are subject of extensive discussion.

You have mentioned that spiritual can affect physical substance. Why then, could physical not affect spiritual substance?

By to affect in here I mean to cause. Mind, however, experiences the physical. The opposite is not true.

Seems far more logical. But, it seems to violate the sense in which this spiritual substance creates its own destiny, so, you disregard that on purely ideological grounds, because you hold free will as axiomatic, and thus are trying to prove it in reverse. Not very good way of reaching an accurate picture of reality.

I accept the free will as granted and show that the mind is immortal as it is reflected in OP.

It also means, conveniently for you, inconvenient for anyone else who wants to confirm your theory, that mind is undetectable through physical measurement.

The mind is not detectable directly but its effect which is the coherence in physical can be understood and measured.

Much like dark matter, it seems to affect matter, yet, matter doesn’t seem to affect it, and thus can not detect it through any direct means. It can only be inferred.

Yes.

Yet, unlike dark matter, we know it directly, because we ARE it, or at least, a particular subset of mind, the subset which is conscious.

All minds are conscious.

What I would like to know from you is, for actions that are reflexive, and seemingly unconscious, are these freely willed actions too?

There is a conscious mind involved in any coherent action. I however don't know how many minds are involved in each body.

Is mind even involved in these actions in your view?

Yes, a conscious mind.

There are obvious cases where information seems to be at play, and thus, a mind must be required, yet there is no room for conscious intervention.

You are talking about the rational mind I think. There are other minds that in control of your body but the rational mind does not have access to them directly.

Where does consciousness fit into your conception of free will?

Consciousness is a state the mind experiences. It is required for the mind to function.

Can there be behaviours that aren’t willed, reflexive behaviours?

No. There are minds which are in charge of reflex, digestion, etc.

If not, how do you account for the countless behaviours that occur without our conscious noticing?

You are talking about the rational mind.

How about flow states, where we seemingly don’t even produce our actions with intent, they seem to occur and we seem to be along for the ride, just observing our body reacting? Your model must account for ALL instances of mind, not just those which align with what you are trying to prove, free will.

There is a mind for any coherent change.

Do you think free will is a constant state of the mind? Or are there simply cases of it, punctuated by instances no potential for free will?

Free will comes to play in many situations when for example you are not aware of the outcome of your choices.

[psycho]

Is experiencing a passive or active thing? That is, does information from the exterior come to and meet the spiritual? Or does the spiritual “reach out and grab” information about the exterior, in your view?

You have mentioned that spiritual can affect physical substance. Why then, could physical not affect spiritual substance? Seems far more logical. But, it seems to violate the sense in which this spiritual substance creates its own destiny, so, you disregard that on purely ideological grounds, because you hold free will as axiomatic, and thus are trying to prove it in reverse. Not very good way of reaching an accurate picture of reality.

It also means, conveniently for you, inconvenient for anyone else who wants to confirm your theory, that mind is undetectable through physical measurement.

Much like dark matter, it seems to affect matter, yet, matter doesn’t seem to affect it, and thus can not detect it through any direct means. It can only be inferred.

Yet, unlike dark matter, we know it directly, because we ARE it, or at least, a particular subset of mind, the subset which is conscious.

What I would like to know from you is, for actions that are reflexive, and seemingly unconscious, are these freely willed actions too? Is mind even involved in these actions in your view? There are obvious cases where information seems to be at play, and thus, a mind must be required, yet there is no room for conscious intervention. Where does consciousness fit into your conception of free will? Can there be behaviours that aren’t willed, reflexive behaviours? If not, how do you account for the countless behaviours that occur without our conscious noticing? How about flow states, where we seemingly don’t even produce our actions with intent, they seem to occur and we seem to be along for the ride, just observing our body reacting? Your model must account for ALL instances of mind, not just those which align with what you are trying to prove, free will. Do you think free will is a constant state of the mind? Or are there simply cases of it, punctuated by instances no potential for free will?

This is my actual quote:

In other words, lead and spirit are two types of substances. They are similar in some respects (you call both substances) and yet they are different (obviously). How are they similar and how are they different?

The material affects the spiritual and at the same time does not affect it ???

If it affects it, it must have an effect on the spiritual and yet it cannot affect it because if it did, it would be a factor in the state of the spirit.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge kill free will.

Do not edit my posts and falsifying my comments.

Apologies, it was not you that made that quote but Bahman, and thus who I was responding to, there was a problem when I used the quote function, I will attempt to edit it, the post I was responding to was this one:

viewtopic.php?p=493270&sid=6dafdd8a25f5 ... 5f#p493270

No problem

[commonsense]

So I have to prove four things given that the mind is free to reach the conclusion: 1) The mind is free therefore it is the uncaused cause, 2) The mind is the uncaused cause means that its existence does not depend on something else, 3) Therefore, the mind is not created either, and 4) Therefore the mind cannot be destroyed.

If the mind is free, then, as you point out elsewhere in this thread, it is truly independent of the body. Being independent, mind could exist anywhere.

In existing anywhere, mind could actually depart from a body at will, entering another body at any time.

An arrangement of cohabitation of this kind does not occur. Aside from disease states, 2 or more minds do not exist in 1 body. Mind is restricted in that way. A restricted mind is not free.

An unrestricted mind, outside of any body, is not known to exist. A free-floating independent mind, associated with no body, cannot be known to exist.

While entertaining the thought that an argument different than the OP’s might support the title of the thread, I reject the particular argument presented for the existence of immortal mind.

[bahman]

So I have to prove four things given that the mind is free to reach the conclusion: 1) The mind is free therefore it is the uncaused cause, 2) The mind is the uncaused cause means that its existence does not depend on something else, 3) Therefore, the mind is not created either, and 4) Therefore the mind cannot be destroyed.

If the mind is free, then, as you point out elsewhere in this thread, it is truly independent of the body. Being independent, mind could exist anywhere.

In existing anywhere, mind could actually depart from a body at will, entering another body at any time.

An arrangement of cohabitation of this kind does not occur. Aside from disease states, 2 or more minds do not exist in 1 body. Mind is restricted in that way. A restricted mind is not free.

An unrestricted mind, outside of any body, is not known to exist. A free-floating independent mind, associated with no body, cannot be known to exist.

While entertaining the thought that an argument different than the OP’s might support the title of the thread, I reject the particular argument presented for the existence of immortal mind.

You have a dead body if both conscious and subconscious minds leave the body. Where do they go? Another layer of reality if there is any. Otherwise, detached from reality waiting for the time to attach again.

[commonsense]

But you can’t have a dead body if your free and independent mind leaves your body. That would only happen if the mind and body are associated. And that would be a further restriction, I.e. the fact that mind cannot leave without causing the death of the body.

[bahman]

But you can’t have a dead body if your free and independent mind leaves your body. That would only happen if the mind and body are associated.

The mind and body obviously associated when the person is alive.

And that would be a further restriction, I.e. the fact that mind cannot leave without causing the death of the body.

Have you ever had out of body experience? I had.

[commonsense]

So mind is associated, rather than free, and it is immortal once body dies. There are many who enthusiastically agree.

[bahman]

So mind is associated, rather than free, and it is immortal once body dies. There are many who enthusiastically agree.

By associate, I mean that it perceives data that a body provides. It affects the same body too. The mind is always immortal.