Mind is free therefore it is immortal

[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.

I have discussed (1) in great depth in another thread but I repeat myself for sake of discussion. By mind being free I mean that the mind can make a free decision in a situation with well-defined options. A free decision then follows to be an unconditional thing meaning that it does not depend on anything else but the mind which creates it so the existence of a free decision depends on the mind only. Therefore, the mind is uncaused caused since otherwise, its very existence would depend on something else, so its decision cannot be unconditional since the free decision is due to the very existence of the mind.

(2) is obvious.

(3) is obviously follow.

To prove (4) one has to look back in time noticing that the mind is not created. If the mind was created instead then there was a moment that the mind did not exist but then is created. This means that by going to the past we observe that the mind is annihilated. This is a process that can be converted which means that one can annihilate a mind. Mind however is uncaused cause therefore it could not have a beginning or be created. Therefore, there is no process that leads to the destruction of the mind since there is no process for the creation of it.

[Dimebag]

If mind is not emergent from matter, then it is separate from matter (I don’t agree with this, but it’s extrapolated from your conclusion). How does mind cause matter to change? I’m talking a human mind now. How does a human mind interact with the matter of the body which leads to behaviours?

You are saying, the mind is an uncaused cause. So, by this you mean, the mind is not effected by anything external to it. All matter is external to it, therefore no matter can effect the mind. How can the mind receive information from the world if that’s the case? Information from the sense organs (matter) must somehow effect the mind. If it doesn’t effect the mind in a causal way, then the mind cannot access that information.

Can you show how the mind could access information from the senses and not be effected, I.e. not be the next link in the causal chain from that information?

How does the mind make decisions if it has no access to information stored in the brain, for instance, memories about past events from which to make a decision? That information is stored somewhere. Storage is a physical thing. You would have to explain how a non physical thing could store information without any storage medium or mechanism.

[jayjacobus]

Neither of the the two above arguments convince me. Here is how I think about the mind:

Perceptual decision making is how our senses make sense and act in the physical world. It is in juxtaposition to forethought which is careful consideration of what may happen in the future.

People need both perceptual decision making and forethought while animals seem to rely on instinct rather then forethought.

But the mind is bound to the body which needs to be cared for. The Soul may be immortal but there is no way to know. But the body is not immortal. So, an immortal mind would not have a body to care for. The freedom of the mind is limited by the body and the immortality of the mind is a hypothesis without any evidence.

[bahman]

If mind is not emergent from matter, then it is separate from matter (I don’t agree with this, but it’s extrapolated from your conclusion). How does mind cause matter to change? I’m talking a human mind now. How does a human mind interact with the matter of the body which leads to behaviours?

Look, there are minds. This is the topic of OP. What you are asking is off topic but I answer that. You need a mediate to allow two minds to communicate, so-called matter. The mind has the ability to experience matter, freely decide, and cause matter. Otherwise, you cannot have a change. I have an argument for this.

You are saying, the mind is an uncaused cause. So, by this you mean, the mind is not effected by anything external to it.

No. I am saying that the mind's existence does not depend on something else.

All matter is external to it, therefore no matter can effect the mind. How can the mind receive information from the world if that’s the case? Information from the sense organs (matter) must somehow effect the mind. If it doesn’t effect the mind in a causal way, then the mind cannot access that information.

Mind simply has the ability to experience matter and cause matter.

Can you show how the mind could access information from the senses and not be effected, I.e. not be the next link in the causal chain from that information?

The is a flow of information from the mind and into the mind. The mind simply can interrupt any chain of causality unconditionally. We are very aware of this. I for example can stop writing you right now.

How does the mind make decisions if it has no access to information stored in the brain, for instance, memories about past events from which to make a decision? That information is stored somewhere. Storage is a physical thing. You would have to explain how a non physical thing could store information without any storage medium or mechanism.

Mind has the access to the information in the brain. Mind experience forms and create forms, such as thought.

[bahman]

Neither of the the two above arguments convince me. Here is how I think about the mind:

Perceptual decision making is how our senses make sense and act in the physical world. It is in juxtaposition to forethought which is careful consideration of what may happen in the future.

People need both perceptual decision making and forethought while animals seem to rely on instinct rather then forethought.

But the mind is bound to the body which needs to be cared for. The Soul may be immortal but there is no way to know. But the body is not immortal. So, an immortal mind would not have a body to care for. The freedom of the mind is limited by the body and the immortality of the mind is a hypothesis without any evidence.

These are your opinion. Why do you disagree with my arguments?

[Dimebag]

Look, there are minds. This is the topic of OP. What you are asking is off topic but I answer that. You need a mediate to allow two minds to communicate, so-called matter. The mind has the ability to experience matter, freely decide, and cause matter. Otherwise, you cannot have a change. I have an argument for this.

I will allow you that there are minds. Whether those minds are just an expression of matter from body, brain, and external stimulus, or whether a mind is separate from those things is a side question, so I’ll leave it here, but, it is still an assumption. I think what you mean here is for two minds to communicate they need a medium, being matter, I would agree with that (though I think it’s all matter, but again, another matter). I think the mind doesn’t experience matter (directly), but rather, internally represents what’s out there inside itself. I think mind (again, in my conception, wholly material) can cause the the body to effect the world, (this is all matter effecting matter in my view, no messy physical to non physical to physical interactions).

Now just because I think mind is just matter, doesn’t mean a mind is the same as all inert matter, it is clearly not, but, at the fundamental level, there is no difference in the “building blocks”.

No. I am saying that the mind's existence does not depend on something else.

And in this way, we differ. I think, and have all reason to believe, that mind is dependent on the matter of the body, in particular configurations, and which has particular biological demands, such as blood flow throughout the brain, which is also laced with oxygen, and energy which the brain consumes so as to maintain its activity to support the mind. The mind requires a network of specifically connected neurons, which allow both the storage of information, and the internal presentation of that information as perception. The actual system of the brain is so fine tuned and so specifically implemented, and is maintained within such precarious balances, that certain fluctuations lead to changes, different “waves” of brain activity lead to different states of the mind, such as wakeful, meditative, sleepy, and, when those parameters go outside certain boundary conditions, activity might be either too high or too low, leading to states such as epileptic fits, or coma, and eventually, brain death, and, as far as anyone can tell, death of the mind.

Mind simply has the ability to experience matter and cause matter.

Is mind separate from matter in your view? If so, how do the two interact?

The is a flow of information from the mind and into the mind. The mind simply can interrupt any chain of causality unconditionally. We are very aware of this. I for example can stop writing you right now.

So you don’t disagree that there is a prior causal chain leading “into” the mind. But, you think that this mind can and does stop these causal chains. Can you propose how such causal chains, which are essentially like dominos falling, knocking over the domino next to it in a “chain”, can be stopped by the mind, which is something other than these structures of matter? What you are proposing is, we could track that chain of causality, into the brain, and would literally see it stop in its tracks, like a domino just not falling over. Or maybe, this domino, which is at the end of this chain, falls over, and somehow, the mind senses this, through some non physical means, not involving matter, particles, etc. No chain of causality leading from the last domino to the mind.

Then, once this mind, which is non physical not made of anything we know of in this material universe, makes a choice, by taking this information from this causal chain of sensory stimulus, into itself, where it works with it non physically, and makes a choice, by a non mechanical means, yet manages to produce just the right result, and now, reaches out to this next “outgoing domino causal chain” which is the body, and with its ghostly fingers, or maybe with its breath, blows, or caresses that first physical domino to now fall, of its own accord, without any physical intervention. Essentially, a miracle happens, for every outgoing causal stirring of the mind. This mind is a miraculous thing, violating all known laws of physics. Isaac Newton would have been amazed, if he could have seen this, in fact, the brain mind interface is such a special configuration such that, it has the ability to exist outside of Newton’s first law, and for not every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Causal chains can literally stop and start in their tracks.

This is what you are committing to with this view.

Now it’s your turn to justify this with something more than self assertion. Some evidence, some logical consistency.

Mind has the access to the information in the brain. Mind experience forms and create forms, such as thought.

How about, mind is the forms, not separate from them. Mind isn’t a container. Mind is the very things which arise.

[Terrapin Station]

Re (1), making a freely-willed decision is just one of many things that minds do. Minds do many other things that may be deterministically caused by other things. For example, mentally registering a pain in your leg may be deterministically caused by a series of events going back to banging your leg into a table.

[bahman]

Look, there are minds. This is the topic of OP. What you are asking is off topic but I answer that. You need a mediate to allow two minds to communicate, so-called matter. The mind has the ability to experience matter, freely decide, and cause matter. Otherwise, you cannot have a change. I have an argument for this.

I will allow you that there are minds. Whether those minds are just an expression of matter from body, brain, and external stimulus, or whether a mind is separate from those things is a side question, so I’ll leave it here, but, it is still an assumption. I think what you mean here is for two minds to communicate they need a medium, being matter, I would agree with that (though I think it’s all matter, but again, another matter). I think the mind doesn’t experience matter (directly), but rather, internally represents what’s out there inside itself. I think mind (again, in my conception, wholly material) can cause the the body to effect the world, (this is all matter effecting matter in my view, no messy physical to non physical to physical interactions).

Now just because I think mind is just matter, doesn’t mean a mind is the same as all inert matter, it is clearly not, but, at the fundamental level, there is no difference in the “building blocks”.

I have to show two things: 1) There is no emergence (so you cannot expect to have a mind as a result of matter activity which I show it in here) and 2) Change in the matter is due to mind (which I proved it in here).

No. I am saying that the mind's existence does not depend on something else.

And in this way, we differ. I think, and have all reason to believe, that mind is dependent on the matter of the body, in particular configurations, and which has particular biological demands, such as blood flow throughout the brain, which is also laced with oxygen, and energy which the brain consumes so as to maintain its activity to support the mind. The mind requires a network of specifically connected neurons, which allow both the storage of information, and the internal presentation of that information as perception. The actual system of the brain is so fine tuned and so specifically implemented, and is maintained within such precarious balances, that certain fluctuations lead to changes, different “waves” of brain activity lead to different states of the mind, such as wakeful, meditative, sleepy, and, when those parameters go outside certain boundary conditions, activity might be either too high or too low, leading to states such as epileptic fits, or coma, and eventually, brain death, and, as far as anyone can tell, death of the mind.

Again there is no emergence.

Mind simply has the ability to experience matter and cause matter.

Is mind separate from matter in your view? If so, how do the two interact?

How does the mind interact with matter in your view? The mind as I mentioned has the ability to experience and cause matter. It is through these, experiencing and causation, that there could be any change.

The is a flow of information from the mind and into the mind. The mind simply can interrupt any chain of causality unconditionally. We are very aware of this. I for example can stop writing you right now.

So you don’t disagree that there is a prior causal chain leading “into” the mind. But, you think that this mind can and does stop these causal chains. Can you propose how such causal chains, which are essentially like dominos falling, knocking over the domino next to it in a “chain”, can be stopped by the mind, which is something other than these structures of matter? What you are proposing is, we could track that chain of causality, into the brain, and would literally see it stop in its tracks, like a domino just not falling over. Or maybe, this domino, which is at the end of this chain, falls over, and somehow, the mind senses this, through some non physical means, not involving matter, particles, etc. No chain of causality leading from the last domino to the mind.

Then, once this mind, which is non physical not made of anything we know of in this material universe, makes a choice, by taking this information from this causal chain of sensory stimulus, into itself, where it works with it non physically, and makes a choice, by a non mechanical means, yet manages to produce just the right result, and now, reaches out to this next “outgoing domino causal chain” which is the body, and with its ghostly fingers, or maybe with its breath, blows, or caresses that first physical domino to now fall, of its own accord, without any physical intervention. Essentially, a miracle happens, for every outgoing causal stirring of the mind. This mind is a miraculous thing, violating all known laws of physics. Isaac Newton would have been amazed, if he could have seen this, in fact, the brain mind interface is such a special configuration such that, it has the ability to exist outside of Newton’s first law, and for not every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Causal chains can literally stop and start in their tracks.

This is what you are committing to with this view.

Now it’s your turn to justify this with something more than self assertion. Some evidence, some logical consistency.

The mind is a separate entity from matter and it is not due to matter activity as I showed in my arguments: There is no emergence and there is a change so there is a mind. The mind is non-physical since as you noticed can break a chain of causality. You cannot have the mind as stated here which is the result of a causal chain and can unconditionally break the other causal chain.

Mind has the access to the information in the brain. Mind experience forms and create forms, such as thought.

How about, mind is the forms, not separate from them. Mind isn’t a container. Mind is the very things which arise.

The mind cannot have forms or parts. That is true since otherwise there would be tension between decisions in parts.

[bahman]

Re (1), making a freely-willed decision is just one of many things that minds do.

Yes, but for the proof, I just need the assumption that the mind is free.

Minds do many other things that may be deterministically caused by other things.

True, such as logical thinking but the mind is not caused by other things as I argued here since something whose existence depends on something else which is deterministic cannot possibly unconditionally breaks a chain of causality such as thinking. I have a separate argument against the emergence and another argument in favor of the mind.

[jayjacobus]

Neither of the the two above arguments convince me. Here is how I think about the mind:

Perceptual decision making is how our senses make sense and act in the physical world. It is in juxtaposition to forethought which is careful consideration of what may happen in the future.

People need both perceptual decision making and forethought while animals seem to rely on instinct rather then forethought.

But the mind is bound to the body which needs to be cared for. The Soul may be immortal but there is no way to know. But the body is not immortal. So, an immortal mind would not have a body to care for. The freedom of the mind is limited by the body and the immortality of the mind is a hypothesis without any evidence.

These are your opinion. Why do you disagree with my arguments?

The mind is needed to care for the body. Without an immortal body, an immortal mind would not have a function.

[Terrapin Station]

since something whose existence depends on something else which is deterministic cannot possibly unconditionally breaks a chain of causality such as thinking.

One has to assume strong determinism (for the physical world) for that view, though.

[bahman]

Neither of the the two above arguments convince me. Here is how I think about the mind:

Perceptual decision making is how our senses make sense and act in the physical world. It is in juxtaposition to forethought which is careful consideration of what may happen in the future.

People need both perceptual decision making and forethought while animals seem to rely on instinct rather then forethought.

But the mind is bound to the body which needs to be cared for. The Soul may be immortal but there is no way to know. But the body is not immortal. So, an immortal mind would not have a body to care for. The freedom of the mind is limited by the body and the immortality of the mind is a hypothesis without any evidence.

These are your opinion. Why do you disagree with my arguments?

The mind is needed to care for the body. Without an immortal body, an immortal mind would not have a function.

I am not talking about mind function but mind existence.

[bahman]

since something whose existence depends on something else which is deterministic cannot possibly unconditionally breaks a chain of causality such as thinking.

One has to assume strong determinism (for the physical world) for that view, though.

So you think that a system that is determined can have a feature such as free decision. In another word, you believe in emergence. I have an argument against that too here.

[Dimebag]

since something whose existence depends on something else which is deterministic cannot possibly unconditionally breaks a chain of causality such as thinking.

One has to assume strong determinism (for the physical world) for that view, though.

So you think that a system that is determined can have a feature such as free decision. In another word, you believe in emergence. I have an argument against that too here.

What if, a person learns consequences of actions (behaviour for age) based on past experience, then when they encounter a similar situation in the future, the normal stimulus response pattern is interrupted by this memory which is basically saying, stop or something bad will happen, so you stop. That is in theory completely deterministic. You are just mistaken about the actual source of will. You are just the observer, sometimes identified with whatever arises. Behaviours, memories, decisions all happen, sometimes when a situation is uncertain, the observer becomes more of a facilitator, allowing wider sections of the brain to contribute to decisions, which feels like we the observer is deciding wilfully, yet it is just passing the messages back and forth between separate brain regions.

[bahman]

One has to assume strong determinism (for the physical world) for that view, though.

So you think that a system that is determined can have a feature such as free decision. In another word, you believe in emergence. I have an argument against that too here.

What if, a person learns consequences of actions (behaviour for age) based on past experience, then when they encounter a similar situation in the future, the normal stimulus response pattern is interrupted by this memory which is basically saying, stop or something bad will happen, so you stop. That is in theory completely deterministic.

Yes, we most of the time follow a chain of causality like when I read your writing. But we have the freedom to go against it.

You are just mistaken about the actual source of will.

I am not mistaken. The source of will is the mind. Why? Because we have free will.

You are just the observer, sometimes identified with whatever arises.

Yes, sometimes I am a mere observer unless for example when I decide freely or when I create a thought.

Behaviours, memories, decisions all happen, sometimes when a situation is uncertain, the observer becomes more of a facilitator, allowing wider sections of the brain to contribute to decisions, which feels like we the observer is deciding wilfully, yet it is just passing the messages back and forth between separate brain regions.

Can you design a deterministic machine that has the ability to decide when the situation is uncertain? Of course, more part of the brain is involved in decision making in an uncertain situation since the mind needs more data to process to overcome the difficult situation. But, what happens when all your life experience cannot tell you how to decide in a given situation? You are still free to pick up any option in spite of the fact that the outcome of options is not known.