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

Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Dimebag »

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:08 pm
Dimebag wrote:
bahman wrote:
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.
Dimebag wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:38 pm 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.
Dimebag wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:38 pm 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.
Dimebag wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:38 pm 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.
When we encounter the unknown, we seek help, usually of someone with more experience. We are social beings with the ability to communicate concepts and transfer knowledge about the unknown. Another thing we can do is investigate carefully, taking what we know and extrapolating similar things to a new situation. Because our ability to imagine possibilities and consequences of behaviours gives us insights into the unknown, once a brain is sufficiently experienced it can do this to carefully learn about an unknown without getting into trouble.

Furthermore, if we still don’t know what to do, we can sometimes try what worked previously, and observe the result, updating our model of the problem and hypothesising a better solution.

This is all theoretically possible deterministically. Once you allow the imagination of the future, you artificially create the ability to choose between imagined futures, when the reality is, there is nothing nondeterministic about it.
Last edited by Dimebag on Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:32 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:08 pm [quote=Dimebag post_id=492771 time=<a href="tel:1611693508">1611693508</a> user_id=5396]
[quote=bahman post_id=492768 time=<a href="tel:1611692348">1611692348</a> user_id=12593]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=492685 time=<a href="tel:1611668191">1611668191</a> user_id=12582]

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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=Dimebag post_id=492771 time=<a href="tel:1611693508">1611693508</a> user_id=5396]
You are just mistaken about the actual source of will.
[/quote]
I am not mistaken. The source of will is the mind. Why? Because we have free will.

[quote=Dimebag post_id=492771 time=<a href="tel:1611693508">1611693508</a> user_id=5396]
You are just the observer, sometimes identified with whatever arises.
[/quote]
Yes, sometimes I am a mere observer unless for example when I decide freely or when I create a thought.

[quote=Dimebag post_id=492771 time=<a href="tel:1611693508">1611693508</a> user_id=5396]
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.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
When we encounter the unknown, we seek help, usually of someone with more experience. We are social beings with the ability to communicate concepts and transfer knowledge about the unknown. Another thing we can do is investigate carefully, taking what we know and extrapolating similar things to a new situation. Because our ability to imagine possibilities and consequences of behaviours gives us insights into the unknown, once a brain is sufficiently experienced it can do this to carefully learn about an unknown without getting into trouble.

Furthermore, if we still don’t know what to do, we can sometimes try what worked previously, and observe the result, updating our model of the problem and hypothesising a better solution.

This is all theoretically possible deterministically. Once you allow the imagination of the future, you artificially create the ability to choose between imagined futures, when the reality is, there is nothing nondeterministic about it.
[/quote]

Could you please organize your reply so I can answer it?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:19 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:36 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:45 am 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.
I don't buy strong determinism in general. Is any system deterministic in the way you're assuming? I don't think there are good reasons to believe this.

My view doesn't have anything to do with emergentism.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:06 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:19 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:36 pm
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.
I don't buy strong determinism in general. Is any system deterministic in the way you're assuming?
There is no deterministic system since the mind always intervenes. The free decision cannot be known so from the third point perspective it looks like white noise.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:06 pm I don't think there are good reasons to believe this.
I don't think either. You cannot even know what you are going to do in the long term because of the ambiguity of the future. How could you be determisitic?
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:06 pm My view doesn't have anything to do with emergentism.
So, do you agree on the existence of an entity that free decide? It then follows that it is immortal.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:26 pm There is no deterministic system since the mind always intervenes.
You just wrote "So you think that a system that is determined . . . " What is a system that is determined if there is no deterministic system?

Anyway, you're also saying that you're an idealist or something? Do you not think that there were systems prior to the existence of persons?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:26 pm There is no deterministic system since the mind always intervenes.
You just wrote "So you think that a system that is determined . . . " What is a system that is determined if there is no deterministic system?
A system that you can forecast the far future.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm Anyway, you're also saying that you're an idealist or something? Do you not think that there were systems prior to the existence of persons?
I am a dualist. I think there could be a reality without a mind but that could not be coherent.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:26 pm There is no deterministic system since the mind always intervenes.
You just wrote "So you think that a system that is determined . . . " What is a system that is determined if there is no deterministic system?
A system that you can forecast the far future.
And what would the difference be between that and a deterministic system in your view?
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm Anyway, you're also saying that you're an idealist or something? Do you not think that there were systems prior to the existence of persons?
I am a dualist. I think there could be a reality without a mind but that could not be coherent.
Wait--so you think there could be something that's not coherent? (lol) Or you're just saying that you think there could be a reality without a mind, but you're not sure if the idea is coherent, and if it's not, then it couldn't obtain?

In my view, there's not the slighest question re whether there's a reality without minds. I don't know how anyone would seriously doubt this. I've never been convinced that people doubting it aren't either trolling or simply crazy.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:22 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm
You just wrote "So you think that a system that is determined . . . " What is a system that is determined if there is no deterministic system?
A system that you can forecast the far future.
And what would the difference be between that and a deterministic system in your view?
No difference.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm Anyway, you're also saying that you're an idealist or something? Do you not think that there were systems prior to the existence of persons?
I am a dualist. I think there could be a reality without a mind but that could not be coherent.
Wait--so you think there could be something that's not coherent? (lol) Or you're just saying that you think there could be a reality without a mind, but you're not sure if the idea is coherent, and if it's not, then it couldn't obtain?

In my view, there's not the slighest question re whether there's a reality without minds. I don't know how anyone would seriously doubt this. I've never been convinced that people doubting it aren't either trolling or simply crazy.
The story is long. But the point is that something does turn into noting and vise versa always. Without this process, you cannot have any change. Such a reality is however incoherent without mind.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:22 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:55 pm
A system that you can forecast the far future.
And what would the difference be between that and a deterministic system in your view?
No difference.
Then why did you write "There is no deterministic system"?
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm

I am a dualist. I think there could be a reality without a mind but that could not be coherent.
Wait--so you think there could be something that's not coherent? (lol) Or you're just saying that you think there could be a reality without a mind, but you're not sure if the idea is coherent, and if it's not, then it couldn't obtain?

In my view, there's not the slighest question re whether there's a reality without minds. I don't know how anyone would seriously doubt this. I've never been convinced that people doubting it aren't either trolling or simply crazy.
The story is long. But the point is that something does turn into noting and vise versa always. Without this process, you cannot have any change. Such a reality is however incoherent without mind.
That's extremely vague to me and it seems rather arbitrary.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:57 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:22 pm
And what would the difference be between that and a deterministic system in your view?
No difference.
Then why did you write "There is no deterministic system"?
Well, determinism is an approximation of reality, just for the short term. There would be nothing coherent in reality if there was no determinism.
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:22 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:37 pm
Wait--so you think there could be something that's not coherent? (lol) Or you're just saying that you think there could be a reality without a mind, but you're not sure if the idea is coherent, and if it's not, then it couldn't obtain?

In my view, there's not the slighest question re whether there's a reality without minds. I don't know how anyone would seriously doubt this. I've never been convinced that people doubting it aren't either trolling or simply crazy.
The story is long. But the point is that something does turn into noting and vise versa always. Without this process, you cannot have any change. Such a reality is however incoherent without mind.
That's extremely vague to me and it seems rather arbitrary.
I have no argument against it so it is a possibility.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by psycho »

bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am 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.
"The mind is free" needs to define mind and to specify what freedom means.

If one understands that the mind is an immaterial entity that acts in reality, one might suppose that the mind is not governed by reality.

But whoever proposes an immaterial entity (a spirit) does not explain anything of its nature. It does not clarify what its parts are (if it has them), how it works (in the case of being complex or simple), what is its interface with reality, etc.

To say only that the mind is a spirit is to rule out any possibility of analysis of the mind.

So later it becomes difficult to attribute freedom to it.

If the mind is dependent on real entities, it cannot be free.

If by freedom we understand lack of restrictions or conditions in its natural exercise.

For me the concept of freedom is an idea that only makes sense socially.

A person alone is not free. A person within a society may or may not be free.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

psycho wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:16 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am 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.
"The mind is free" needs to define mind and to specify what freedom means.
By mind, I mean a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. By freely decide I mean that it unconditionally can choose between at least two options.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If one understands that the mind is an immaterial entity that acts in reality, one might suppose that the mind is not governed by reality.
Yes. And something that its very existence does not depend on anything is uncaused.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am But whoever proposes an immaterial entity (a spirit) does not explain anything of its nature. It does not clarify what its parts are (if it has them), how it works (in the case of being complex or simple), what is its interface with reality, etc.
Its nature is minimally the ability to experience (physical), freely decide, and cause (physical). It experiences the physical directly. It causes it too. Physical is the substance.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am To say only that the mind is a spirit is to rule out any possibility of analysis of the mind.
You cannot analyze a mind when it freely decides. There is no model for that.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am So later it becomes difficult to attribute freedom to it.
There is no model for mind when it comes to freedom.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If the mind is dependent on real entities, it cannot be free.
True.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If by freedom we understand lack of restrictions or conditions in its natural exercise.
Yes.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am For me the concept of freedom is an idea that only makes sense socially.
Why society?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am A person alone is not free. A person within a society may or may not be free.
That is not correct. The freedom is the very intrisic part of mind. It is part of its nature.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by psycho »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:24 pm
psycho wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:16 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am 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.
"The mind is free" needs to define mind and to specify what freedom means.
By mind, I mean a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. By freely decide I mean that it unconditionally can choose between at least two options.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If one understands that the mind is an immaterial entity that acts in reality, one might suppose that the mind is not governed by reality.
Yes. And something that its very existence does not depend on anything is uncaused.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am But whoever proposes an immaterial entity (a spirit) does not explain anything of its nature. It does not clarify what its parts are (if it has them), how it works (in the case of being complex or simple), what is its interface with reality, etc.
Its nature is minimally the ability to experience (physical), freely decide, and cause (physical). It experiences the physical directly. It causes it too. Physical is the substance.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am To say only that the mind is a spirit is to rule out any possibility of analysis of the mind.
You cannot analyze a mind when it freely decides. There is no model for that.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am So later it becomes difficult to attribute freedom to it.
There is no model for mind when it comes to freedom.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If the mind is dependent on real entities, it cannot be free.
True.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If by freedom we understand lack of restrictions or conditions in its natural exercise.
Yes.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am For me the concept of freedom is an idea that only makes sense socially.
Why society?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am A person alone is not free. A person within a society may or may not be free.
That is not correct. The freedom is the very intrisic part of mind. It is part of its nature.
What is the name of that substance? Mind? Lead is a substance, mind is a substance too?

That is, does that immaterial spiritual entity experience the material? The spiritual interacts with the material but the material does not interact with the spiritual ???

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

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.

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

I do not share your concept of freedom.

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.

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

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

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!
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by bahman »

psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:24 pm
psycho wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:16 pm
"The mind is free" needs to define mind and to specify what freedom means.
By mind, I mean a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. By freely decide I mean that it unconditionally can choose between at least two options.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If one understands that the mind is an immaterial entity that acts in reality, one might suppose that the mind is not governed by reality.
Yes. And something that its very existence does not depend on anything is uncaused.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am But whoever proposes an immaterial entity (a spirit) does not explain anything of its nature. It does not clarify what its parts are (if it has them), how it works (in the case of being complex or simple), what is its interface with reality, etc.
Its nature is minimally the ability to experience (physical), freely decide, and cause (physical). It experiences the physical directly. It causes it too. Physical is the substance.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am To say only that the mind is a spirit is to rule out any possibility of analysis of the mind.
You cannot analyze a mind when it freely decides. There is no model for that.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am So later it becomes difficult to attribute freedom to it.
There is no model for mind when it comes to freedom.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If the mind is dependent on real entities, it cannot be free.
True.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am If by freedom we understand lack of restrictions or conditions in its natural exercise.
Yes.
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am For me the concept of freedom is an idea that only makes sense socially.
Why society?
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:40 am A person alone is not free. A person within a society may or may not be free.
That is not correct. The freedom is the very intrisic part of mind. It is part of its nature.
What is the name of that substance? Mind?
Yes.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm Lead is a substance, mind is a substance too?
Yes.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm That is, does that immaterial spiritual entity experience the material?
Yes.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm I do not share your concept of freedom.
I hope things are clear now given the definition of freedom of will and free decision.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Mind is free therefore it is immortal

Post by psycho »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:49 pm
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:24 pm
By mind, I mean a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. By freely decide I mean that it unconditionally can choose between at least two options.


Yes. And something that its very existence does not depend on anything is uncaused.


Its nature is minimally the ability to experience (physical), freely decide, and cause (physical). It experiences the physical directly. It causes it too. Physical is the substance.


You cannot analyze a mind when it freely decides. There is no model for that.


There is no model for mind when it comes to freedom.


True.


Yes.


Why society?


That is not correct. The freedom is the very intrisic part of mind. It is part of its nature.
What is the name of that substance? Mind?
Yes.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm Lead is a substance, mind is a substance too?
Yes.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm That is, does that immaterial spiritual entity experience the material?
Yes.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm I do not share your concept of freedom.
I hope things are clear now given the definition of freedom of will and free decision.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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.
psycho wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:53 pm 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. 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.
Post Reply