Mind is uncaused cause

[Dimebag]

You would have to provide some examples here, and then these examples would have to suffice for EVERY thing else also.

Of course, there are some 'things' 'we', as a human being, can FREELY choose to want, and there are some 'things' that 'we' can NOT and do NOT FREELY choose to want.

For example, the innate WANT to live in Peace and in Harmony with EVERY one, which we are ALL born with, is NOT what 'we' chose to want, 'in the beginning'. (Or, did 'we'?) This could only be Truly KNOWN once 'we' can answer the question, 'Who are 'we'?' properly AND correctly, and for ONCE and for ALL.

For the things which we freely choose to want, how do we arrive at those choices? Maybe at the moment of choice by means of degrees of freedom, but the causes of the choices of what we want must always have some causal chain which leads back to something external to us, be it some experience which forms an interest, which then guides a choice, or maybe some personality trait which was never chosen by us, but which was some result of a combination of environment and genetic inheritance.

To me, this example is of and from a VERY narrowed and short sighted view of things.

The female gender of the species human being have been 'walking freely' for millions of years without ANY such "issue" as you have portrayed here.

I merely describe the reality that is the tendency of males to want to seek females without their consent.

Today it is accepted that women have a right to not be advanced upon from all sides by males, and I know it was not always the case throughout history, but it was the case that violence usually ensued when the eventual conflict occurs between males over females. And because our society has deemed it inappropriate for people to engage in violence to settle disputes, it is now necessary to keep these tendencies in check. Thus the threat of “violence” or law, ensures rules are maintained even when the ones who would enforce those laws aren’t present. This seems to make for a more orderly society, and furthermore, one which is much easier to control, as they aren’t used to engaging in violence.

This has not always been the case.

the way, the word 'actions' here does NOT fit in PERFECTLY with 'this' NOR with the BIG Picture of ALL-OF-THIS. But this is such a minor thing for now to even be concerned with at all. And, your use of the words, "our tendency for our "minds" to wander means ...", is just ANOTHER attempt at NOT taking FULL RESPONSIBILITY and of just TRYING TO blame some 'thing' else for our OWN behavior.

Saying, 'our' tendency and 'our' "mind" is just TRYING TO blame NOT 'us', "ourselves", but some 'thing' OTHER 'thing' than 'us', for OUR OWN DOING.

You seem very hung up on the responsibility of the individual. Can you please explain to me how your view of responsibility meshes with your view of consciousness? If we are not the first cause of our actions (or whatever word you prefer), but causal chains do indeed contribute to the way our choices happen, at what point to we assign responsibility for said choices and thus actions (again, not sure what other word to use, happenings maybe?)

Aren’t we just along for the ride? I thought we agreed on this? If that’s the case, who is the one who is choosing?

[Age]

You would have to provide some examples here, and then these examples would have to suffice for EVERY thing else also.

Of course, there are some 'things' 'we', as a human being, can FREELY choose to want, and there are some 'things' that 'we' can NOT and do NOT FREELY choose to want.

For example, the innate WANT to live in Peace and in Harmony with EVERY one, which we are ALL born with, is NOT what 'we' chose to want, 'in the beginning'. (Or, did 'we'?) This could only be Truly KNOWN once 'we' can answer the question, 'Who are 'we'?' properly AND correctly, and for ONCE and for ALL.

For the things which we freely choose to want, how do we arrive at those choices? Maybe at the moment of choice by means of degrees of freedom, but the causes of the choices of what we want must always have some causal chain which leads back to something external to us, be it some experience which forms an interest, which then guides a choice, or maybe some personality trait which was never chosen by us, but which was some result of a combination of environment and genetic inheritance.

Okay. But, to me, 'free will' still refers to the ABILITY to choose, and 'determinism' still refers to the rest like you have expressed here.

To me, this example is of and from a VERY narrowed and short sighted view of things.

The female gender of the species human being have been 'walking freely' for millions of years without ANY such "issue" as you have portrayed here.

I merely describe the reality that is the tendency of males to want to seek females without their consent.

I am NOT sure WHERE EXACTLY you are getting this view from.

Are you of the male gender? And if yes, do you have a tendency to want to seek females without their consent? If yes, then do you think or believe that this tendency is a reality for ALL of the male gender?

If no to ANY of these, then WHERE EXACTLY did you get your view from that the 'reality' is there is a tendency in males to seek females without their consent from?

Today it is accepted that women have a right to not be advanced upon from all sides by males, and I know it was not always the case throughout history, but it was the case that violence usually ensued when the eventual conflict occurs between males over females. And because our society has deemed it inappropriate for people to engage in violence to settle disputes, it is now necessary to keep these tendencies in check.

Well we have VERY DIFFERENT and OPPOSING views here.

Thus the threat of “violence” or law, ensures rules are maintained even when the ones who would enforce those laws aren’t present. This seems to make for a more orderly society, and furthermore, one which is much easier to control, as they aren’t used to engaging in violence.

Yes our views are VERY DIFFERENT here.

Also, are you suggesting here that the ONLY reason WHY you do NOT do wrong is because of just some human made laws?

This has not always been the case.

the way, the word 'actions' here does NOT fit in PERFECTLY with 'this' NOR with the BIG Picture of ALL-OF-THIS. But this is such a minor thing for now to even be concerned with at all. And, your use of the words, "our tendency for our "minds" to wander means ...", is just ANOTHER attempt at NOT taking FULL RESPONSIBILITY and of just TRYING TO blame some 'thing' else for our OWN behavior.

Saying, 'our' tendency and 'our' "mind" is just TRYING TO blame NOT 'us', "ourselves", but some 'thing' OTHER 'thing' than 'us', for OUR OWN DOING.

You seem very hung up on the responsibility of the individual.

You seem to use words like "hung up" to put a particular perspective on 'things'.

The reason I LOOK AT and TALK ABOUT 'responsibility' or LACK OF 'responsibility' here is because this a MAIN ISSUE in regards to what I have set out to create and achieve.

Can you please explain to me how your view of responsibility meshes with your view of consciousness?

Consciousness, is just 'that' what is AWARE of ALL things.

'Responsibility' is 'that' what is 'taken' and/or 'accepted'.

How these two views mesh is that Consciousness, Itself, is ALWAYS AWARE and so KNOWS when 'accepting responsibility' and when 'taking responsibility' is happening and occurring or NOT.

If we are not the first cause of our actions (or whatever word you prefer), but causal chains do indeed contribute to the way our choices happen, at what point to we assign responsibility for said choices and thus actions (again, not sure what other word to use, happenings maybe?)

If 'we' want to talk about assigning responsibility then this applies to 'behaviors' and NOT 'actions'.

By the way, who and/or what is the 'we', which you talk about here?

To KNOW if 'we' are or are NOT the first cause, then I need to know how 'you' are defining the word 'we' here.

To me, as an adult then 'you' are the FIRST and ONLY CAUSE to ALL of the behaviors of that body, and as such are 'you' are 'responsible' for ALL of those behaviors.

'you' have FREE WILL and thus ABILITY to choose, but as I was saying what choices one can choose from is depended solely upon that bodies past experiences, which has been predetermined by ALL the past experiences.

When one 'assigns responsibility' is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY up to that one. But, if and when a human being has been brought up PROPERLY and CORRECTLY, then they will assign responsibility to "them" 'self', for the choices that they make, when they have Truly matured enough.

Aren’t we just along for the ride?

Children are along for the ride. And, it is said, 'human beings' are just children in Life.

A Truly, evolved, matured one, however, accepts and takes FULL responsibility for what they are creating and causing here.

I thought we agreed on this?

I agreed that 'you', human beings, are 'just along for the ride'.

If that’s the case, who is the one who is choosing?

EVERY human being. Human beings are ALL completely FREE to make choices. This is HOW and WHY 'free will' EXISTS. But who/what is causing 'you', human beings, to choose the choices that you are all making, then that is another matter. And, as I said previously; when it is REVEALED the very reason WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, are 'just along for the ride', in the way that 'you' are, then ALL will be UNDERSTOOD, and thus Truly FORGIVEN.

[henry quirk]

If there is an apple which you see and decide to eat, didn’t the perception of the apple cause you to want to eat it? And didn’t the impression of that apple come from an external stimulus?

more likely: you're hungry, you go lookin' for sumthin' to eat, you spy the apple, voila! appetite satisfied...or not, cuz mebbe, while hungry, apples aren't your cuppa...or mebbe you crave salt instead of sweet

in other words: you, bein' hungry, go lookin' for food; the presence of food doesn't make you hungry (though, the presence of food may bring your hunger, which you've been ignorin', to the front of the line in your thinkin' [and, even then, with your hunger gnawin' away, you may still choose to ignore it, cuz you're a free will])

[bahman]

Stating something is uncaused is one kettle of fish.

To then state that the thing that had no cause is also a cause is quite another.

So.

You are attempting to convince (at least me) that your mind, not only is not a result of causality, but also that it exists to yet CAUSE.

(in my case of sitting here and reading - much annoyance at such a ridiculous statement)

Do you believe that you are free?

No. But do I believe I have more freedom than anyone on this forum? I THINK yes.

..in any case, my freedom appears nothing to do with this statement of yours of a MIND being an UNCAUSED CAUSE.

..please extrapolate.

By freedom, I mean that you can freely decide between two options in a situation. Like eating or not eating an apple. It then follows that you are uncaused cause.

[bahman]

Getting serious now...

If we are an uncaused cause, what caused you to have perceptions of the world which you make decisions based on? Or do your perceptions have absolutely no effect on your mind?

If there is an apple which you see and decide to eat, didn’t the perception of the apple cause you to want to eat it? And didn’t the impression of that apple come from an external stimulus?

We need to perceive in order to respond. The point is that we are free to respond.

So the freedom in response is, response a, b, c..... or no response.

Who creates these responses? What if these responses are limited by past responses?

When we include language in our ability to respond, there is a combinatorial explosion, such that it seems like there is an infinite variety of responses available to us, and we choose from these possibilities. But, we don’t respond with non words, only words. So that is a limitation. And we only respond with combinations of words which make sense, which is a further limitation.

Further applied to movement, our freedom is determined by the possible physical movements depending on our current physical position. If my leg is all the way forward, it can now only move backward. That is a limitation, same with my arms.

But, we don’t really choose to move in this way most of the time, most of the time our choice is object based in the world. We see something, and we move towards it. When we want to pick something up, we don’t consciously decide to move our arm, in fact our arm moves of its own accord given the desire to attain the object. As the hand approaches the object, we don’t consciously decide to close the fingers around the object, the do this themselves, given the goal of picking up the object.

So, if we do have any control, it is more over the goals themselves, rather that the actual execution of the goal. We control the intentions... sometimes. When you are hungry, you can try not to want to eat, but, it is very difficult. The default state of your being when hunger exists is to eat. To choose not to eat is to enact an opposing force to the need to eat. To apply control over automatic eating behaviour. We control this, or at least, we try. Mostly we give in.

So. It seems we have veto power, if anything. We are the ability to do otherwise, based on some higher goal. We are the cortex trying to control the lower brain, even if not always successfully.

But, are free to try, even if we sometimes fail. We are like a person riding a bull, trying to get it under control. Maybe this control is entirely illusory... in the case of the bull rider, there is no control.

Maybe we are also just along for the ride.

So you agree that we are free to choose. And also uncaused cause.

[psycho]

This is pretty simple. We can freely decide (let's assume that there is free will for the sake of discussion). Our decision, therefore, is not caused by something else since otherwise, they are not free. Therefore, we are uncaused cause.

Deciding freely implies that I decide to do things that I really don't want to do?

And if I want to do something, does that imply that it is really indistinct for me to do it or not?

And if it doesn't imply that, then isn't it true that I'm forced to want what I want?

Regards.

[bahman]

This is pretty simple. We can freely decide (let's assume that there is free will for the sake of discussion). Our decision, therefore, is not caused by something else since otherwise, they are not free. Therefore, we are uncaused cause.

Deciding freely implies that I decide to do things that I really don't want to do?

You are free to choose evil if you are good. Others choose good while being evil. And yes, you are free to do evil. You also are free to choose when you like or dislike options equally. You can also choose when you don't know the outcomes of the options.

And if I want to do something, does that imply that it is really indistinct for me to do it or not?

No. The choices are clear to anyone. The want is up to you.

And if it doesn't imply that, then isn't it true that I'm forced to want what I want?

Regards.

No.

[psycho]

So I can choose arbitrarily? Without any influence?

How could I know that I am choosing arbitrarily? How could I tell that I have escaped all influence?

Appearing to be free from influence is not a reliable measure of being free from influence.

One is not aware of how the factors are influencing us.

Likewise, how is it possible for me to accept or reject the factors that influence me?



To suppose that one has free will implies to suppose that there is something of such a nature that it exceeds reality.

If you think that there is something that is not included in the causal chain, one is obliged to explain how, if so, one can also later be the cause of effects in reality.

Nothing influences me but I influence reality.

[Age]

So I can choose arbitrarily? Without any influence?

No.

How could I know that I am choosing arbitrarily? How could I tell that I have escaped all influence?

You can NOT.

Appearing to be free from influence is not a reliable measure of being free from influence.

Correct.

One is not aware of how the factors are influencing us.

Not always correct.

Likewise, how is it possible for me to accept or reject the factors that influence me?

By just accepting or rejecting factors that do influence you.

To suppose that one has free will implies to suppose that there is something of such a nature that it exceeds reality.

NOT necessarily so.

If you think that there is something that is not included in the causal chain, one is obliged to explain how,

What do 'you' mean by "not included in the causal chain", exactly?

Do you mean something that is eternal/infinite, or do you mean something else?

if so, one can also later be the cause of effects in reality.

Why only 'later'?

Nothing influences me but I influence reality.

Who is the 'me' here of which 'you' speak?

[psycho]

So I can choose arbitrarily? Without any influence?

No.

How could I know that I am choosing arbitrarily? How could I tell that I have escaped all influence?

You can NOT.

Appearing to be free from influence is not a reliable measure of being free from influence.

Correct.

One is not aware of how the factors are influencing us.

Not always correct.

Likewise, how is it possible for me to accept or reject the factors that influence me?

By just accepting or rejecting factors that do influence you.

To suppose that one has free will implies to suppose that there is something of such a nature that it exceeds reality.

NOT necessarily so.

If you think that there is something that is not included in the causal chain, one is obliged to explain how,

What do 'you' mean by "not included in the causal chain", exactly?

Do you mean something that is eternal/infinite, or do you mean something else?

if so, one can also later be the cause of effects in reality.

Why only 'later'?

Nothing influences me but I influence reality.

Who is the 'me' here of which 'you' speak?

If I cannot choose arbitrarily, then I am obliged to choose what circumstances oblige.

If I cannot escape the influences of my future decision, then I am obliged to choose according to those influences.

If one cannot always be aware of the factors that influence us, then I have no effective way of determining when I am

warned and when I am not.

How can I reject factors that I am not aware of?

Like in a game of billiards. Each balls cannot ignore the influence of the rest of the balls. The cue will hit one ball

that will hit another that will hit the next. A ball cannot move regardless of the factors that move it.

Likewise, a ball may not disregard the effect of the ball that hit it and in turn hit another ball according to an

arbitrary force and direction.

Regards.

[Age]

So I can choose arbitrarily? Without any influence?

No.

How could I know that I am choosing arbitrarily? How could I tell that I have escaped all influence?

You can NOT.

Appearing to be free from influence is not a reliable measure of being free from influence.

Correct.

One is not aware of how the factors are influencing us.

Not always correct.

Likewise, how is it possible for me to accept or reject the factors that influence me?

By just accepting or rejecting factors that do influence you.

To suppose that one has free will implies to suppose that there is something of such a nature that it exceeds reality.

NOT necessarily so.

If you think that there is something that is not included in the causal chain, one is obliged to explain how,

What do 'you' mean by "not included in the causal chain", exactly?

Do you mean something that is eternal/infinite, or do you mean something else?

if so, one can also later be the cause of effects in reality.

Why only 'later'?

Nothing influences me but I influence reality.

Who is the 'me' here of which 'you' speak?

If I cannot choose arbitrarily, then I am obliged to choose what circumstances oblige.

If I cannot escape the influences of my future decision, then I am obliged to choose according to those influences.

If one cannot always be aware of the factors that influence us, then I have no effective way of determining when I am

warned and when I am not.

How can I reject factors that I am not aware of?

Like in a game of billiards. Each balls cannot ignore the influence of the rest of the balls. The cue will hit one ball

that will hit another that will hit the next. A ball cannot move regardless of the factors that move it.

Likewise, a ball may not disregard the effect of the ball that hit it and in turn hit another ball according to an

arbitrary force and direction.

Regards.

So what?

What 'it' is, is what 'it' IS.

'you' are just going to end up where 'you' do, no matter if 'you' like it or not, true?

[psycho]

No.



You can NOT.



Correct.



Not always correct.



By just accepting or rejecting factors that do influence you.




NOT necessarily so.



What do 'you' mean by "not included in the causal chain", exactly?

Do you mean something that is eternal/infinite, or do you mean something else?



Why only 'later'?



Who is the 'me' here of which 'you' speak?

If I cannot choose arbitrarily, then I am obliged to choose what circumstances oblige.

If I cannot escape the influences of my future decision, then I am obliged to choose according to those influences.

If one cannot always be aware of the factors that influence us, then I have no effective way of determining when I am

warned and when I am not.

How can I reject factors that I am not aware of?

Like in a game of billiards. Each balls cannot ignore the influence of the rest of the balls. The cue will hit one ball

that will hit another that will hit the next. A ball cannot move regardless of the factors that move it.

Likewise, a ball may not disregard the effect of the ball that hit it and in turn hit another ball according to an

arbitrary force and direction.

Regards.

So what?

What 'it' is, is what 'it' IS.

'you' are just going to end up where 'you' do, no matter if 'you' like it or not, true?

Your position on this issue is not clear to me.

[bahman]

So I can choose arbitrarily? Without any influence?

There are of course influences there. You of course are free to go against them.

How could I know that I am choosing arbitrarily? How could I tell that I have escaped all influence?

Do nothing.

Appearing to be free from influence is not a reliable measure of being free from influence.

It is the fact. Any fact has an appearance. The fact is that you are even free to act when facts cannot help you to get a direction over another.

One is not aware of how the factors are influencing us.

That is not certainly correct. You know well when you act according to an influence.

Likewise, how is it possible for me to accept or reject the factors that influence me?

It is what it is. You are free.

To suppose that one has free will implies to suppose that there is something of such a nature that it exceeds reality.

You don't need to do that since we are not talking about freedom of will but free will.

If you think that there is something that is not included in the causal chain, one is obliged to explain how, if so, one can also later be the cause of effects in reality.

You can stop any causal chain.

Nothing influences me but I influence reality.

That is not true either.

[psycho]

How could I know that I am choosing arbitrarily? How could I tell that I have escaped all influence?

Do nothing.

Absurd

One is not aware of how the factors are influencing us.

That is not certainly correct. You know well when you act according to an influence.

How do I know?

Nothing influences me but I influence reality.

That is not true either.

My position is also that it is not possible

[attofishpi]

Do you believe that you are free?

No. But do I believe I have more freedom than anyone on this forum? I THINK yes.

..in any case, my freedom appears nothing to do with this statement of yours of a MIND being an UNCAUSED CAUSE.

..please extrapolate.

By freedom, I mean that you can freely decide between two options in a situation. Like eating or not eating an apple. It then follows that you are uncaused cause.

I didn't real eyes this was a discussion about free-will.

So.

Getting back to your OP statement:- Mind is uncaused cause

1. Mind is a result of causality. (not uncaused)
2. A 'cause' results in an 'affect' (stating mind is a cause is not correct, until it exerts an affect on the matter it has access to)
- so in this case - do I eat and apple or do I not eat an apple. Yes, I am free to choose, based upon analysis of certain things - will I enjoy the taste of an apple, do I have an appetite, am I too fat for the sugar content of the apple...etc..