Mind is uncaused cause

[bahman]

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

Do nothing.

Absurd

It is not.

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?

Your appetite and apple are influences. You are very aware of them. You wouldn't eat when you are full or cannot eat if there is no apple. It is very obvious that influences exist. You are however free to go against them.

[bahman]

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..

Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.

[psycho]

Do nothing.

Absurd

It is not.

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

How do I know?

Your appetite and apple are influences. You are very aware of them. You wouldn't eat when you are full or cannot eat if there is no apple. It is very obvious that influences exist. You are however free to go against them.

Reality is the factor in every action. You assume to know with certainty that part of reality is an influencing factor and that part does not affect a certain action.

How do you justify such certainty?

[bahman]

Absurd

It is not.

How do I know?

Your appetite and apple are influences. You are very aware of them. You wouldn't eat when you are full or cannot eat if there is no apple. It is very obvious that influences exist. You are however free to go against them.

Reality is the factor in every action. You assume to know with certainty that part of reality is an influencing factor and that part does not affect a certain action.

How do you justify such certainty?

As I said. Because for example, I cannot eat an apple if there is no apple.

[psycho]

It is not.


Your appetite and apple are influences. You are very aware of them. You wouldn't eat when you are full or cannot eat if there is no apple. It is very obvious that influences exist. You are however free to go against them.

Reality is the factor in every action. You assume to know with certainty that part of reality is an influencing factor and that part does not affect a certain action.

How do you justify such certainty?

As I said. Because for example, I cannot eat an apple if there is no apple.

How does your answer relate to my question about how can one be sure that one knows what are the factors that influence when one performs an action?

[bahman]

Reality is the factor in every action. You assume to know with certainty that part of reality is an influencing factor and that part does not affect a certain action.

How do you justify such certainty?

As I said. Because for example, I cannot eat an apple if there is no apple.

How does your answer relate to my question about how can one be sure that one knows what are the factors that influence when one performs an action?

Because there is no influence if there is no apple. The same for your appetite.

[psycho]

As I said. Because for example, I cannot eat an apple if there is no apple.

How does your answer relate to my question about how can one be sure that one knows what are the factors that influence when one performs an action?

Because there is no influence if there is no apple. The same for your appetite.

In other words, are you sure that everything you do not notice cannot be a cause of influence?

[attofishpi]

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..

Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.

non sequitur.

..and NO I don't believe that while someone is awake that they can stop a chain of thought - the thought continues on, to another chain at the minimum.

[bahman]

How does your answer relate to my question about how can one be sure that one knows what are the factors that influence when one performs an action?

Because there is no influence if there is no apple. The same for your appetite.

In other words, are you sure that everything you do not notice cannot be a cause of influence?

There is no such thing. I could not influence by something without noticing.

[bahman]

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..

Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.

non sequitur.

..and NO I don't believe that while someone is awake that they can stop a chain of thought - the thought continues on, to another chain at the minimum.

I can stop a chain of causality.

[attofishpi]

Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.

non sequitur.

..and NO I don't believe that while someone is awake that they can stop a chain of thought - the thought continues on, to another chain at the minimum.

I can stop a chain of causality.

Very impressive - physicists would be interested in how you manage to stop electrons from spinning around the atoms in your brain.

[bahman]

non sequitur.

..and NO I don't believe that while someone is awake that they can stop a chain of thought - the thought continues on, to another chain at the minimum.

I can stop a chain of causality.

Very impressive - physicists would be interested in how you manage to stop electrons from spinning around the atoms in your brain.

You can also. Isn't it up to you to write to me or not?

[bahman]

non sequitur.

..and NO I don't believe that while someone is awake that they can stop a chain of thought - the thought continues on, to another chain at the minimum.

I can stop a chain of causality.

Very impressive - physicists would be interested in how you manage to stop electrons from spinning around the atoms in your brain.

You can also. Isn't it up to you to write to me or not?

[Age]

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.

This is because I have NOT YET clearly expressed my position to you.

[Age]

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..

Can't you freely stop a chain of causality, a chain of thought for example? If yes, then you are an uncaused cause.

The 'you' can NOT. But thee 'I' can.

This is because of who and what the 'you' and thee 'I' are, EXACTLY.