Total posts: 332
-->
@3RU7AL
i don't see how your material cause is not caused by the efficient causei don't see how your formal cause is not caused by the efficient cause
They are caused by the efficient cause.
That does not mean that material and formal causes are extrinsic. Namely their existance is caused by something extrinsic. They themselves are intrinsic.
Also causes are causes to each other in different orders.
In the order of being form is before matter,
in the order of time form and matter are simultaneous,
in the order of causality form and matter cause the thing simultaneously,
etc...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the implication at the car dealershipis that you are not being influenced by the salesperson beyond the obvious limit to your six options
No! That is not at all what I am saying!
The person is not free from the influence of the car salesperson. Nor is he free from the influence of which cars look better, etc,
Let me try explaining it this way.
in order to be free causually, which means free from, you would essetially have to be God.
To be free effectually, which means free towards an effect that is possible from a single cause, simply means you need the intellect to know the possibilities and a will to effectuate one of them.
in order to make a truly free selection from among the six presented optionsthey must be roughly equivalentperhaps not identicalbut have the same number of "pros and cons"
No they do not. There is nothing about effectual freedom that implies all options must be equivalent. Effectual freedom only implies there must be various understood options. At least two.
i meanif five of the six options were obviously dilapidated piles of junkat that pointyou are not really free to choose themyou are constrained by your motive for being there in the first placepresumably to get the best price for a functional vehicle that will not be embarrassing to drive
This is irrelevant. All you are doing here is adding something to the argument that is not necessarily true and is completly besides the point.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is merely a description, not a sound case in support of "SPIRIT"
It is a definition of "spirit" that I am giving to express my point. Even if it is only a description, which I could argue, descriptive definitions are perfectly usable in an argument.
i believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate data
I did not agree to this.
These are the functions of the brain, which is an organ in the body. This is not at all what I am talking about when I mean "spirit."
The functions I described are of the Form of humans.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you seem to be suggesting that the "you" that is "you" is eitheruncausedorself-caused
Not quite.
My efficient cause is my parents. They disposed the matter to receive existance. In this sense they caused me. That is external to me.
But the intrinsic cause that maintains my being is the material cause (what we are made of) and the formal cause(which is the by what we are).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so why use the word "free"what is the distinction you are trying to make by using the word ?
Because the word free" has other senses.
You can be free towards something. Like if someone were to ask me at the dealership which car out of the six in front of me do I want. It is a freedom towards something. It is not a freedom from something.
Do you see the difference?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you haven't made a sound case for "SPIRIT"the fact that you have made no case is itself an "appeal to ignorance"i am willing to accept "SPIRIT" as a hypotheticali believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate datawhich renders it functionally moot
I have made a case for "spirit" by even providing a definition of what I mean by it as in post number 263
I do not define "spirit" as some "ghost" or "airy thingy"
I defined it as a principle, that is an entity in itself, that is source of the life proper to humans.
I have backed up what I mean by "life proper to humnas" throughout the conversation by drawing distinctions in our functions that animals and plants do not have.
I haved backed up the idea of the "spirit" as a seperate entity by showing that it is equal to the formal cause of humans, thus making it properly what we are, to gether with our biology and experiance makes us who we are.
?
When we say it is an intrinsic cause, we are talking about the causes thta make up the person himself. Wher I came from is not an internal cause. We call that an efficient cause. It is the cause that brought about the disposition in you in order to be.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
your existence is caused by "external forces"
ok.
your biology is caused by "external forces"
No it is not. It is the material cause which makes up the matter of the person. That is something intrinsic to the person. Without it, he has no proper existance.
at some point you can rename those "external forces" to "internal forces"
I do not agree.
Without intrinsic causes you cannot exist.
Without "what you are made of" and "what you are " you do not exist.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and it's not free from anything
Never said it was.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and you support this hypothesiswith an "appeal to ignorance"basically"we don't know exactly what it is and exactly how it functions, therefore SPIRIT"
Care to site where this "appeal to ignorance" is?
Because I certainly never said "We dont know exactly what it is and exactly how it works, therefore spirit"
Do you like throwing words in peoples mouths?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the body can only "maintain" by interacting with EXTERNAL phenomena
There must be something that is maintaining its being in order to interact with outside causes to maintain its acting upon external things.
You have to be before you can be doing something.
Internal causes maintain being, in order to maintain the things actions on external causes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you are using the term "free" in conjunction with the word "choice"why are you doing this ?
First off, because you asked me what I meant by "free" in post number 221
Secondly, because there are different senses to the word "free" that can change the meaning of what I am saying.
I am being very specific in my use of "free"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
saying that i understand something exists in my imaginationis not the same as saying i understand the future
I am not saying we understand the future.
I am saying we understand possibilities about the future.
That is something different.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, are you suggesting that MIND = SPIRIT ?
I am suggesting the intellect and will are a spirit.
and when I say spirit, I mean a non-physical entity that acts as the principle of the life particuler to humans.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
is your biology an "internal cause" ?did you somehowcreate yourself ?
Yes, your biology is an internal cause.
Internal cause has to talk about those causes that deal with the thing itself in its existance.
It has nothing to do with creating itself, but rather maintaining itself.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you tell me what the difference isbecause you're the one insisting that there is a difference
NO I AM NOT! GO AND BLOODY READ WHAT I SAID!
I SAID THERE ARE DIFFERENT SENSES TO THE WORD "FREE", NOT DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO THE WORD "CHOICE!"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
whatisthedifference ?
The computers random function has not consciousness. It acts randomly.
Not like us. We have consciousness of our descision.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you have failed to make a compelling case for any alternative"possible effects" cannot be observed empirically - they are not concrete"possible effects" are by definition NOT "logically-necessary"THEREFORE"possible effects" can only "exist" in your imagination
Why can they not be understood, as in something you reasoned to?
In fact, If do not understand that they are options, you do not understand that they are possible, then you do not know there are options. That is absurd.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
is your intellect not constrained by the limitations of your brain ?
In ipso, it is not. This means by itself it is not restrained by the brain.
It is restrained by the brain as far as what we call its "ad objectivo" meaning its object, what the brain produces, it uses.
As regards what it does it adds to the brain. What we call understanding.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"internal causes" are fully comprised of biology + experience ("external causes")
Your biology and experiances are not external causes.
Nor are they comprised of them in ipso.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what in god's name is the difference between "freely choose"and"choose"
I am talking about the different senses of free. Not the word choose.
And if there is no difference between "choose" and "choose freely" then why are you saying we dont choose freely when we choose?!?!?!?!?!??!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is essentially a "roll-of-the-dice"does not qualifyas an "intentional act of will"
My conscious choice is not a "roll-of-the-dice"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
computer programs are definitely "goal seeking"and computer programs certainly "make a choice"
Do they make a choice the same way we do?
Nope!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
we can only imagine "possible effects"
Repitition of your point without proving it, especially if you just repeat it to act against an argument is a fallacy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?Intellect and willwhat part of "intellect and will" are not included in biology + experience ?
The intellect and will are not included in biology plus experiance.
Biology plus experiance is material.
Intellect and will is not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.this sounds like a violation of cause-and-effect
Then I am thinking you misunderstand what cause is.
There are different types of causes. External and internal.
Influences are external causes and therefore can only indirectly affect the subject. The will is of the internal cause, namely the formal one. It can act independant of external causes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you keep using the word "freely" without indicating what exactly you believe it is "free" from
There is a difference between "free from" and "free to do"
I thought that was made clear already...
There are different senses to the word "free" It does not necessarily mean "free from"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"
Why?
You will say: "it must choose the best option"
You are still insisting on your contradiction...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?
Programming.
There is no conscience intentions in computers.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision
Do you know what the conditions for an absolute necessity in logic?
All you have done is insist on the "must be" You have not proven it. If you can give me a well done actual syllogism proving the "must be" that might clear this up.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i still think it's much more accurate to say we can imagine future possible effectssaying we can understand suggests some comprehensive knowledgeof something which, in this case, by definition does not currently exist
That is why we are forced to say possible effects. We can know based reason, order, etc the effects. We do not know them as actually existing, we know them as possibly existing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?
Intellect and will
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what percentage of your will, roughly speaking, would you guess is influenced by your biology + experience ?
The will is a simple thing. There is no percentage of it that you can give.
As far as the influences they are there affecting the will "by their known presence" is a way I read about it once.
Much like how you would here a child screaming.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it is rather difficult to suggest "i understand the future"is equivalent to the much more plausible suggestion "i imagine the future"
That is not what I said.
I said We can understand future possible effects.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
an intentional act of will cannot be free from previous causeand any unintended consequence of an act of will cannot be considered intentionalin other wordsyour will is always bound to your identity which is comprised of biology + experience (which qualify as causes)will is by definition, causedyour intentional action may be imperfect (not achieving your ideal goal)but that imperfection does not make your will free
biology and experiance are material causes. They have their effects on the person choosing. But because the will is part of the formal cause, biology and experiance do not determine the will directly. They can only influence it.
And I disagree that your identity is "biology+experiance"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.premise four
Premise four does not answer why.
Premise four said: "if you fail to have adequate confidence in your goal hierarchy, no action is taken"
This considers all options as a whole.
your "must be" is directed only to the foremost option.
Non sequitur
Composition
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you cannot "understand" a potential futurewithout first IMAGINING a potential future
That doesnt disprove my point that it is still something understood.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the essential claim of "free-will" is that it is somehow NOT caused (or not fully caused)there is no way to describe "an intentional act of will" without referencing a GOAL (and a goal is a cause)the definition of willseems to be in direct conflict withthe definition of "free-will"
Then you mistunderstand the definition of "will" and "free"
"will" is the principle of intentional action and "free" is the attribute that says it is not determined to "this particular action"
It is not saying it is free from a cause. It is saying it is free as regarding the choices available to effect.
Did you my post #192?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
only what is logically-necessary can be "known with certitude"
I do not find that intellectually honest. Why cant I have certitude about a perfectly logical and consistent argument?
But if that is the philosophy you adhere to, fine! I dont think it answers all questions and it certainly limits knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the "material aspect" seems pretty important, even perhaps fundamentaldo you have an example of how this examination of "whatness" is useful ?
Oh the material aspect is very fundamental. We can focus on that if you want.
for the examples:
It is obviously what determines what the thing is. Which leads us to reason it is also the principle of its existance. "form brings esse (to be) " we say in philosophy. It simply means the form determines it to be this thing
It also, being the principle of what it is means it will be the reason a thing is living. For plants animals and humans obviously.
Since it is the principle of its living, it is also then the principle of its movement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nice! You know where I get my philosophy from.
Critics point out that if form and matter are indeed inseparable, then it becomes challenging to explain change, as any alteration would imply a change in the object's essence.
Seems to me then that they did not read the Physics of Thomas Aquinas very well. That is his work on change. He makes a pretty clear distinction between accidental and substantial change.
Moreover, the concept of prime matter, which Aquinas describes as pure potentiality without form, is seen by some as an abstract notion that lacks empirical evidence.
Yeah! That is exactly what he is saying prime matter is and what he intended to say. Pure potentiality! Can you have empirical evidence of that? No! It is the result of rational and logical reasoning. That is why I do not adhere to the philosophy that only things that are observable can be known with certitude.
This criticism is rooted in the difficulty of conceiving matter devoid of any form, as our sensory experiences always present matter in some form
I think that shows my point that we are dealing with what we understand (through logical reasoning)about something versus what we can sense about it.
Additionally, Aquinas' assertion that form is what individuates matter has been contested on the grounds that forms, according to his theory, are universal, whereas individuality is particular.
He actually condemned that. Makes me think these critics did not read his works. He said what individuates the thing is Matter signed by quantity.
Go read the Physics if you do not believe me. Edward Hugon has a good summary of his Physics.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(p1) your intentional conscious will only initiates action (or intentional non-action) in order to achieve a goal(p2) the goal that motivates your will is an imagined future state that is fully informed by your accumulated knowledge and biological capacity(p3) humans always have competing, mutually exclusive goals (short-term versus long-term for example) making it necessary to create a hierarchy of goals based on each moment these goals are evaluated (sorted by perceived time-sensitivity and relative cost-benefit based on your accumulated knowledge and current context)(p4) if you fail to have adequate confidence in your goal hierarchy, no action is taken(c1) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision(c2) if you act without intentional conscious goal seeking, then you are not making an intentional conscious act of will
Firstly, after reading this, I am not convinced you have actually studied logic. The format alone only shows that you have, at best, briefly looked at how a syllogism might look. But, Fine. I will deal with it.
I do not have a problem with premise 1. But for the record, The goal is always outside free will so it is not an essential aspect of it. While the goal is helpful to know better the thing, it does not tell us what the thing is.
I have a problem with your 2nd premise. I do not think that your goal is something imaginary, but rather is an understood possible outcome. Which means it has to do with understanding. Not the imagination.
Premise 3, all you are saying is that there are options. And I would say the hierarchy among options is determined by influences.
Premise 4, look at that! Another option.
Your first conclusion: First problem is that you have, once again, without prooving it, asserted the "must be" which firstly is in none of your premises (first fallacy: adding a term at the conclusion) and secondly no principle is given to back it up. Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.
Your second conclusion: Has nothing to do with what the premises are saying and is introducing a new idea. That is another fallacy.All you are saying there is that if it is not conscience it is not an act of the will. How does that flow from the premises?
Lastly, This does not answer why free will is a logical-impossibility. All you have done is state some things that you think you know and then labeled them as "premise" and "conclusion"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?
Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.
Another is The intellectual appetite. But that has alot of jargon in it.
Another one if you want The determination of a possible effect from a primary cause based on choice of secondary cause.
I use the first one normally because I think it is the most clear to those who have not studied the philosophy behind free will.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so maybe not exactly fair to say it's an option
Never said it was.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
no, i don't see it at all, anywherecan you show it to me ?
I do not know if you are intentionally acting like a troll, but I have clearly said elsewhere that they are inseperable in reality and we are talking about them as seperate. When we talk about them concretely in reality we talk about them together.
if "free-will" is NOT "the person"then the "free-will" you are describing cannot beYOUR WILL
You are starting to make think you have not studied logic.
"Free will" as I am describing, is an essential part of the person, but not the person himself. You do know that you can have parts right? I am assuming you already know the different basic parts of your body. Would you say you are your eye? I do not think so.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it sounds like you're suggesting your will is not subject to the universal law of cause-and-effect
I am not saying that.
if the defining characteristic of "free-will" is the ability to cause things that are not determined by the universal law of cause-and-effectthen accumulating experienceand processing that accumulated experience in order to apply it in an effective and intelligent manneris contrary to its defining characteristicaccumulating experience and processing data makes it subject to "previous events" which we commonly refer to as "causes"
The free will becomes a part of the primary cause by freely directing it to one of the various possible effects. It is not that it is free of the universal chain but rather it is one of the determining factors that results in a possible effect that the primary cause can cause and continues the universal chain on its way.
If you want, it is the thing that freely says "do this effect." That is why we hold people responsible for their actions. They directed a cause to a positive or negative effect. If the resultant effect was evil, they get punished. As in the case of willfull murder. If the resultant effect was not evil, as in the case of someone choosing a certain burger at the restuarant for the first time, we need not hold them accountable for any evil.
Similarly also, this choice of which effect is intentional. Meaning a person did it. If there is no intention, there is no immediate culpability to the effect. As in the case of motor accidents. Culpability is not determined by the fact that you crashed, it is determined by what you chose to do that caused the crash.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think it is fair to say that GPT4 decides or chooses which next word to generate ?do you think it is fair to say that GOOGLE decides or chooses which links to list in response to your query and also decides or chooses the order of that list ?
No. I do not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"as studied by itself" divorced from the material aspect ?
Yes. That is what "understanding" means. You know the "whatness" of something. You can definitely reason with that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
they must always choose the option that is prefered in the moment of decision
Still contradicting yourself.
And you still have not answered why.
Do you know what a syllogism is?
Why dont you put it in syllogistic format and we can see better your argument is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i find it difficult to believe that someone could choose to be happy about something they personally find obviously tragic
It is probably not an option they perceive.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This free cause must also be intelligentplease explain
In order to perceive the different grades of being, one must have the ability to understand them. The different grades of being give way to the strength of influences on a person. Intellectual understanding is the attribute of humans, the rational animal.
Created: