Total posts: 337
-->
@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:
-->
@3RU7AL
if the "free-will" is unconstrained by "self" also known as "identity" also known as "biology + experience"then NOthe "free-will" is NOT "the person"
Oh come on!
Do you see a free will walking around without a person attached to it??!?!?!?!
A person makes the choice! That point was not saying free will is the person!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and if something is logically-impossibleit followsthat it can never be considered "a cause"
Feel free, with your pristine logic, to explain using all the proper rules of logic why "free will" is logically impossible.
Mind you also, I have already said I do not agree with your definition of will.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what exactly is your will "free" from ?
The determination to this particular action.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you cannot use the word "choosing" to describe your process of the will determiningare you suggesting your will does not make decisions ?
No.
You are suggesting that. I am pointing out the absurdity in using the word "choosing" to describe your process of determination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
by divorcing "form" from "matter" ?
Interesting way to put it.
We can know better the nature of something as studied by itself, which, later in turn, helps us to understand better its relation to another thing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
one option must always be preferedotherwiseyou could never choose one
You are defying the very definition of "choosing" while actively trying to use it.
If there is no choice there is no choosing. So you cannot use the word "choosing" to describe your process of the will determining.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think it is fair to say that when you have a goal, this limits, this constrains your active options ?
Yes.
and within the scope of the options (including non-action) each has apparent pros and cons ?so, let's imagine you've narrowed down the selection to two distinct options that seem roughly equivalent
Ok, sounds fine.
do you go with your "gut-instinct" (intuitive biology + subconscious experience) ?or do you have conscious intentional REASONS for selecting one action over the other ?ORdo you select essentially AT RANDOM ?
Why can't all three be options that you freely choose?
Do we agree that free will is a cause and not an effect?
When a cause that is not free causes it must cause what it is most inclined towards.
But a cause that is free, by definition of free, must have at least two options without determination to one or the other. This free cause must also be intelligent. (Different argument). So it already has two elements by its very nature namely personhood and causality. The two concepts are one in reality, so when the free will chooses it is the person choosing. He is not free as regards his influences. But he is free regarding his choice of responding to his influences.
Take a very simple example.
A football player is sick. He has his championship game that day.
He can choose to opt out.
Or
He can choose to toughen up and play the game.
He is was not free as regards him being sick. But he was free to choose how to responded to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you can imagine a POSITIVE form (comprised of matter)you can imagine a NEGATIVE form (surrounded by matter)both require matter
Only if you imagine it.
But if you actually make the effort to understand it, you don't need it.
There is a difference between imagining and understanding.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
one option must always be prefered
I disagree.
Why does an option have to be preferred?
What about having motives means one must be preferred over the other?
Not to mention what you said does not follow logically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting it is possible to imagine form without matter ?
Not quite.
There is a difference between imagining something and understanding it.
With imagination you could make up all kinds of ridiculous possibilities.
But with understanding you can only reason about it. That is a way to understand it better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
form and matter are inseparableyou cannot understand one without understanding the otherand understanding of either is understanding of both
That is not true.
I said they were inseperable in reality.
Your mind can definitely seperate them and know better each one by itself. I already showed that with examples of form.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and you must always choose the one you think is the best at that juncture
Why MUST you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
EXACTLY
And your point is what? Do you like to make things ambiguous and unclear on purpose?
It has not contradicted anything I have said.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it is impossible to choose something freelyif your will is goal seeking
There are always more than one goal. So yes, it can choose freely.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
will can never be free from desireI never disagreed with this.ipso facto, no such thing as a "free-will"
You keep jumping between two meanings of "free" to try and prove your point. That is is a fallacy
Do you have any idea how fustrating it is to talk to people like that?
I never said the will was free of its influences.
I said it was still free to choose regardless of them.
Have you ever studied logic? It does not seem like you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can an object exist without form ?
No.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
will can never be free from desire
I never disagreed with this.
intentional goal seeking in service of desire
That is not how I would define it.
I already gave my definition and explanation of it.
This conversation is now just going in circles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting FORM = SOUL ?
If by soul you mean "principle of existance" then sure.
But I think I would only apply that to living things. Not things without life.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
without violating the definition of "will"
And what is the definition of will? According to you?
your will cannot take action or willfully withhold action without motive
I never disagreed with this. I am saying it free to do one or the other.
you're conflating "the best option you can imagine"with"the best real option available to you in the moment"
No I am not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i don't have any materialwhat form is this ?
It is the form of whatever you got it from.
But if you want to talk about form by itself...
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 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.
As a few examples of describing form by itself. I got more if you want...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you can only choose your preferred option
Then it is not choosing.
The fact is that you can choose. Even what is not your preferred option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is the form of non-material?
I am not quite sure what you are asking here. What do you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no such thing as form without matterthere is no such thing as matter without form
Yes, I said that already.
If you mean that we cannot think of them as seperate we obviously can.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you can only choose your preferred option
No. you can still choose otherwise.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you are still choosing the best option for yourself based on the information available at hand
Not really.
Even with all the available information the will still can choose something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
matter and form are inseparable concepts
They are not seperable in Reality. The mind can seperate them to use reason to know them further.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why?
You still have not answered that.
And no. I can choose against what I know is the best option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. The form itself is not composed of matter. The thing is composed of matter and form.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
does not mean you are "free from desires"
I never said it was free from desires.
I said it is free to choose regardless of desires. It can choose none of the desires.
the best option in that moment
So... not the best option, but what you see as the best option.
totally different thing
And it does not have to choose the options. It can choose none of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
identification of form is a concept
Your knowledge of it is a concept.
Not the form itself.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
but must always choose the best option
Why?
Your sentence contradicts itself.
If it "must always" do the best option, then it is not choosing.
The will is free to choose even an option that is not the best. I know doctors who habitually smoke. I think they know it is not the best option, yet they still choose...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
form is a concept
No it is not.
Is the order of the matter in the thing itself in your head?!?!?!
That would mean the thing itself is in your head.
Sounds like a nasty headache.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
will is never free from desire
I never said the will is free from desire. The desire will always be there. It has to be there.
The will is free to reject that desire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you are describing two aspects of the same thingthey are not fundamentally dissimilar
They are fundamentally dissimilar.
You cannot say of the form what you say of matter.
The form and the matter are two different causes in the same thing
effects coming from fundamentally different causes are fundamentally different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
is there another way you can try and frame this ?
An Analogy. Think of a house.
The matter is all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
The form is the order, the design, layout of the house.
The design, order, layout by itself is not the same thing as all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
your essential self is comprised of your physical capabilities + experience
No it is not.
"Free" in the will means ability to choose regardless of of influence. (or constraints if you want)
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
would be unconstrained by your physical capabilitieswould be unconstrained by your mental capabilitiesand unconstrained by your experience (not contextual)
Physical limits exist.
mental limits exist.
limits to your experiance exist.
It does not change the character of ability to choose. Nor does it change the character of undetermined being. You jumped over the rest of what I have said.
We are talking about ability, a power you have, it is not something seperate from the person.
that sounds about as close to "totally random" as anyone can imagine
Your interpretation of it. And "randomness" only has to do with the effect as an object, not the cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
matter is the territoryform is the map
Bad analogy. You are talking about something representing something else.
I am talking about something that is only itself.
Totally different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the principle of cause-and-effect is demonstrablethe principle of conservation of mass is demonstrablethe principle of human reproduction is demonstrabletherefore(IFF) you had a mother (THEN) her mother also had a mother
Yes! I agree!
But that means you have observed the effect and reasoned to the cause. That shows that BKs "certitude only by self-observed causation." is wrong because we can observe effects as well.
That is why I asked how BK knew her mother was born. To see if BK meant we observe effects as well. BK said no. BK said they did not know if there mother was born.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
feel free to present your personally preferred definitions
I think there are different senses to the word "free"
1. Lacking constraint to a particular determination
2. undetermined being
3. ability to make a determination regardless of influence.
Free will is actually all three. And can be defined as "the ability to determine this action action (versus other possible actions), regardless of influence."
The first one speak of "free" by itself
The second one speaks of "free" regarding the object (thing that is free)
Number three speaks of the act of "free" namely ability to determine. It is complimented by the first, so we add the "regardless of influence"
what makes my position different from what you said above, is that I say it is regardless of influences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can you support this claim ?
Sure!
I will try to summarize it as simple as possible since really it could be its own book.
We observe that things are made up of stuff. I am going to call that stuff "matter"
We observed through science that everything is composed of the basic matter: atoms
The order of these atoms is what determines what the thing is.
This order we call the form.
So, everything is matter and form that we can observe. I will use the word "observe" to mean any stimulation of the senses.
Now this distinction of matter and form is a distinction of reason. We see the order of the matter and the matter itself. That is how we recognize what the things is. That means that matter and form cannot be seperated in reality. It would no longer be what it is if they did somehow seperate.
But beause the distinction comes from reality, the being of matter and the being of form must be different.
The conclusion then:
These are two beings that coexist in the same thing, but are not fundamentally similar. Being is not a univocal term, it does not have only one meaning. The being of matter is not the same as the being of form. They both exist but not as the same thing, but in the same thing
What we say of the form itself, we cannot say of the matter itself and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
from our perspective Best.Korea may simply be a computer program or an alien ghost spirit god.
I think you are completely missing my point.
You can think whatever you want about what BK is, that is totally besides my point. You can think whatever you want about BKs mom, it is once again besides my point.
My point is to point out the absurdity of the "certitude only by self-observed causation."
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
because a will is defined as goal-seeking-in-service-of-desire
No it is not defined as that.
How is that a will? You miss an essential aspect by not even mentioning that the will is the cause of movement in humans.
I think your understanding of will. esp. free will is very lacking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there are things that "exist" as concrete nounsthere are things that "exist" as abstract nounsthe second type is contingent on the first typequalification for the quality we call "exist" demands fundamental similarity
I am not talking about being in the mind
I am talking about different beings outside the mind tht are not fundamentally similar.
We arrive at the existance of those other beings through reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
your mother might be a robot or an alien or some sort of monster or angelsurebut generally speakingwe have observed human birthsit is reasonable for you to believe your mother is humanand demand evidence if someone claims she is not
BK was saying that if one has conviction, one must have observed the causation. There is no conviction otherwise.
My point was that, if BK is human and was born, BK must have come from a human that was born. To say that you cannot know that is absurd.
Created: