A challenge to show me wrong

[PolyHedral]

That is a possibility. Some choices may be made randomly.

Humans are spectacularly bad at choosing genuinely random outcomes.

 

[Mudcat]

Yes, that is correct.
You reason through them.

And how do you select between the possible options after reasoning through them if not making use of your will? You just can't, right?

I would agree with you here superficially, but not entirely I think.

After careful reasoning you may arive upon the best possible choice, but why would you select the best possible choice ( or what you think it is the best possible choice at any given moment ) ? Isn't it because that is you want to do?

Bold mine, the reason I don't entirely agree is that there are two things that I think struggle with one another. Our rational will and our desires. It is possible, I think for a person to act against their own will for the sake of desire.

To give you an example of what I mean would be a person who has quit smoking for a month and under a stressful moment starts smoking again. Their will to quit has been over driven by their desire to smoke. Can it be said that such a person is actually doing what they wanted to do? I would think it would be more likely that their desire has coerced them against their will.

I don't want reify the notions of will or desire, but in some respect we will have to elevate their conceptual status for better examination, Ithink.

What are your thoughts on it?

That is a possibility. Some choices may be made randomly.

Quite a few I would think.

 

[Skwim]

I appreciate your admission that your example was ridiculous.

Ridiculous in content, but not in purpose.

I offered my initial statement as a bit of a summary and I have admitted it could have been stated better. I'll try to be more specific, with the caveat that I am no expert in propositional logic and would hope that you can afford some legalistic latitude for the sake of discourse.

I promise I'll try, but often arguments stand or fall on just such a leg, and if this turns out to be the case I'm afraid I'll have to bring it into play.

That being said, I'll take another run at this for clarity's sake.

Assumption 1: Our perceptions are how we understand reality. Hopefully, we can hold this, at least as an axiom.
Assumption 2a: We do perceive making choices
Assumption 2b: We do perceive we are autonomous
Assumption 2c: We do perceive we are making moral judgments

P1: Our perceptions may or may not be true. i.e.- a person on lsd may perceive things that are occurring, ergo false perception; a person may perceive that after adding two apples to a basket that has two apples they have a basket with four apples, ergo true perception


P2: Perceptions that are commonly held by all are accepted as a true part of reality axiomatically.

Re. P2. They may be "accepted as a true part of reality," even axiomatically, but this doesn't mean they're true. Just consider the old common perception, once accepted as true, that the Earth was flat. True? Nope. So perceptions can be fallible.

We don't usually go about arguing if the sky is blue, if iron bars sink in the bathtub, and that sort of thing. Certainly science may address the notion of why we perceive the sky is blue, or why iron bars don't float in water, but the general impetus isn't to disconfirm our perceptions but rather to explain them.

One's goal is immaterial to fact or the truth.

P3: Our perception that we make choices, are autonomous and make moral judgments is generally accepted true part of reality.

Yes they are, but as I point out, perception does not automatically confer truth.

Now I want to be clear that I am not asserting an ad populem fallacy... I mean that the notion that we perceive making choices is independently verifiable by all.. much in the same way that typically all sighted humans see a blue sky.

This is exactly an ad populum fallacy. Look it up. However, this failure aside, it also misfires because perception isn't infallible.

I am not tossing out something like a “flat earth” notion that was circulating in Copernicus day, but could not actually be verified by any.

Don't you mean the "perception" of a flat Earth? After all this is the crux of your argument here: our perception of X, or Y, or Z. Any way, assuming so, your statement would be, if I may,

I am not tossing out something like the perception of a “flat earth” notion that was circulating in Copernicus day, but could not actually be verified by any
​

Which would be false because the perception could be verified just as easily as the perception of your blue sky.

P4. Causal determinism would assert that we do not make choices, nor are we autonomous, nor are we capable of making moral judgments.

*Sigh* No it wouldn't assert such things, and it doesn't. All determinism says is that everything we do is caused. There is no such a thing as free will where in we could have done differently if we wished. We do what we do because we can't do any differently. It doesn't address autonomy (whatever you have in mind with that) or making moral statements.

Conclusion. Causal determinism is false.

If that's what you're caused to believe then so be it. But it's erroneous.

Hopefully we can actually have discourse on the matter and avoid ridiculous caricatures.

As I pointed out, it was only done in hopes that you would see the error in your thinking. That it failed was obviously an over-expectation on my part.

I invite you to carefully read my OP, if you haven't done so, and follow my replies through the discussion as well as those of others who are in agreement with me.

 

[Mudcat]

Ridiculous in content, but not in purpose.

I promise I'll try, but often arguments stand or fall on just such a leg, and if this turns out to be the case I'm afraid I'll have to bring it into play.

Fair enough.

Re. P2. They may be "accepted as a true part of reality," even axiomatically, but this doesn't mean they're true. Just consider the old common perception, once accepted as true, that the Earth was flat. True? Nope. So perceptions can be fallible.

I tried to address this a bit later in my post. To be clearer, given the notion of your "flat Earth" scenario. The perception that it was flat was an assumption without verification. No one at the time could perceive the entire surface of the Earth. No one at that time literally percieved that the entire Earth was flat, so your objection to P2. fails.

I did give some fair examples aside from choice, moral judgement, autonomy... like the sky being blue, iron bars sinking in water and you gave them no address other than to say.

One's goal is immaterial to fact or the truth.

I am afraid I am not understanding what you mean by this and don't see the relevance of the statement.

Yes they are, but as I point out, perception does not automatically confer truth.

I appreciate your concession that we commonly do perceive choice, autonomy and moral judgment. Your point, however is as of yet to hit home you will have to reinforce your objection to P2., as what you have offered does not with stand it.

This is exactly an ad populum fallacy. Look it up. However, this failure aside, it also misfires because perception isn't infallible.

I am familiar with the term, exceptions to the fallacy are when they are presented to establish popularity. You agreed with the premise yourself when you said, "Yes they are..". So your accusal of fallacy fails.
<snip>

*Sigh*

Sorry if your fatigued. Perhaps you should give up.

No it wouldn't assert such things, and it doesn't. All determinism says is that everything we do is caused. There is no such a thing as free will where in we could have done differently if we wished. We do what we do because we can't do any differently. It doesn't address autonomy (whatever you have in mind with that) or making moral statements.

Actually it does assert such things, by implication. As to moral judgment and choice Harry Frankfurt makes a good argument for the implications of causal determinism.

(1) An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent could have done otherwise.
(2) An agent could have done otherwise only if causal determinism is false.
(3) Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.


I suppose I could go into some detailed diatribe on the issue, if need be. But hopefully the argument will be sufficient.


As to autonomy, I think you just need to look up the definition to find why it's inconsistent.

If that's what you're caused to believe then so be it. But it's erroneous.

Oh come on Skwim, that statement is simply an appeal to your position. But taking advantage of it, it's not like you had a choice to say anything else on the matter.

Seriously, if you don't want to have discourse feel free not to respond. The choice is yours.

As I pointed out, it was only done in hopes that you would see the error in your thinking. That it failed was obviously an over-expectation on my part.

Your initial challenge was to prove you wrong. That is my intention, at the very least I intend to prove that you have no good reason to assume you are right.

I invite you to carefully read my OP, if you haven't done so, and follow my replies through the discussion as well as those of others who are in agreement with me.

It's a rather protracted thread and I get the general gist of the deterministic position, so I make no plans to.

However, I will make a bargain with you. Seems to me that most determinists, at least the non-theistic sort, seem to root a bunch of their notions in the concept that we are our brains/brain states that sort of thing.

Richard Swinburne, a philosophy professor at Oxford, makes a sound argument for property dualism. Click on the link and then click on the tab for Mind-Body Dualism. It leads to a 4 page article.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/framesetpdfs.shtml

I'll read the first 16 pages of this thread if you will read the article.

Deal?

 

[atanu]

I
Assumption 1: Our perceptions are how we understand reality. Hopefully, we can hold this, at least as an axiom.
Assumption 2a: We do perceive making choices
P1: Our perceptions may or may not be true.
P2: Perceptions that are commonly held by all are accepted as a true part of reality axiomatically.
P3: Our perception that we make choices, are autonomous and make moral judgments is generally accepted true part of reality.
P4. Causal determinism would assert that we do not make choices, nor are we autonomous, nor are we capable of making moral judgments.
P5. We do not generally perceive our lack of choice, autonomy or moral responsibility.
Conclusion. Causal determinism is false.

Dear Mudcat

Although my earlier posts were ignored, I cannot resist pointing out a few things. Sorry for intruding. P2 means that the ideas of truth that we hold are representational. I agree and thus the conclusion Causal determinism is false is also representational. That it is based on a commonly held perception means that it is a pervasive representation that may as well be illusion.

Actually it does assert such things, by implication. As to moral judgment and choice Harry Frankfurt makes a good argument for the implications of causal determinism.

(1) An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent could have done otherwise.
(2) An agent could have done otherwise only if causal determinism is false.
(3) Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.

This means that there needs be an Agent. Who is the agent? Do we know the agent? Materialists will say that brain together with its processes is the agent. And that means that the Agent is not known to the materialist. Spiritual dualists, OTOH, land in another problem, as pointed out below.

Richard Swinburne, a philosophy professor at Oxford, makes a sound argument for property dualism. Click on the link and then click on the tab for Mind-Body Dualism. It leads to a 4 page article.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/framesetpdfs.shtml

I can agree with Body-Mind duality to some extent. Assuming that soul is distinct from the body and is the agent, then the mind has to know the soul and its purpose to be able to claim that "I am a free agent". This is not the case. Soul-agent and its purpose are not known. So, freedom is contingent upon knowledge of Soul-Self.

Hope you will reply and a meaningful discussion can take place.

 

[Koldo]

I would agree with you here superficially, but not entirely I think.

Bold mine, the reason I don't entirely agree is that there are two things that I think struggle with one another. Our rational will and our desires. It is possible, I think for a person to act against their own will for the sake of desire.

To give you an example of what I mean would be a person who has quit smoking for a month and under a stressful moment starts smoking again. Their will to quit has been over driven by their desire to smoke. Can it be said that such a person is actually doing what they wanted to do? I would think it would be more likely that their desire has coerced them against their will.

I don't want reify the notions of will or desire, but in some respect we will have to elevate their conceptual status for better examination, Ithink.

What are your thoughts on it?

How did this desire come to existence?
Did you select that particular desire to you?

If you didn't, if it simply came into existence, then we go back to the problem where we can not will what we will ( or rather we can not desire what we desire ).

Quite a few I would think.

If any.
Perhaps there are certain hidden parameters (hidden will, perhaps?) that make us have a preference for certain choice over the other when we are in doubt.

 

[Koldo]

Humans are spectacularly bad at choosing genuinely random outcomes.

I don't have enough knowledge in this subject.
So i don't really know if it is even possible for us to truly choose randomly, and then i just don't discard this possibility.

I just tend to focus on the fact that random choices do not create free will.
If it is random then the result of the choice is out of the conscious control.

 

[Mudcat]

Dear Mudcat

Although my earlier posts were ignored, I cannot resist pointing out a few things. Sorry for intruding. P2 means that the ideas of truth that we hold are representational. I agree and thus the conclusion Causal determinism is false is also representational. That it is based on a commonly held perception means that it is a pervasive representation that may as well be illusion.

Hi Atanu,

Sorry if you felt slighted by my lack of response. My initial purpose was to engage Skwim directly. I only have limited time for responses, so I choose to not open other lines of communication. However, I have now apparently gotten engaged with Koldo and yourself on the topic. I don't plan to engage anyone beyond you three, as the sense of being overwhelmed is not something I have no interest in.

That being said, on to your objection with P2 and the whole thing being representational, as well as the the conclusion.

In and of itself it is a strong objection, certainly it is possible even the most broadly accepted perceptions are illusory. But I think the objection fails because such an objection would invalidate just about anything you wanted to toss at it.

Our perceptions of cause and effect could be just as illusory, given your objection. If so, it doesn't further the argument for causal determinism.

What your suggesting ultimately boils down to solipsism, I think.

This means that there needs be an Agent. Who is the agent? Do we know the agent? Materialists will say that brain together with its processes is the agent. And that means that the Agent is not known to the materialist. Spiritual dualists, OTOH, land in another problem, as pointed out below.

I would think a statement that the person is the agent, would be sufficient to satisfy either position.

I can agree with Body-Mind duality to some extent. Assuming that soul is distinct from the body and is the agent, then the mind has to know the soul and its purpose to be able to claim that "I am a free agent". This is not the case. Soul-agent and its purpose are not known. So, freedom is contingent upon knowledge of Soul-Self.

I may be misunderstanding you on this part. It may be your usage of "mind". Typically I equate mind as a synonymous term for the soul. Do you mean "brain" when you say mind?

Hope you will reply and a meaningful discussion can take place.

Regards,

Mudcat

 

[Skwim]

I tried to address this a bit later in my post. To be clearer, given the notion of your "flat Earth" scenario. The perception that it was flat was an assumption without verification. No one at the time could perceive the entire surface of the Earth.

Sure they could.

per·cep·tion (pr-spshn)
n.
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology

a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
​

4.

a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
b. The capacity for such insight.
​

As I read your use of "perception" it would fall under definition 4-a:
"Insight, intuition . . . ." It wouldn't indicate knowledge because as you state, the perception the Earth is flat "was an assumption without verification." Knowing would not be involved in the perception.

Now, if you are using it in some other sense it would help to know what it is. But if this is what you mean, then to perceive the Earth is flat means one has either an insight, or intuition, that it's flat. And, of course, these perceptions would be mistaken. So perception by definition does not imply fact. In fact, it leaves room for error.

No one at that time literally percieved that the entire Earth was flat, so your objection to P2. fails.

Here you're using the word as an equivalent to "know," indicating an apprehension of fact. But as we both recognize, insights, intuitions, are not necessarily correct (factual). As you point out, "the perception the Earth is flat was an assumption without verification" ---cannot be considered factual.

I am afraid I am not understanding what you mean by this and don't see the relevance of the statement.

It means that one's goal to uncover any fact or truth does not change that fact or truth, as you seemed to imply.

I am familiar with the term, exceptions to the fallacy are when they are presented to establish popularity. You agreed with the premise yourself when you said, "Yes they are..". So your accusal of fallacy fails.

So what was your purpose in saying

"I mean that the notion that we perceive making choices is independently verifiable by all.. much in the same way that typically all sighted humans see a blue sky"?
​

I already said I believed people perceive making choices. &#8595;

Actually I was arguing that people in general perceive making choices. Not just me.. more of a cumulative case, I think.

That they do, even myself.

Well your admission to your perception that you do make choices is certainly a start Skwim.

Sorry if your fatigued. Perhaps you should give up.

The option looks more attractive with every exchange.

Actually it does assert such things, by implication. As to moral judgment and choice

Implications are not assertions. *Sigh*

As to moral judgment and choice Harry Frankfurt makes a good argument for the implications of causal determinism.

(1) An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent could have done otherwise.
(2) An agent could have done otherwise only if causal determinism is false.
(3) Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.

I suppose I could go into some detailed diatribe on the issue, if need be. But hopefully the argument will be sufficient.

No need to. I agree with Frankfurt.

Oh come on Skwim, that statement is simply an appeal to your position. But taking advantage of it, it's not like you had a choice to say anything else on the matter.

Seriously, if you don't want to have discourse feel free not to respond. The choice is yours.

I'll take that as your touché.

It's a rather protracted thread and I get the general gist of the deterministic position, so I make no plans to.

However, I will make a bargain with you. Seems to me that most determinists, at least the non-theistic sort, seem to root a bunch of their notions in the concept that we are our brains/brain states that sort of thing.

Richard Swinburne, a philosophy professor at Oxford, makes a sound argument for property dualism. Click on the link and then click on the tab for Mind-Body Dualism. It leads to a 4 page article.
Publications, Richard Swinburne

I'll read the first 16 pages of this thread if you will read the article.

Deal?

Not interested enough, but thanks for the offer.

 

[Mudcat]

per·cep·tion (pr-spshn)

n.
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology

a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.
​

4.

a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
b. The capacity for such insight.
​

As I read your use of "perception" it would fall under definition 4-a:
"Insight, intuition . . . ." It wouldn't indicate knowledge because as you state, the perception the Earth is flat "was an assumption without verification." Knowing would not be involved in the perception.

I'll try and get back to your post, I owe Koldo a response prior to this. But I am bumping ahead for just a moment.

On this part, I wasn't satisfied with the definitions proffered from your source and feel that the one I have provided is more relevant. Def 1 and 2 from your source are closer, but they are vague because they simply refer to perceiving.

per·cep·tion


–noun 1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.

3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.

I think def 1, emphasis mine is closer to what I am talking about.

 

[Mudcat]

How did this desire come to existence?
Did you select that particular desire to you?

If you didn't, if it simply came into existence, then we go back to the problem where we can not will what we will ( or rather we can not desire what we desire ).

To the first. In the example of smoking, I suppose there are a myriad of ways the initial desire came into existence.... peer pressure, popularity, some sort of response to advertising and so forth.

To the second, no not particularly. In retrospect heroin addiction would have been a more formidable addiction, as the parameters for it's addiction are more variant.

For instance, a girl could have been kidnapped and forced into heroin addiction for the purpose of prostitution. You see that theme in movies and I would speculate that such scenario is plausible, though my assumption that such occurs is anecdotal at best.

I think that one would have made for a more fruitful example, as you have a person who is doubly coerced against their will.

If any.
Perhaps there are certain hidden parameters (hidden will, perhaps?) that make us have a preference for certain choice over the other when we are in doubt.

Well, I won't make to much of it. Though I think that person who is trying out a new video game without reading the book, a game of chance without apprehension of the rules and so forth might serve as examples.

edit add -

Emphasis mine, I failed to address this point and after rereading the post have come to the the conclusion that these questions and so forth are actually ancillary to your statement I put in bold.

I don't think we have a disagreement here, in general. Certainly, given that we are free, we will what we will. I do think there are things that can obstruct our will though.

 

[Koldo]

To the first. In the example of smoking, I suppose there are a myriad of ways the initial desire came into existence.... peer pressure, popularity, some sort of response to advertising and so forth.

To the second, no not particularly. In retrospect heroin addiction would have been a more formidable addiction, as the parameters for it's addiction are more variant.

For instance, a girl could have been kidnapped and forced into heroin addiction for the purpose of prostitution. You see that theme in movies and I would speculate that such scenario is plausible, though my assumption that such occurs is anecdotal at best.

I think that one would have made for a more fruitful example, as you have a person who is doubly coerced against their will.

edit add -

Emphasis mine, I failed to address this point and after rereading the post have come to the the conclusion that these questions and so forth are actually ancillary to your statement I put in bold.

I don't think we have a disagreement here, in general. Certainly, given that we are free, we will what we will. I do think there are things that can obstruct our will though.

I am not sure on what you mean in the bolded sentence.
Do you mean to say we can select what we will? Or, is it that we are caused to have the will we do? Or something else?

Well, I won't make to much of it. Though I think that person who is trying out a new video game without reading the book, a game of chance without apprehension of the rules and so forth might serve as examples.

Perhaps they can be. But that is beyond my point either way.

 

[Mudcat]

I am not sure on what you mean in the bolded sentence.
Do you mean to say we can select what we will? Or, is it that we are caused to have the will we do? Or something else?

I don't like answering questions with questions, but I want clarity on the issue. It seems we may be talking past one another.

To avoid a faulty correlation, can you you give me a definition of sorts, as to what you mean by "will" exactly?

 

[Koldo]

I don't like answering questions with questions, but I want clarity on the issue. It seems we may be talking past one another.

To avoid a faulty correlation, can you you give me a definition of sorts, as to what you mean by "will" exactly?

The mental faculty by which one chooses or decides upon a course of action.
It is through one's will that choices are made.
In other words, will is the 'desire'.

 

[atanu]

Hi Atanu,
That being said, on to your objection with P2 and the whole thing being representational, as well as the the conclusion.
In and of itself it is a strong objection, certainly it is possible even the most broadly accepted perceptions are illusory. But I think the objection fails because such an objection would invalidate just about anything you wanted to toss at it.
Our perceptions of cause and effect could be just as illusory, given your objection. If so, it doesn't further the argument for causal determinism.

Hi Mudcat

I took 'axiomatic' as 'taken for granted' and not as 'self evident'. If P2 is 'taken for granted' without questioning, then the conclusion is likely to be erroneous. That was my point. So, instead of jumping to conclusion, we must examine our axiom that we indeed are making choices. On pondering, I find that baseless.

I would think a statement that the person is the agent, would be sufficient to satisfy either position.

How? Who is the person?

I may be misunderstanding you on this part. It may be your usage of "mind". Typically I equate mind as a synonymous term for the soul. Do you mean "brain" when you say mind?

My fault. In Hinduism, manas-mind and jiva-atma (soul) signify marginally different things. But for this analysis, to make things simpler, let us consider thenm same. Thus I revise my earlier note as : I can agree with Body-Soul duality to some extent. Assuming that soul is distinct from the body and is the agent, then one has to know the soul and its purpose to be able to claim that "I am a free agent". This is not the case. Soul-agent and its purpose are not known. So, freedom is contingent upon knowledge of Soul-Self.


Regards

 

[atanu]

Hi Mudcat

My fault. In Hinduism, manas-mind and jiva-atma (soul) signify marginally different things. But for this analysis, to make things simpler, let us consider thenm same. Thus I revise my earlier note as : I can agree with Body-Soul duality to some extent. Assuming that soul is distinct from the body and is the agent, then one has to know the soul and its purpose to be able to claim that "I am a free agent". This is not the case. Soul-agent and its purpose are not known. So, freedom is contingent upon knowledge of Soul-Self.

Regards

The above also indicates that there is indeed a difference between Mind -- that only knows the sensual and Soul - that is the whole person, including the conscious and super and sub conscious knowledge.

Once the Mind-Manas attains sameness with Soul (equated to Atma of Hinduism here), the situation alters.

 

[Skwim]

per·cep·tion


–noun 1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.

3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.

I think def 1, emphasis mine is closer to what I am talking about.

Okay, then your definition of perception rests on "apprehending," which I assume would be those in bold below.

ap·pre·hend (pr-hnd)

v. ap·pre·hend·ed, ap·pre·hend·ing, ap·pre·hends
v.tr.
1. To take into custody; arrest: apprehended the murderer.
2. To grasp mentally; understand: a candidate who apprehends the significance of geopolitical issues.
3. To become conscious of, as through the emotions or senses; perceive.
v.intr.
To understand something.

​

Unfortunately, our mental grasps and understandings are not infallible, which, in turn, means that our perceptions cannot be any better. What we perceive may well be in error.

 

[Mudcat]

The mental faculty by which one chooses or decides upon a course of action.
It is through one's will that choices are made.
In other words, will is the 'desire'.

Thanks for the clarification Koldo.

I am not sure on what you mean in the bolded sentence.
Do you mean to say we can select what we will? Or, is it that we are caused to have the will we do? Or something else?

I think we can select what we will.

 

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat

I took 'axiomatic' as 'taken for granted' and not as 'self evident'. If P2 is 'taken for granted' without questioning, then the conclusion is likely to be erroneous. That was my point. So, instead of jumping to conclusion, we must examine our axiom that we indeed are making choices. On pondering, I find that baseless.

Did you have choice in the matter?
Seriously though, if you have reached the conclusion that the axiom that we make choices is indeed baseless, I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

How? Who is the person?

You are the person that makes choices for yourself, likewise I make my own and so forth.

My fault. In Hinduism, manas-mind and jiva-atma (soul) signify marginally different things. But for this analysis, to make things simpler, let us consider thenm same. Thus I revise my earlier note as : I can agree with Body-Soul duality to some extent. Assuming that soul is distinct from the body and is the agent, then one has to know the soul and its purpose to be able to claim that "I am a free agent". This is not the case. Soul-agent and its purpose are not known. So, freedom is contingent upon knowledge of Soul-Self.

My fault as well Atanu, I didn't realize you were a Hindu and I confess to only a very cursory knowledge of your beliefs. There are virtually no Hindu's in my area. My only direct experience was a three hour car ride with one. It was quite interesting, she seemed devout to her beliefs.

As a side note Atanu, I would like to have discourse with a practicing Hindu such as yourself... Maybe in comparative religions. If you open to that, maybe we could do that sometime.

To answer the question though. I see the body as a car of sorts, and the mind as driver. I don't see any prerequisite that the body knows the soul, in the sense that the body has the ability to know something in and of itself.

All the best,

Mudcat

 

[Koldo]

Thanks for the clarification Koldo.

I think we can select what we will.

How do we select what we will without making use of our will?
Keep in mind that it is the 'will' that allows choices to be made.
Without 'will', the choices are not possible.