Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

The brain is physical. The mind is mental. The agent of self is a mental attribute. Free will is also a mental attribute. I believe will is not forced or predetermined by cusal chains outside of any influence. These abstracts or insubstantials hold no material space as the brain does, therefore they're seperate from the material. Therefore I believe that there are more than determined and material things that exist in reality. I believe reality exists in in more than just material substance.

As I see, your position on free-will is derived from following metaphysical assumptions.

1. There are two separate components of reality - physical and non-physical (which could be alternatively referred to as mental).

2. The mental component is not only separate from, but independent of the physical component. That is the only way it could exist while remaining independent of certain laws governing the physical component - specifically - the law of causation.


Now, what other conclusions can be drawn form these premises?

1. Since you have argued that the mental could exist independently of the physical, but never argued the other way around - either the physical reality is also independent of the mental reality or it is dependent upon it.

2. Since the implications of these assumptions are very much a part of physical reality - the physical reality is not independent of the mental one, but dependent upon it.

3. Therefore, the mental reality holds primacy over the physical - that is, in any apparent contradictions regarding the facts - the laws of this mental reality would supersede the laws of physical reality.

Now, let us look at some laws of physical reality that would not be applicable to the mental reality.

1. As stated, the law of causation does not apply to mental reality.

2. The law of causation is a necessary consequence of law of identity (an entity is what it is and can only act according to its nature). Therefore, the law of identity is not applicable as well.

3. The entire body of rational inquiry is based on the law of identity - therefore reason and logic as means of gaining knowledge of the mental reality are useless.

So, until now, based on your assumptions, we've gathered following facts about your position - that you believe in a reality beyond the physical reality. that you consider this reality to hold primacy, that you do not have any rational way to know anything about this reality and that between any apparent conflict of facts between this reality and the physical one, you'd choose to accept the other one.

Is it just me or is this position dangerously close to a fundamentalist one?

Moving on from the logical implications of your assumption to the assumptions themselves. Do you have any justification by which you hold these assumptions?

---

and by default, more incomprehensible. Sorry.

If it was easily comprehensible, then there wouldn't be a need for a discussion, since everyone would be able to figure it out for themselves.