Mind = Brain?

[fr0d0]

You're so pedantic Rabbit

This is what you do best. Divert attention when it is time for answers you suggest you have. I gave you ample opportunity to state your views on the quotes you dropped from Arcanus as if they totally reflect your own. I asked what you/he meant by "actively shaping the causal chain" which seems to suggest that humans can somehow step with their identity and will outside their causal determination and affect it in some way.

Don't be an idiot rabbit. 1. You're disingenuous to the extreme 2. You're, as usual, misreading.. no doubt you'll drag out the 'oh I was trying to tease out more detail' bullshit again.

You asked if I was saying people cannot be persuaded by others. I repeated what I'd said a couple of times already: that outside influence affects the decision process.

You also said that "You cannot make any choice you aren't programmed to make through your own "character or desires"." which seems to suggest quite the opposite, whatever the persuasion attempts of others, there is no effect of it on the decision one is programmed to make.

So you're quoting Arcanus and putting it onto me right? (time to divert to reason (2) again). I read Arcanus to encompass outside influence. What we are programmed to do includes outside influence.. I find that quite simple to understand. Evidently you do not. Let me know how I can help with that.

I was asking if you'd differentiate between will and choice a bit more, as your statement that "Will is about striving for a particular outcome not for the choice as such" ..didn't seem much of a distinction; or even apt in this case.

No, you asked me to differentiate on will, not on will and choice, thereby suggesting that there was some other relevant distinction to be made about will. The distinction between will and choice I gave is in plain english, which part don't you get? The point is that choice does not equate to will, which is what you suggested ("'Will' is commonly assumed to be 'choice'."). Why not? Because choice is a situation of more than one possible outcome (no agent involved here) , while will is the striving of some agent for a certain outcome. So choice drastically differs in nature from will. If you cannot distinguish the two or think the dstinction is not apt, then how can you ever hope to be accurate on interpreting quotes from others on this subject? The thing is that you use inaccuracies like this to hide incomplete reasoning for the supernatural, like the soul.

So you know what I am thinking/ saying. Interesting. Is that this 'spiritual' ability of yours in action?

I've never said that I fully understand 'will' or 'agent' concepts fully. I don't. It's something I'm learning about. You seem to want to stomp all over me over that. All I wanted to do was link to a previous exploration of the subject so we could continue from there. Apparently your ego needs some caressing here. So go for it.

I can distinguish the difference between choice and will... just your phraseology blurred the meaning to me, hence my request for clarity. Was that _so_ hard?

I have no idea what you're getting at with the causal chain question.

That's very odd indeed since you brought it up with quoting Arcanus. Are you implying that you don't understand what Arcanus is saying while still quoting him? My question is very simple. Arcanus suggested that it is posibble to sidestep causal chains ("actively shape the causal chain"). How?

Arcanus didn't say we could "sidestep the causal chain". That's a stretch too far. In my understanding, our intellect and our influences on top of our instincts determine any outcome of our actions. In other words, out instinct, influences and intellect all shape the causal chain. We would do no other., but we are not passive in the process. We are actors in the process, and so are our influences.

I assume you must substitute something else.

Your assumption is false. Why do you make such an assumption?

You prove my assumption with the following question

Your soul is your state as a person. The sum of your mind and instincts which goes to make your identity.

Why should I need a word like 'soul', a word with strong supernatural connotations, when 'identity' suffices and is without that connotation as shown in this sentence by yourself?

Because 'identity' isn't 'soul'.

You can nurture a positive harmonious persona which would then lead to a balanced life. In a Christian worldview a balanced life is achieved through living right with God.

The predicate of leading a balanced life is a result of a personal assessment and thus subjective. There is no need for a god in it, nor does the reference to a god add up to credibility for such a being. But this has nothing to do with the question of free will. You brought it up to lend some credulity to a supernatural soul, but failed to make the connection.

The connection is solid. This is central to the notion of the soul, and the whole point of it. Soul has been raised in this topic, not by me, but by others who suppose mind = soul. And you brought 'soul' into our conversation and not me. Soul being an inextricable link to God within us in Christian dogma is entirely credible if you're questioning Christian dogma.