The heart is referred to as emotions now as a whole, the soul is referred to as all emotions throughout life as a whole.

To talk about "vibrant" the way you do, is to make the soul material. It's like saying the soul is energy. It's a sign of corruption.

The soul chooses, and only a chosen judgement can identify what emotions are in the soul. That are the rules which logic dictates. To make the soul material, means to make the soul factual. Facts are forced by evidence, not chosen. Which means to throw out chosen judgement based on human emotions, the human spirit, and throw out chosen judgement by God the holy spirit.

Any materialization of what is properly spiritual dilutes the purity of emotions, faith. And especially in view of the powerful materialistic culture at present in academics, it should be forbidden.

I think this is the reason that Islam has stopped to function for many muslims, especially in the West. It doesn't work emotionally anymore, because materialistic objective notions have crept into what is properly spiritual and subjective. Even the idea of what is subjective has been corrupted with materialist notions of dopamine chemistry in the brain.

And when Islam stops working, then a typical response is to hardline the whole of Islam, to get it to work again. But I think just education on the difference between fact and opinion, would get it working again.

The argumentation is about whether agency can be established as fact forced by evidence, or if agency can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

And then it is demonstrated that establishing agency as fact, leads to an error of contradiction. Therefore it is wrong, which means there are no facts about agency.

And then it is shown that identifying agency as a matter of chosen opinion works, it does not lead to error.

I think it should have been clear to you that "agency", is by definition what it was that made the choice turn out A.

I cannot really follow your argument. I am guessing you want it to be a matter of fact that Jack chose to go left, instead of right. Then Jack being agent of the decision, and agency therefore fact.

But then I must refer you back to the explanation why it can never be the case that agency is factual.

What are you referring to with "what makes it possible to make choices"?

Free will vs determinism makes a lot of practical difference. Determinists generally leave no room for emotion / personal opinion, and objectify emotions.

To say behaviour is forced by race in the blood, and the content of someone's character is a matter of biological fact, belong together.

See the logic of determinism always goes together with objectifying emotions, character, because the emotions must be factual things in the determinist chain of cause and effect.

Not really. In Christian tradition the soul also chooses. And the philosophy of 3 souls was of a catholic.

Supposing there are alternative futures A and B. A is made the present, meaning A is chosen. Then there is the question about agency "what was it that made the choice turn out A?"

Then we gather evidence in order to establish a fact of what made the decision turn out A, and come to the conclusion that it was in fact X which made the decision turn out A.

But then X being a definite factual thing, we are saying X forced A, and the decision could not have turned out B. So then there is an error of contradiction between the premise that alternative future B was available, and the conclusion that B could not have been chosen.

The solution is then to choose the answer to the question, resulting in a subjective opinion on it. Then no definite factual thing is established, and then it is still true that the decision could have turned out B.

It only makes sense to judge the soul, if the soul makes choices.

Not really. Some philosophy talks about 3 different souls, the intellectual soul, the instinctive soul, and I forget, or never learned, the last one. The soul generally always refers to the agency of choices, whether it is intellectual choices, or instinctive choices, or otherm

The time when God first likes someone.

An opinion, like to say something is beautiful, has the logic that it is chosen, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. So opinions are in reference to what it is that makes a choice, and the soul is one of the things that makes choices.

Fact has the logic that, a fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind. So facts only apply to chosen things. Such as the human body.

Therefore the soul and the body are in completely different categories, but connected by choosing.

Huh?

By not distinguishing the soul from the body, then you will have no way to distinguish personal opinions like about what is beautiful, from statements of fact, like the body has 2 arms.

Another dishonest lawyer trick, not dealing with real issues.

There is also mathematics of randomness / decisionmaking processes.

Actually if mathematics is the theory of everything, then objects consist of the laws of nature. Then as laws unto themselves objects exhibit freedom. Objects anticipate their alternative future states for some parameters.

And without randomness / decisionmaking then it is impossible to generate information.

Probably you are "superior".

The entire material domain can be exhaustively and accurately modelled with mathematics. Presuming you had a good deal of this accurate knowledge of your environment, you would have a lot of mathematics. Uh.. that is totally boring.

The only feeling would be the feeling of certitude associated to facts. It's a nice feeling, a safe feeling. But pretty boring.

Obviously the feeling of certitude is already spiritual. So is boredom spiritual. I don't see how any feeling is alowed in physicalism, because feelings aren't physical. There is no mathematics of feelings.

Basically we are in a world which is focused on facts and the physical, and there is in principle no room allowed for personal opinion and emotion. Academics is basically rotten to the core, because of evolution theory, but religion is pretty focused on fact and physical too.

The same rule applies to the chosen judgement. You can choose the opinion that the chosen judgement that the choice was made out of love, was made out of fear, or you can choose the opinion that the judgement was made of love. So 1 choice, then 2 chosen opinions on the agency of the choice, and then 4 chosen opinions on the 2 chosen opinions.

And so on, ad infinite.

You can choose the opinion that a particular choice was made out of love, you can choose the opinion the same choice was made out of fear. Both answers are equally logically valid.

The logic being the rule that an opinion must be chosen. To be forced to say a choice was made out of love provides an invalid opinion.

The freedom in identifying agency of a choice preserves the freedom in the concept of choice. Where if agency were to be established as fact FORCED by evidence, then this factual thing would force a particular result, and the concept of choice does not function.

And because people want agency to be factual, is why understanding of free will is underdeveloped.

Do you admit then the logic that agency of a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion?

Or are you surreptiously trying to hide objectified agency in complexity?

There is a reason why knowledge about free will is underdeveloped.

That is just free will denial.

Then you talk about "very complex" , because you want to hide objectification of what is inherently subjective, in that vagueness. The stark basic logic, you cannot hide anything in that.

That's just the way logic works. Everything must be validated. You cannot just say "very" complex. You have to precisely define the complexity with a number.

Any improvements are much appreciated.

definitions

possibility = a future thing that can be made the present
anticipation = the relation of a present object to a possibility
choose = to make a possibility the present, or not. ( or, to make one of alternative futures the present)
conservative = to make a possibility not the present
progressive = to make a possibility the present
spiritual = the substance of that which chooses
material = the substance of that which is chosen
agency = the acting spirit
creator = who makes the choice
creation = that which is chosen
opinion = chosen statement on what the identity of a creator is
fact = a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation in the mind, forced by the evidence of it

That is going too fast. One needs to build things up starting from the concept of the simplest choice, and not start throwing in things like desire and whatever else.

Fundamentally, should it be understood that 1. there is single possibility in a choice, and that the choice consists of making this possibility the present, or not, or,

2. does a choice consist of having alternative futures available, either of which can be made the present.

If 1 then a choice is either progressive, making the possibility the present, or conservative, negating the possibility.

1 seems more parsimonious,

But 2 seems more practical.

Very lively book that.

Ideally I would be looking for the systematics of free will. For terminology with precise definitions of all basic permutations of the logic of free will.

You are obviously confusing subjectivity, like beauty, with fantasy, like spiderman.

Belief in the soul is subjective. A subjective belief is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. The soul is agency of choices. And then in the end the soul is judged for all the choices it made.

What total and utter idiots academic people are for not comprehending basic logic of subjectivity.

1. What are the positive and negative colors?
2. Giving up on logic makes the idea non philosophical.

Objective truth is a fact that as a matter of chosen opinion is said to be emotionally significant.

Certainty is a feeling that a proposed fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. The feeling is a sort of satisfaction that any more effort to verify correspondence would not lead to a change in status of the fact that it does, or does not, correspond

The point would be to argue what tthe proper definition of fact is. And that you don't argue it while contesting it, that is a sign of intellectual fraudulence.

Obnoxious, condescending, stubborn, all identify the agency of a choice, and are therefore a matter of chosen opinion.

Logic are rules, to talk about the logic of opinion, is to talk about the rules for opinions. And the rules are, that an opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

That means when you force the conclusion someone is obnoxious, then that is an invalid opinion. Same as to force someone to say a painting is beautiful provides an invalid opinion. Because the rules for the concept of opinion says that an opinion must be chosen, not forced.

To call people stupid, it's just a way to enforce morality. Most people on these boards are eviil. Most people here ignore emotions, disregard the concept of personal opinion. They have no clue how to prime emotions for honesty.

My definitions are great, my explanations are great, you are all just intellectual frauds.

The clue to comprehending free will is that the question what the agency of a choice is, is a subjective issue.

That you throw out free will equally means that you have thrown out the concept of personal opinion, like opinion on beauty.

Sadness and happiness are subjective, therefore they are agency of choices. You choose things out of sadness and happiness.

You cannot choose any subjective thing, like happiness, but you can make a morality to achieve such a state where you judge yourself to be happy.

I don't really see you emphasizing a categorical distinction between what is subjective and what is objective.

You say that as if it is a foregone conclusion that you will never actually read my post.

As in the title of this topic, creationism provides the foundations of reasoning , the concepts of fact and opinion. There is no rationality without creationism.

The arbitrary philosophers that you mention, they more seem into understanding of sophisticated things, and not understanding of foundations.

Truth, validity, accuracy, preference, etc. they are only meaningfully defined in respect to creationist logic. Your arbirary use of them without foundation in creationism is just noise.

Creationism basically accurately reflects the logic used in common discourse for thousands of years already.

Thousands of years ago, people already knew intuitively how to express an opinion that something is beautiful, knew to convey an accurate fact of something, knew how to talk in terms of making choices. The basic logic has not changed.

Efforts to deny creationism are futile at best, and more likely just plain lies.

Yes. And the wiki on free will is still a mess. It still mostly reflects the problems intellectuals have free will, instead of emphasizing that everyone talks in terms of making choices, practically, in daily life, without basic problems.