Determinism vs Free Will

1. The mind allows for the experience of phenomena, all of which is enclosed in Noumenon, the extent of which is imperceptible to any subject.

In other words, the mind--presumably the faculty of logic--acts as an intermediary between subjective and intersubjective (or objective) existence.

This is irrational.

It would presume that a faculty of the mind can be employed to "reason" that which is independent of the mind.

"Your mind" is like a lens through which "The Mind" observes (explores and catalogs) aspects of NOUMENON.

"Your mind" (your faculty of logic) is not 100% conscious of itself.

"Your mind" (your faculty of logic) has subconscious impulses that you can indirectly observe the effects of (post-facto).

And I believe it is critical to point out that humans are fully incapable of detecting "anything" purely OBJECTIVE.

Please explain.

Your mind" is a fully integrated module of "The Mind" which is itself a fully integrated module of NOUMENON.

There is no "part" that is "independent".

Click to watch 39 seconds,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdrwqLUpD0

If the mind is being described as the "lens," then what is NOUMENON independent of said lens?

"Your mind" (your faculty of logic) is not 100% conscious of itself.

The problem with quantifying these relations especially with the employment of percentages is the presumed lack of understanding of 100%. If the mind is not 100% conscious of itself, then how would one know or experience a mind that is 100% conscious of itself? Much less quantify the relation between one's current state to this presumably intangible projected state?

And I believe it is critical to point out that humans are fully incapable of detecting "anything" purely OBJECTIVE.

So then, does the "objective" exist?

Please explain.

Because tools like reason are of the mind. How can one "reason" that which is independent of the mind? Once one employs reason, the mind subjects that which is reasoned.

Isn't Noumeon independent of the mind by definition? One can argue that one's mind, and the mind, are dependent on Noumenon, but is Noumenon dependent on one's mind, and the mind?

The all have the same options but it's not relevant to the matter of determinism vs libertarian free will.

They are not "independent" (because if they were "independent" they would not be able to detect each other).

They are inter-dependent (both aspects of a single, monistic system).  In the same way your eye is distinguishable from your brain.

They are distinguishable, but not "independent".

Even at the level of the brain, we know there are chemical triggers and electrical signals that are constantly in motion that are integral to our thought process.

We can model most of these, but you cannot simultaneously function and know everything your brain and body are "doing" under your skin at every moment you are awake.

"Your conscious mind" has a very limited capacity to accumulate and store and retrieve data.

In order to be 100% conscious of your function, you would require the capacity to fully understand all of the inner workings of your own physiology and the inner workings of all systems that interact with you in any way.  The very definitions of "human" and "sanity" preclude such understanding (at the very least it precludes communication of such understanding).

The "you" that is distinguishable from "everything else" is only a fractional part of many much larger and much more complex systems.

The "everything" is only "knowable" to the "you" through the function of "your mind", but that does not mean the window itself is the world.

In 6 minutes,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGarjovMfj0

Objective existence is logically necessary (an integral aspect of NOUMENON).

However, it is buried beneath an incomprehensible number of indistinguishable layers of subjective phenomena beyond our epistemological limits.

And by the very definition of "objectivity" it is fully inaccessible to humans.

Only comprehensible concepts can be entertained.

The incomprehensible (NOUMENON) can only be "known" by logical deduction (as more of an abstract category).

Any "thing" truly "independent" of "The Mind" can never logically interact in any way with "The Mind" and as such can be considered indistinguishable from non-existent (THEREFORE, EPISTEMOLOGICAL MONISM IS NECESSARILY TRUE).

Every component is integral and necessary.

Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".

Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.

Yes, but the difference between the eye and the brain presumably can be "observed" (?) by an independent party. How is this done with the mind and NOUMENON? Can one see one's own brain?

Yes but the understanding of these phenomena are reflected by the scope of our consciousnesses. Would the data be the same if the limits of our  consciousnesses were either broken or expanded? Wouldn't that beg for new limits?

Wouldn't that conclude that we know nothing. Because whatever we do understand will be a fraction of an infinite progression (or regression dependent on how you see it.) Any constant outside of infinity over infinity produces zero, right?

Then how can one perceive it, let alone identify it in the form of definition?

Wouldn't this suggest that logic is independent of the mind? And if this is the claim, how so?

Every component is integral and necessary.

Without "your mind", NOUMENON could not "exist".

Particular aspects appear to wax and wane, but that is merely due to our practically infinitesimal perceptual scope.

So then how do you reconcile your description with its definition?

Your mind can know what it knows.

Your mind can also know that it doesn't know everything.

This creates a clear (modal) distinction (but NOT a fundamental distinction).

The model is flexible.

Some minds know more.

Some minds know less.

In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.

The model is flexible.

Some minds know more.

Some minds know less.

In all cases, there remains some ability to discern between what one knows and what one doesn't know.

Whatever we do understand is a fraction of an incomprehensible (not infinite) progression.

Whatever is beyond our epistemological limit is of unknown quantity/quality.

This emphasizes (magnifies) the relative importance of what we know.

The very concept of "important" only exists as a byproduct of our own ignorance.

Definitions themselves are (unfortunately) not limited by logic.

Any number of terms and concepts can be defined by contradictory (incoherent) combinations of primary axioms.

For example, "nothingness" is incoherent (there can be no such "thing" as "nothingness" because it could only "exist" no-where at no-time).

Also, "infinite" is incoherent (any "thing" truly "without limit" would necessarily supersede all other "things" in existence, rendering variation impossible).

In a similar manner, "objectivity" is defined (by common definitions) as "incomprehensible" and "unobservable" ("independent" of human observation).

The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).

Logic is an integral aspect of "the mind".

Logic cannot exist "independently" of "the mind".

And "the mind" cannot exist without logic.

Please make your perceived conflict explicit.

For example, "nothingness" is incoherent (there can be no such "thing" as "nothingness" because it could only "exist" no-where at no-time).

Also, "infinite" is incoherent (any "thing" truly "without limit" would necessarily supersede all other "things" in existence, rendering variation impossible).

Would this not render "everything" in your argument as conception?

You mentioned that some people know more and some people know less.

This relation could only be made with respect to a fixed quantity or quality.

If "we don't know everything," then any amount we relate automatically would be dictated by the domain of possibilities we  conceive (not this metaphysical "everything.")

Therefore, the statement "we don't know everything" (of course, in place of "I don't know everything") would be contradicted since the domain of "everything" is necessarily informed, at least for our epistemological purposes, by everything we do know.

Why is variation necessary?

The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).

Why not?

If there's a necessary mutual [inter]dependence, then logic could not be merely an "aspect" of the mind.

Is noumenon not that which is independent of the senses or perception? What function does the mind bear under that condition?

Everything that is "conceivable" is not necessarily "purely conceptual".

The scope of our analysis (discussion) is necessarily limited to the "conceivable".

Not necessarily.

Even a printed page can contain MORE data than another printed page.

The total percentage of "everything" "known" in relation to the total percentage of "everything" "unknown" is indeterminate.

Simply because we don't know the full scope of what we don't know, does not contradict the demonstrable fact "we don't know everything".

The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).

Without variation, individual identification and ontological division would be impossible.

Because of the definition of "existence".

"The Mind" is a series of divisions (variations).

These divisions necessitate interaction.

The predictability of these interactions are LOGIC

"The Mind" is not 100% known (or perceivable).

How do you distinguish the purely conceptual from the the not purely conceptual?

How does one gauge this without considering a fixed amount? Using your example, would one consider the amount of words, or the subjects broached? What would "more" mean?