mental causality and human free will juleon schins delft university of technology the netherlands
Post on 27-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Mental Causalityand human free will
Juleon SchinsDelft University of Technology
The Netherlands
Intuitive conditions for free will
1. There must exist a personal self capable of determining originally the future evolution of a material body
2. This original determination should not conflict with physical laws
Standard argument against free will
Criticism: how can a neurologist exclude that one is measuring the conscious experience of having acted?
Electrodes measuring action respond before electrodes measuring one’s conscious experience of willing that action
Classical causality
Modern causality
?
Straightforward philosophical interpretation of quantum impredictability: causality is(i) transcendent and (ii) hylemorphic
Quantum mechanics marks the end of phenomenic causality
Quantum-hylemorphic causality
choice
physical laws
material reality
Positive evidence in favour of a non-material self, source of mental
causality
The moral judgementThe intentional judgementThe mathematical judgement
Economical policy: free market versus government interference
Political organisation: federation versus union, direct versus indirect elections
Religion: no god, one god, many godsPhilosophy: the world exists (not), the world is
(not) knowable
Evolutionary diversification
The moral judgement
Every biologically normal human judges that (s)he has absolute personal rights
This claim of personal rights is verifiably universalThis claim has no added value for evolutionary
survivalDarwinism (variation and selection are sufficient
principles for the birth and diversification of all life) is not able to account for the universality of this claim
The mathematical judgement
Kurt Gödel proved in 1931 that(i) derivation (or procedure) and truth judgement
are fundamentally different concepts: A B(ii) every consistent axiomatic system contains true
but undecidable statements (not derivable from the axioms)
Ergo: mathematical truth is not an intrinsic property of axiomatic systems, but a transcendent one
The mathematical judgement
• All humans can (if they wish) understand Gödel’s argument
• The human mathematical truth judgement is not processive (deductive)
• Deductive causality = material causality = physical lawfulness
The human mathematical truth judgement has a non-material origin
The intentional judgement
First order intentionality: the ability to have intentions
Second order intentionality: the ability to conceive that others have intentions
Third order intentionality: the ability to conceive that others conceive that thirds have intentions
nth order intentionality
Peter knows that John knows that Angie knows that Clara knows…
… that Jack tries to get hold of mum’s legacy
Past time (millions of years)
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
1
2
3
4
Order ofintentionality
chimpanzeesprimatesmammals
birdsreptiles
amphibiansfish
insectsplants
bacteria
humans
??
Non-quantitative lawfulness
The three mentioned judgements (moral, mathematical, intentional) are not examples of human behaviour conflicting with physical laws,
but examples of behaviour that cannot be explained by them
Yet the regularity, the universality displayed by these examples points to a non-quantitative law, describing its proper object (by definition non-material)
Conclusion
We have seen that• a principle is operative in nature that cannot
be described by quantitative laws• this principle is the causal source of moral,
intentional, and mathematical judgmentsDoes this prove mental causality? Yes.Does mental causality prove free will? No.However, it satisfies all the philosophical
conditions for free will
top related