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