I am with RJG here, which is what I mean by 'reality' . And also what I mean by 'probability'. Therefore probability is not built-in to nature where necessity, not probability, is supreme. It is Kantian to regard probability as a 'guessing tool' since probability is an adjunct of, a development from, causality, and causality is one of the Kantian synthetic a priori.My initial take was that it confirmed my view, that probabilities is only a 'guessing-tool' to help understand reality, rather than (what I perceive you to be saying) that it is an essence of reality.
Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13817
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
-
- Posts: 230
- Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I feel I am getting muddled here.Belinda wrote:RJG wrote to McDoodle:I am with RJG here, which is what I mean by 'reality' . And also what I mean by 'probability'. Therefore probability is not built-in to nature where necessity, not probability, is supreme. It is Kantian to regard probability as a 'guessing tool' since probability is an adjunct of, a development from, causality, and causality is one of the Kantian synthetic a priori.My initial take was that it confirmed my view, that probabilities is only a 'guessing-tool' to help understand reality, rather than (what I perceive you to be saying) that it is an essence of reality.
I think we all agree that Bayesian analysis sees probability as a guessing-tool.
And no, I'm not saying probability is 'an essence of reality' at all. I'm saying there is no 'essence of reality' in my world-view: this phrase is just part of a narrative among others, useful in certain circumstances.
I don't understand the leaps, as they feel to me, to 'reality' and 'necessity'. I felt the piece quoted had nothing to say about 'certainty', only about uncertainty.
I read over a comparison of Hume and Kant to make myself ready to respond, but don't think I've got any clearer! I am still with Hume's reservations, and his billiard-ball that does not carry necessity with it in its motion towards the next billiard ball.
Well, if I am trapped forever with David Hume, so be it, it's good company, but further enlightenment would be welcome.
- Vojos
- Posts: 83
- Joined: February 28th, 2012, 5:25 pm
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
http://www.bachelorandmaster.com/critic ... hauer.html
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: June 18th, 2010, 10:12 am
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13817
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I believe that you are correct about David Hume, McDoodle. Hume is an empiricist. Kant is better than Hume because Kant invents the synthetic a priori which synthesises the empirical thesis and the rational antithesis in a way that modern neuroscience endorses in studies of innate brain mechanisms of other primates besides humans.And Chomsky endorses in his theory of universal grammar.I read over a comparison of Hume and Kant to make myself ready to respond, but don't think I've got any clearer! I am still with Hume's reservations, and his billiard-ball that does not carry necessity with it in its motion towards the next billiard ball.
The belief in necessity cannot be reasonably based upon empirical observations, because of the so-called problem of induction, and also because of the problem that Hume describes when he says that all we know of causation itself is constant conjunction of events.
No, my belief in necessity is a choice based upon faith, or even wishful thinking. I also believe that necessity implies an ethical system which is better than belief in Free Will, so the choice to believe in necessity is a practical choice, even a political choice.But there is no evidence that necessity is the case.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I’m still concerned about definitions:
I think that both of these might be forms of free-will: what Belinda calls the power of origination I might call 'absolute free-will', and it might be represented by what an abstract painter produces on a blank canvas or a creative writer produces on a blank manuscript page. But, as I indicated earlier in this forum, I don’t see why the human power to come up with a decision among several options or in the face of several different pressures could not also be held to contain an element of free-will.Belinda wrote: I don't mean by 'Free Will' the freedom to make the decision on one's own grounds. By 'Free Will' I mean the power of origination which in its turn implies that the event in question, such as human decision, had no predisposing or concurrent causes of it...
I certainly uphold RGH’s right to claim that neither of these possible manifestations of free-will (absolute free will and free will to decide among options) in fact exist; on the grounds that they both always have past antecedents which can be argued to cause or predetermine them. But I don’t think that his position can be supported conclusively. Instead, I defend my and McDoodle’s right to disagree with him, and argue that there is still room for free-will to be considered as one of the causes that lie behind human decisions, and, just possibly, as the only causal factor behind some attempts to create beauty (and I’m not excluding music or other art forms.)
By saying this, I am disagreeing with Belinda when she says:
Instead I am suggesting that free-will might, and would certainly be able to, operate in an environment where causality/causation exists. It could itself be seen as a unique type of cause among all the other, material causes to which RGH assigns sole credit for decisions; and as the only cause, perhaps, that prevents an absolute free-will choice from being a truly random choice. Unique because it might not be correct to call it a predetermined cause (in the sense of 'predetermined by past events'). It might instead be considered a cause rooted in the present and, just possibly, a cause that has no material antecedents.Free Will is supernatural because the putative Free Will act is outside of causation. True, causation may not exist but if so there is no ethical or cognitive advantage to Free Will as, if causation did not exist, the putative Free Will choice would be a truly random choice.
With regard to RGH’s assertion that introspection is bound to prove that every event has a material, predetermining cause, I would counter that yes, most events do indeed seem to have not one, but many material causes. But many events also seem to stem from human decisions, and my introspection, at least, suggests that these human decisions could be interpreted as including a component of free-will. The idea that introspection will show that all human behaviors derive solely from material causes is only plausible if there is a clear reason to reject the free-will hypothesis – and I have not seen any compelling argument that the idea of free-will is unacceptable.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13817
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
But a unique type of cause is not natural and is therefore by definition supernatural.It could itself be seen as a unique type of cause among all the other, material causes to which RGH assigns sole credit for decisions;
In philosophy 'Free Will' means the origin of the will is in whole or in part within the subject.
-
- Posts: 230
- Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I think I had misunderstood the Kantian position. Pardon me, I'm just exploring some of these things. 'The property the will has of being a law unto itself', which I gather is what he endorses, is, I see, distinct from 'free will' as I understand it, but less circumscribed than I had thought his position to be when I first joined in this debate.Belinda wrote:H2ouse wrote:But a unique type of cause is not natural and is therefore by definition supernatural.It could itself be seen as a unique type of cause among all the other, material causes to which RGH assigns sole credit for decisions;
In philosophy 'Free Will' means the origin of the will is in whole or in part within the subject.
I think there is a circularity in the argument about what is 'natural' here, in Belinda's explanation. A unique type of cause would only be 'not natural' if you assume that nature and causal determinism are inextricably intertwined, surely? I don't assume that. Indeed, sometimes I have to make an act of faith to get over the fact that I don't assume that (if 'faith' is the right word)
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I think I agree with this, Again it comes down to definitions. For me, causal determinism is inextricably intertwined with the 'material' world -- but I would distinguish this from the 'natural' world because free-will does seem to be as natural as any other human faculty (or perhaps 'mammalian', because I don't know any reptiles).Mcdoodle wrote:A unique type of cause would only be 'not natural' if you assume that nature and causal determinism are inextricably intertwined, surely? I don't assume that.
I'm assuming that 'subject' here means individual (thus, free-will is a subjective rather than an objective phenomenon). But I'd like to know where this definition comes from -- I've always understood that the key criterion in free-will is that it is not predetermined.Belinda wrote:In philosophy 'Free Will' means the origin of the will is in whole or in part within the subject.
My personal goal in this forum is to test arguments for free-will, even for a dualist position -- which I still find plausible. I DO think that free-will and causality are compatible, and I find that free-will so far remains a reasonable concept to me. Please bring up the strongest arguments you know of against the existence of free-will. To me, this is what online philosophy forums should be about: pitting arguments against each other, and allowing all of us to judge (using our own free will! ) which is the best position to take. Unless of course the winning argument is so compelling that it would make no sense to go with the alternative.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13817
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I wrote natural because natural events are caused events. Free Will is uncaused : God is uncaused. Apart from those two, one cannot think of any other event which is uncaused.I think there is a circularity in the argument about what is 'natural' here, in Belinda's explanation. A unique type of cause would only be 'not natural' if you assume that nature and causal determinism are inextricably intertwined, surely? I don't assume that. Indeed, sometimes I have to make an act of faith to get over the fact that I don't assume that (if 'faith' is the right word)
H2ouse wrote:
I agree. Also, what is the point of doing philosophy if one is agnostic about everything? Agnostic is not being able for whatever reason to be unable to decide something, and although this position is sometimes unavoidable, it has no intrinsic virtue .To me, this is what online philosophy forums should be about: pitting arguments against each other,
H2ouse added:
However I would substitute (using our own choice) for H2ouse's (using our own free will)., and allowing all of us to judge (using our own free will! ) which is the best position to take.
-
- Posts: 230
- Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I'm being tiresomely dogged here but - this is only so according to a system of belief. One damn thing follows another. The 'causedness' is ascribed by the human observer. Who is always looking for causes.Belinda wrote:I wrote natural because natural events are caused events. Free Will is uncaused : God is uncaused. Apart from those two, one cannot think of any other event which is uncaused.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
I’m not sure if it’s right to call free-will and God ‘events’. People who believe in God would certainly consider this a slight – at the least they would consider Him/Her the supreme ‘entity’ – an entity being an agent who can initiate events (perhaps this is different from causing events, but it has a similar effect.) And I think it is fair to suggest that free-will might also be an entity – or an element within an entity. The question is, are events the only things that can be natural, or can entities also be considered natural, even if we do not consider them material?Belinda wrote:I wrote natural because natural events are caused events. Free Will is uncaused: God is uncaused. Apart from those two, one cannot think of any other event which is uncaused.
Another question: can entities be thought of as ‘caused’? Probably not, as you have stated – but some would say that they can be ‘created’, and perhaps creation cannot occur without some kind of causal agent.
However, sometimes one must admit one doesn’t know for sure, and be willing to acknowledge arguments from both sides of an issue even if one favors, and argues for, one of those sides. And to be honest, that is usually my position. But I don’t think I would equate it with virtue!Belinda wrote:... what is the point of doing philosophy if one is agnostic about everything? Agnostic is not being able for whatever reason ... to decide something, and although this position is sometimes unavoidable, it has no intrinsic virtue.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13817
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
Mcdoodle wrote:I'm being tiresomely dogged here but - this is only so according to a system of belief. One damn thing follows another. The 'causedness' is ascribed by the human observer. Who is always looking for causes.Belinda wrote:I wrote natural because natural events are caused events. Free Will is uncaused : God is uncaused. Apart from those two, one cannot think of any other event which is uncaused.
I have to admit you are right, and I cannot support the absolute existence of causality. However I can say that according to Occam's razor Free Will is an unnecessary hypothesis because every event can be explained causally, at least in principle. Psychology and neuroscience have together explained a lot about the natural i.e.causal working s of the mind and brain.
H2ouse, I try to call what happens 'events' instead of 'things' because 'events' is more precise. I agree that the transcendent and almighty God is not an event, and neither is nature as a whole an 'event'. However each human decision is an event, whether or not the decision is caused by Free Will or by natural causes. From the perspective of the whole, or eternity, there are no differentiated events or things for that matter, but from human perspectives we arrange experience into things or events.
H2ouse wrote:
I certainly think of Free Will as an entity, which is precisely why I do not believe in it. If Free Will existed it would be the only entity, besides transcendent God, that is uncaused. Christian narrative says that God made a special gift of Free Will to humans, so that humans could be higher than the the brute creation which is subject to causality, and therefore has no ability to choose to believe on God.I choose not to be Christian, I choose to be pantheist.And I think it is fair to suggest that free-will might also be an entity – or an element within an entity.
Muddler wrote#154 :
True, this is one reason I am a pantheist.A free will is a will free of constraints. The will is never free of constraints.
-
- Posts: 230
- Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
Thanks, Belinda. I am not clear that Occam's razor requires us to assume that causality happens independently of the agent/actor. It simply expects us to look for simpler explanations. Our simpler explanations may be predicated on false assumptions. I'm particularly interested in animal behaviour and how we describe it. 'Instinct' is a word that makes our explanations seem simple. It seems a very poor explanation to me though: we don't know where instinct resides, and it seems to act more or less as we human observers decree. Consider a flock of birds. Why do they change direction? Current research suggests they 'decide': news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/ ... comma.htmlBelinda wrote:Mcdoodle wrote: I'm being tiresomely dogged here but - this is only so according to a system of belief. One damn thing follows another. The 'causedness' is ascribed by the human observer. Who is always looking for causes.
I have to admit you are right, and I cannot support the absolute existence of causality. However I can say that according to Occam's razor Free Will is an unnecessary hypothesis because every event can be explained causally, at least in principle. Psychology and neuroscience have together explained a lot about the natural i.e.causal working s of the mind and brain.
It seems to me that if any given flock of birds could have gone way, but collectively decides to go another, they too interrupt the causal chain, and that that is actually the simplest, and empirically soundest, explanation of how they act. To me this doesn't offend Occam's Razor; it merely offends a long-held view that all other animals are somehow inferior to humans in that they are incapable of decision-making.
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: June 18th, 2010, 10:12 am
Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023