Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13817
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

RJG wrote to McDoodle:
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 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.
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

Belinda wrote:RJG wrote to McDoodle:
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 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.
I feel I am getting muddled here.

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.
User avatar
Vojos
Posts: 83
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 5:25 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Vojos »

This whole question's going to come down to belief. If you think we can explain everything methodology and through physicalism you'll probably end up with one conclusion. But I don't believe how the mind works can be explained as simple as with just cause and effect. I think the brain works like that for a big part, however, true genius, true art, and so on, in my opinion transcends those explanations. Schopenhauer describes a world beyond rationality and appearance. I know it might sound suspect due to how we have been taught to be thinking, it conflicts with our Cartesian traditional way of wanting to explain everything. Anyways, heres a little draft of what Schopenhauer is talking about:

http://www.bachelorandmaster.com/critic ... hauer.html
Muddler
Posts: 135
Joined: June 18th, 2010, 10:12 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Muddler »

A free will is a will free of constraints. The will is never free of constraints.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13817
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

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.
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.

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.
Socialist
H2ouse
Posts: 68
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by H2ouse »

Hi y’all, glad the discussion is still going on, just returned from a week in DC, the Virginias, and North Carolina, checked in to the forum a few times but no chance to join in.

I’m still concerned about definitions:
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 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.

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:
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.
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.

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.
The architectures of human languages probably contain more understanding of the universe than all the ideas of science and philosophy combined.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13817
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

H2ouse wrote:
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;
But a unique type of cause is not natural and is therefore by definition supernatural.

In philosophy 'Free Will' means the origin of the will is in whole or in part within the subject.
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

Belinda wrote:H2ouse wrote:
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;
But a unique type of cause is not natural and is therefore by definition supernatural.

In philosophy 'Free Will' means the origin of the will is in whole or in part within the subject.
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.

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
Posts: 68
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by H2ouse »

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 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).
Belinda wrote:In philosophy 'Free Will' means the origin of the will is in whole or in part within the subject.
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.

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! :lol: ) 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.
The architectures of human languages probably contain more understanding of the universe than all the ideas of science and philosophy combined.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13817
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

McDoodle wrote:
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)
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.

H2ouse wrote:
To me, this is what online philosophy forums should be about: pitting arguments against each other,
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 .

H2ouse added:
, and allowing all of us to judge (using our own free will! ) which is the best position to take.
However I would substitute (using our own choice) for H2ouse's (using our own free will).
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

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'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.
H2ouse
Posts: 68
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by H2ouse »

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’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?

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.
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.
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!
The architectures of human languages probably contain more understanding of the universe than all the ideas of science and philosophy combined.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13817
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

Mcdoodle wrote:
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'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.

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:
And I think it is fair to suggest that free-will might also be an entity – or an element within an entity.
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.

Muddler wrote#154 :
A free will is a will free of constraints. The will is never free of constraints.
True, this is one reason I am a pantheist.
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

Belinda 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.
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.html

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.
Muddler
Posts: 135
Joined: June 18th, 2010, 10:12 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Muddler »

Belinda, I sympathize with your pantheism, but don't agree with you that free will and God are the only uncaused events. Both are fiction, and all fictional events are uncaused because they never happened.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021