Mental Causality and human free will

1
Mental Causalityand human free will

• Juleon Schins
• Delft University of Technology
• The Netherlands

2
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
3
Standard argument against free will
Electrodes measuring action respond before
electrodes measuring ones conscious experience
of willing that action

• Criticism how can a neurologist exclude that one
  is measuring the conscious experience of having
  acted?

4
Classical causality
5
Modern causality
Quantum mechanics marks the end of phenomenic
causality
Straightforward philosophical interpretation of
quantum impredictability causality is (i)
transcendent and (ii) hylemorphic
6
Quantum-hylemorphic causality
material reality
physical laws
choice
7
Positive evidence in favour of a non-material
self, source of mental causality

• The moral judgement
• The intentional judgement
• The mathematical judgement

8
Evolutionary diversification

• Economical policy free market versus government
  interference
• Political organisation federation versus union,
  direct versus indirect elections
• Religion no god, one god, many gods
• Philosophy the world exists (not), the world is
  (not) knowable

9
The moral judgement

• Every biologically normal human judges that (s)he
  has absolute personal rights
• This claim of personal rights is verifiably
  universal
• This claim has no added value for evolutionary
  survival
• Darwinism (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

10
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

11
The mathematical judgement

• All humans can (if they wish) understand Gödels
  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

12
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

13
nth order intentionality

• Peter knows that John knows that Angie knows that
  Clara knows

that Jack tries to get hold of mums legacy
14
humans
Order of intentionality
?
4
chimpanzees
3
primates
mammals
birds
2
reptiles
amphibians
fish
1
insects
plants
bacteria
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Past time (millions of years)
15
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)
16
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 judgments
• Does this prove mental causality? Yes.
• Does mental causality prove free will? No.
• However, it satisfies all the philosophical
  conditions for free will