From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: FREE WILL 2: Neither a Determinist nor an Indeterminist be.
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:03:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: superbow.spurrett.45.721940584
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc11.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <28178@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <spurrett.37.721583229@superbowl.und.ac.za>
>spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:
>
>>  It is clear the `possibility for being otherwise' condition is in-
>>compatible with determinism.
>
>This is not clear to me, since the status of "could have been
>otherwise" is not clear. We usually use this linguistic form as a way
>of discussing causal chains, e.g., "if the rock hadn't fallen on it
>the beetle would have been alive". That is a perfectly reasonable
>observation to make in a determinisitc universe, regardless of whether
>the rock fell because it was loosened by rain, or because I pushed it.

You are talking about counterfactual conditionals, not  possibilities.
When we ascribe  responsibility to a  person we mean  `s/he could have
not done what s/he did in fact  do'.  When we get evaluative we  might
say `It would have been better _if_ s/he had refrained', just as  when
considering consequences  we might  say `_If_  s/he had  not done that
act, then some or other thing which is not the case now might/would be
the case.'  In these cases our counterfactual discussion seems  mighty
dumb if we think that the antecedents are unchangeable, which is where
`real' possibility plays a role, and  where there  _is_ conflict  with
determinism.

>>It is equally clear that the condition that we
>>be the authors of our own actions, that our actions follow from our
>>desires, and choices, is incompatible  with indeterminism
>
>This is equally unclear to me, unless by "indeterminism" you mean such
>a radically indeterminate universe that cause and effect nevr hold and
>everything happens randomly. All we need for voluntarism is that
>sufficient causes usually produce the expected effects.

I do  not mean  `indeterminism in  general', but  rather indeterminism
_with_respect_to_our_actions_.   Insofar as  any part  of the  process
resulting in our actions is indeterministic, we clearly cannot be held
responsible for it.

>>   Here is one other option:  Immanent causation.  (The term is medieval,
>> and the opposite term is `transeunt' causation.)  An event is immanently
>> caused where it is caused by  a thing, rather  than another event.  This
>> means that the event is caused, but could  not have been predicted.  The
>> `thing' which does the causing we could call the `agent' and the causing
>> could be a way of its exercising its power.
>
>But this is simply the usual way of expressing naive voluntarism,
>i.e., passing the causative buck back up the causal chain has to stop
>when you get to an agent, because that's what being a (free) agent by
>definition is -- an originator of causes.

`Naive voluntarism!'  Shucks, guys, I thought I was being clearer than
_that_.  Firstly what on earth  do you mean by `passing the  causative
buck'?  Secondly agency is  _not_ defined as being the  origination of
causes, but as being the causing of acts. (That is what the definition
I used  in my  original posting  said anyway.)   To  be an agent is to
cause effects, not to cause causes.   Also: I am not passing  a causal
buck anywhere, I am  stating, without any intermediate  steps, exactly
where I think it is necessary to locate the causes of events which are
to be called acts, and  examining the relationship between these  acts
and determinism/indeterminism.

> Chris Malcolm

o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
| David Spurrett, Department of Philosophy |  `I have seen the truth, and |
| University of Natal, Durban              |   it makes no sense.'        |
| email: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za      |              - OFFICIAL!     |
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech