1. Mental Causality and human free will
Juleon Schins
Delft University of Technology
The Netherlands
Of genetische overeenkomst ook gedragsovereenkomst inhoudt: gewoonlijk wel

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
‘Ik’ mag NIET bepaald zijn door (i) de natuurwetten (ii) toeval (iii) God

3. Standard argument against free will
Electrodes measuring action respond before electrodes measuring one’s conscious experience of willing that action
Stemmen
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
VREEMD!
Je kunt ook overleven zonder de overtuiging dat je fundamentele rechten hebt,
dus evolutionair overbodig (zie aap)

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
DIT IS GEEN MOREEL ARGUMENT MAAR NATUURWETENSCHAPPELIJK: iedereen kan de meting uitvoeren
evolutie -> diversificatie

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
intuitief duidelijk: afleiding = verband tussen twee stellingen, waarheid is eigenschap van stelling zelf

11. 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

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 mum’s legacy

14. Past time (millions of years)
humans
Order of
intentionality ? 4
chimpanzees 3
primates
mammals
birds 2
reptiles
Geen kwestie van terugkoppeling
Software wet: programmeren van nieuwe functies kost veel tijd, en veelal nieuw flow-schema
amphibians 1
fish
insects
plants
bacteria
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
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