h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That makes a lot more sense than the compatibilist view that we had to learn for our syllabus.... but I'm still a libertarian I think: I see the world as caused, but I see humans as self-causing units...

I'd agree, up to a point; but their self-causing characteristics don't violate any causal laws. (That point being the obvious one that we respond to our environment as an external causative factor}

Could you explain this further please, it may be the prospect of the rest of the day, or just working [shudders], but I don't understand what youre saying...

Mmmm, right...
Human beings respond to their environments.
"Hey, there's a sabretooth tiger."
"Long way down from up here in the top of this tree, isn't it?"
Good.
"Hey, there's a sabretooth tiger."
"Yah, so what?"
Bad.
Leaving aside the question of what happens when it gets there, information about the environment goes from environment to mind along well established causal routes - eg light photons/transducer in retina/electrical impulse along optic nerve. It forms a causal input into the mind for obvious reasons (see above).
But what happens next?
There's a problem in cognitive psychology called the homunculus problem. A little man (soul or whatever) sits inside the brain watching what's going on on a screen, deciding what to do, and activating the body accordingly. Question is, what's going on in the little man's head that enables him to do this? (Whatever it is, that's what's happening in your head that means you can get by without a homunculus.)
In retrospect, I lost the thread here, but the Chinese room is interesting in its own right, so I'll leave it in.
A rather more tantalising "thought experiment" is Searle's Chinese Room (after the philosopher John Searle who devised it). Imagine you're in a room whose only connection with the outside world is a letterbox; someone outside posts peices of paper with Chinese characters (which you don't understand) written on them. You have a book of instructions which you use to assemble replies (again in Chinese characters) which you post back outside again. Your answers are valid, but obviously the understanding that we expect to accompany the production of valid answers is absent. Searle says this proves that human understanding can't be explained by mechanical (in the widest sense) procedures, but others (notably Daniel Dennett), think it doesn't prove anything. The weakness of Searle's argument is that he can't say what IS needed (but it's not a homunculus). Moreover, none of us is actually conscious of what's going on in our own Chinese rooms (we only see the input and output).
Right, where was I? Oh yes, human beings as self-causing (but not self-creating) units. From before birth until death the human brain never stops working. It operates according to the laws of physics (at least we've never caught it in the act of breaking them.)But it is self causing in the sense that most of it consists of millions of interlinked self-adjusting feedback units so that the brain's activity at any given moment is mostly caused by it's own previous activity. So it's self causing.

Aaaah Now i get it: we're also self-causing insofar as if we come to a choice that is equal to it's opposite: i.e. should I have tea, or coffee, I have both in front of me, I like both equally etc. Or, I have the choice of reading two books: I've never heard of either author and two different friend have recommended each one....

Mmm, think you've got a bug in your grammar module there ol' buddy. That unrequited if has thrown me completely!

it happens to the best of us....and the worst

Okay, humour me.... run it by me again.

ok.. I'll humour you
We are self-causing because there is no precedent for some events for e.g. choosing a cup of coffee or a cup of tea, when you like each one equally, or choosing to buy a book by one author or another, both of which have been recommended by a friend....is that any better?

But is there anything going on that couldn't be explained by a purely deterministic random choice generator like you get in a computer? Or unconsidered factors that just tip the balance?

nope, because its not random: its an internal decision

But are the two things mutually exclusive?
If the choice to be made has NO reason one way or the other what's the difference?

I never said no reason, I said [or probably neglected to say but wish I had ] equally likely

So granted it's an internal decision; that's not the point at issue. How is the decision made? What's your mind doing that your brain can't?

YOu will have to humour me also: its past my bedtime, but what is the difference between the mind and the brain [Sensei ]
FwT

Am also a bit cranky as well, 'specially because Lucinda doesn't like this guide entry: I don't mind constructive criticism but not: this is OK...I suppose

:-S
FwT

The brain works according to the Laws of Physics. If you think something is going on that's not covered by these it must be going on not in the brain.



Past my bedtime too, but it's Saturday, so

right....yet if there is the existence of something beyond the brain: say the soul [overused and misunderstood word] there is a possibility that this could not be determined...

Not sure whether you mean its existence is undetermined, or whether its mode of functioning is indeterministic. Same difference, though, when you come down to it. The problem is not the truth or falsity of such claims, which are not merely undetermined, but undeterminable, but their intelligibility. Anything which could count as a REASON for doing something can be converted to symbols and processed mechanically ie according to rules. Mere randomness doesn't get you free will.
Hadn't realised you had revamped the original entry and submitted it to peer review. I'll give it a read. Don't be too miffed by Lucinda; they set high standards, and professional quality writing DOES take a lot of practice. Even the DNAs of this world weren't born with it.
I've put my piece on Kant in the writing workshop but it's a bit on hold at the moment as I've just found a translation of the Critique online and there's no substitute for the original work.

neither am i
Thanks for your support!! As I said before, I don't mind being told what I write isn't very good because..., it's just when people go well this is a bit pants now isn't it! Then I haven't even had a reply!! [sorry: rant over!]

I haven't started work on the Philosophy Cafe yet, because I've got too many fingers in too many pies, so it's on hold at the mo!!
FwT