Agent Causation

If I take a free decision, how does this express itself physically? If God acts in this world, how does he do so? The answers to those two questions may be different or the same. Here we sketch a typology of possible answers, including Transcendent Compatibility. It turns out that in an open universe, freedom is the timewise mirror image of causality.

I argue that a powers-based metaphysics radically reconfigures the existing free will problematic. This is different from claiming that such an approach solves the ill-conceived problems that emerge from Humean-Kantian default commitments.

This paper defends a libertarian account of free will grounded in the phenomenological structure of live decision episodes. Such episodes instantiate an i-structure, a center–periphery organization in which a focal node represents the decision situation as a whole and a periphery represents alternatives, reasons, and constraints. There is an “up-to-me” region in which the situation’s identity is fixed while what will be done remains open. I argue that the best interpretation of this up-to-me phenomenology, when taken as serious evidence about (...) agency, is global metaphysical openness: even given the total state of the world and the total laws at a time, more than one future action is nomically possible. I make this explicit through a strengthened Psychophysical Openness Thesis (POT): psychophysical laws are probabilistic and sensitive to i-structures, constraining and biasing outcomes without deterministically fixing them. I then define authored indeterminacy as underdetermined settling whose explanatory stopping point is the agent’s reasons-integrating act rather than an independent chancemaker. Luck objections are addressed by conceding that global libertarianism entails irreducible bruteness and chance within the agent while arguing that responsibility does not require eliminating chance but locating irreducible settling within the agent’s evaluative act. (shrink)

This paper examines how panpsychism and panagentialism—philosophies proposing consciousness and agency as fundamental features of reality—jointly inform a pantheistic understanding of the universe. By exploring their interdependence, it argues that these concepts form a parsimonious metaphysical framework, where the universe is both conscious and purposive, challenging materialist and dualist views. The paper suggests that all entities possess some degree of subjective experience and intentionality. It further proposes that the universe embodies divine properties of omnibenevolence, omnisubjectivity, and omniagency. In this pantheistic (...) view, God is fully immanent as the conscious mind and agentive will of the cosmos, expressed through every aspect of the universe; consciousness and causality are expressions of God's immanence. By unifying panpsychism and panagentialism, the paper provides a coherent foundation for pantheism, providing insights into divine immanence and the purposiveness of reality, with the universe shaped towards the greater good. (shrink)

The impact of the future upon our thoughts and behavior has been accentuated in recent decades by the increasing psychological research into future thinking or prospection. I present an ontological perspective that assigns a measure of reality and causality to the future which increases as the future approaches. This seemingly “backward causation” of the future upon present thought and behavior, via the cognitive process of prospection, is shown to be a coherent notion. Prospection is an effect of a developing and (...) undetermined future, rendering any action thereby generated causally indeterminate. The causal influence of the future entails involvement of an agent to serve as the effect of that influence. These two consequences of my theory, indeterminism and the indispensable agent, are supportive of agent-causal libertarianism. The causality of the future may serve as a foundation of our freedom from universal determinism, and support free will, agency, and responsibility. This perspective may also facilitate the development of a common language of teleological explanation and the causal accounts of natural science. (shrink)

While the free will debate tends to focus primarily on the implications of determinism for freedom, a long line of philosophers have also argued that free will would not be compatible with indeterminism either. These arguments typically take the form of a so-called Luck Objection: a family of related arguments which all seek to show, roughly, that if an action is not causally pre-determined then it must be a sort of random happening, over which the agent lacks the control required (...) for free will. If successful, these arguments are fatal for libertarian accounts of free will, which are committed to the view that free actions must be both undetermined and under the agent’s control. In this paper, we defend libertarian free will against this challenge from luck. We argue that most formulations of the Luck Objection presuppose a conceptual model of indeterministic decision-making that is not well aligned with recent advances in the natural sciences; specifically, we argue that they make assumptions about the nature of indeterminacy and about the causal structure of decision-making, which libertarians have good empirical reason (from both physics and neuroscience) to reject. We develop a more empirically plausible model of agential decision-making and apply this to the problem of luck. We argue that, under such a model, it is entirely natural to think of an agent’s actions as both ‘undetermined’ (in the sense of being under-determined) and under their own control. We conclude that indeterminism poses no threat to a more naturalistic version of libertarian free will. (shrink)

I present a modal argument against a particular conception of indeterminacy, agent-relevant indeterminacy (ALI), according to which outcomes are not fixed but are also not attributable to agents, that is, actors whose capacities and features can help explain why a particular outcome occurs. ALI is a claim of metaphysical necessity. Focusing on ALI’s thesis that nothing about an agent at the moment of action can account for which outcome occurs, I argue that this exclusion cannot hold across all metaphysically possible (...) worlds. The argument shows that the existence of a world in which agent-level contributions to outcomes are neither logically self-contradictory nor inconceivable, and that denying this possibility relies on circular or tautological reasoning. Moreover, even if ALI is coherent or true in some worlds, it cannot be necessary. (shrink)

The problem of free will has persistently resisted a solution throughout centuries. There is reason to believe that new elements need to be introduced into the analysis in order to make progress. In the present physicalist approach, these elements are emergence and information theory in relation to universal limits set by quantum physics. Furthermore the common, but vague, characterization of free will as "being able to act differently" is, in the spirit of Carnap, rephrased into an explicatum more suitable for (...) formal analysis. It is argued that the mind is an ontologically open system; a causal high-level system, the future of which cannot be reduced to the states of its associated low-level neural systems, not even if it is rendered physically closed. A positive answer to the question of free will is subsequently outlined. (shrink)

The traditional free will debate has been trapped in a false dilemma between escaping causation entirely or reducing freedom to following predetermined psychological states. This paper argues that we have been asking the wrong question entirely. Rather than debating whether we can transcend the causal order, we should examine how choice-making capacity actually operates within bounded systems throughout nature. I propose a temporal constraint framework that reconceptualizes free will as probabilistic navigation within dynamically changing possibility spaces shaped by context, conditions, (...) and constraints. Analysis of ecological and evolutionary examples reveals that meaningful agency emerges through sophisticated constraint navigation rather than constraint escape. This framework dissolves traditional problems by showing that hard determinism, libertarianism, compatibilism, and hard incompatibilism each capture different segments of a single temporal constraint spectrum rather than genuinely competing alternatives. Further, I argue that agency develops recursively through iterative choice-making that enhances navigation capabilities over time. The framework provides clear criteria for distinguishing authentic agency development from artificial manipulation while explaining why probabilistic choice within constraints constitutes genuine freedom. (shrink)

Positions taken in the current debate over free will can be seen as responses to the following conditional: If every action is caused solely by another event and a cause necessitates its effect, then there is no action to which there is an alternative. The Libertarian, who believes that alternatives are a requirement of free will, responds by denying the right conjunct of C’s antecedent, maintaining that some actions are caused, either mediately or immediately, by events whose effects could be (...) different, even if they were to recur under identical circumstances. We have here a denial of Laplacian Determinism (LD), according to which the condition of the world at any instant makes only one state possible at any other instant. 1 One prominent defender of this view, Robert Kane, holds that unless an agent’s neural mechanisms operated indeterministicly in forming her character she is not responsible for its manifestations. 2 This requirement is entailed by the principle of “ultimate responsibility” (UR) according to which an act is freely willed only if (a) its agent is personally responsible for its performance in the sense of having caused it to occur by voluntarily doing something that was avoidable and (b). (shrink)

The universe is enormous, perhaps unimaginably so. In comparison, we are very small. Does this suggest that humanity has little if any cosmic significance? And if we don’t matter, should that matter to us? Blaise Pascal, Frank Ramsey, Bertrand Russell, Susan Wolf, Harry Frankfurt, Stephen Hawking, and others have offered insightful answers to those questions. For example, Pascal and Ramsey emphasize that whereas the stars (in all their enormity) cannot think, human beings can. Through an exploration of some features of (...) awe and its positive effects on us, I offer a novel way of answering the second question: even if we don’t matter, we, unlike the stars, naturally benefit from observing our own smallness. I explore implications for accounts of the absurdity of human life. Life might be absurd. But I give reasons to think that life isn’t absurd in the ways some such as Nagel and Camus suggest. Finally, I connect non-symmetric awe with Buddhist insights to strengthen a recent and more positive account of how to find meaning in life. (shrink)

Review of Robert Kane's The Complex Tapestry of Free Will: A Philosophical Odyssey.

Traditional compatibilists respond to the Consequence Argument by denying either the fixity of the past or by denying the fixity of the laws, neither of which is without theoretical cost. Recently, however, several authors—Christian List (2019b), Scott Sehon (2016), and Ned Markosian (2012)—have introduced novel approaches to free will that, they claim, imply that determinism is no threat to free will and, thus, that free will and determinism turn out to be compatible. The strategies employed by these authors differ considerably, (...) with one influenced by psychology and decision theory, another by traditional philosophy of action, and the other by the metaphysics of causation. Nevertheless, this paper aims to show, first, that these approaches share a common thread and, second, that each implicitly requires us to give up either the fixity of the past or the fixity of the laws (but without making this explicit or explaining how their views are preferable to traditional compatibilist views with respect to giving up the fixity of the past/laws). The paper concludes with an important lesson that may be learned from our survey of these novel and interesting, even if ultimately unsuccessful, approaches to compatibilism. (shrink)

The main question that we address in this chapter is what to say about reportedly libertarian experiences of free agency – in other words, experiences of options as being open, and up to oneself to decide among, such that, if they are accurate or veridical, then (at a minimum) indeterminism must be true. A great deal rides on this question. If normal experiences of free agency are libertarian, and if compatibilists cannot explain them away, then all of us may be (...) under systematic illusion at almost every moment of our waking lives. That is, our experiences would be illusory if humans do not in fact satisfy libertarian conditions (e.g., if indeterminism does not occur in the right time or place during decision-making, or we lack agent-causal powers). In some sense, more rides on the question of whether we are agents of the sort that we experience ourselves as being than on the question of whether we have the type of control required for moral responsibility. At worst, we are not responsible in only one sense if we lack what libertarians say we need. Yet even then, we would not be under systematic experiential illusion during most of our waking lives, as we are if our experience is libertarian, yet false. (shrink)

Libertarian free will is the view that agents can choose between various courses of action. Advocates of libertarian free will largely divide themselves between event-causal libertarianism and agent-causal libertarianism. Robert Kane, a leading contemporary libertarian, recently proposes a hybrid agent-causal, event-causal model, according to which agent involving events such as reasons and efforts play a necessary but insufficient role in causing choices, leaving a necessary role for agents-qua-agents. In this paper I consider the merits and demerits of Kane's hybrid model (...) before introducing a modified event-causal, agent-causal model of libertarian free will that expands upon, but also substantially amends, Kane's model. (shrink)

Automated influence, delivered by digital targeting technologies such as targeted advertising, digital nudges, and recommender systems, has attracted significant interest from both empirical researchers, on one hand, and critical scholars and policymakers on the other. In this paper, we argue for closer integration of these efforts. Critical scholars and policymakers, who focus primarily on the social, ethical, and political effects of these technologies, need empirical evidence to substantiate and motivate their concerns. However, existing empirical research investigating the effectiveness of these (...) technologies (or lack thereof), neglects other morally relevant effects—which can be felt regardless of whether or not the technologies "work" in the sense of fulfilling the promises of their designers. Drawing from the ethics and policy literature, we enumerate a range of questions begging for empirical analysis—the outline of a research agenda bridging these fields—and issue a call to action for more empirical research that takes these urgent ethics and policy questions as their starting point. (shrink)

The goal of this short paper is to expose the aporia inherent to the idea of apprehending, perfecting and transcending (ontologically, epistemically and practically) the source or precondition of any given possibility for man—Nature. *Important precision: We often find it necessary to adapt (to “bend,” if not to reconstruct) the vocabulary and grammar to convey specific conceptual meanings and also for other semantical purposes. Résumé : le but de ce court texte est de démontrer l’aporie inhérente à l’idée d’appréhender, de (...) parfaire et de dépasser (ontologiquement, épistémiquement et pratiquement) la source ou la précondition de toute possibilité pour l’homme – la Nature. *Précision importante : nous croyons souvent nécessaire d’adapter (de « plier », si ce n’est pas de reconstruire) le vocabulaire et la grammaire pour transmettre des conceptualisations particulières ou pour d’autres fins sémantiques. (shrink)

This paper discusses a deflationary theory of human action developed by John Hyman. His theory of human action comprises two central claims, one about the general nature of action, another about the mark of human agency. An action is the causing of a change by a substance. A human action, as opposed to sub-personal actions, is one that results from the integrated operations of our cognitive and motor systems. Taken together these two claims offer a minimalist theory of human action (...) that does not appeal to intention, the will or the power to choose. The first claim is by now familiar in the literature, not so the second one. This paper offers a critical discussion of this second claim. I shall argue that it sits uncomfortably with certain kinds of mental action. As a fix, I argue that we should appeal to the functional role of the executive system to specify the relevant kind of integration characteristic of human action. I proceed to show how the revised proposal shares the appeal of Hyman’s view while avoiding its difficulties. (shrink)

The disappearing agent problem is traditionally cast as a tension between events and event-causation, on the one hand, and agents and agent-causation on the other. How- ever, as we show, the tension between events and agents can be recast as a tension between causation by agents and causation by parts of agents. If this is right, agent- causalists have their own disappearing agent problem to deal with. After setting out a version of this problem in the form of an overdetermination (...) argument, we present available responses to it. By examining these responses, our aim is to motivate the elaboration of an idea of derivative causation within agent-causal theories of action, whereby complex agents with parts cause whatever they must cause in order to act by way of their parts causing it. (shrink)

In patent prosecution, timely and effective responses to Office Actions (OAs) are crucial for securing patents. However, past automation and artificial intelligence research have largely overlooked this aspect. To bridge this gap, our study introduces the Patent Office Action Response Intelligence System (PARIS) and its advanced version, the Large Language Model (LLM) Enhanced PARIS (LE-PARIS). These systems are designed to enhance the efficiency of patent attorneys in handling OA responses through collaboration with AI. The systems’ key features include the construction (...) of an OA Topics Database, development of Response Templates, and implementation of Recommender Systems and LLM-based Response Generation. To validate the effectiveness of the systems, we have employed a multi-paradigm analysis using the USPTO Office Action database and longitudinal data based on attorney interactions with our systems over six years. Through five studies, we have examined the constructiveness of OA topics (studies 1 and 2) using topic modeling and our proposed Delphi process, the efficacy of our proposed hybrid LLM-based recommender system tailored for OA responses (study 3), the quality of generated responses (study 4), and the systems’ practical value in real-world scenarios through user studies (study 5). The results indicate that both PARIS and LE-PARIS significantly achieve key metrics and have a positive impact on attorney performance. (shrink)

Science is being transformed by the increasing capabilities of automation technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Integrating AI and machine learning (ML) into scientific practice requires changing established research methods while maintaining a scientific understanding of research findings. Researchers are at the forefront of this change, but there is currently little understanding of how they are experiencing these upheavals in scientific practice. In this paper, we examine how researchers working in several research fields (automation engineering, computational design, conservation decision-making, materials science, (...) and synthetic biology) perceive AI/ML technologies used in their work, such as laboratory automation, automated design of experiments, computational design, and computer experiments. We find that researchers emphasised the need for AI/ML technologies to have practical benefits (such as efficiency and improved safety) to justify their use. Researchers were also hesitant to automate data analysis, and the importance of explainability differed between researchers working with laboratory automation and those using AI/ML directly in their research. This difference is due to the different role AI/ML plays in different research fields: laboratory automation performs processes already defined by the researcher and the actions are visible or recorded, while in AI/ML applications the decisions that produced the result may be obscure to the researcher. Understanding the role AI/ML plays in scientific practice is important for ensuring that scientific knowledge continues to grow. (shrink)

The causal theory of action is thought to be plagued by the problem of the disappearing agent. However, philosophers have reached no consensus on the nature of this problem, let alone on whether it is solvable. In this article, I interpret the problem as a phenomenological challenge: the causal theory of action employs an event-causal framework, with which certain aspects of the phenomenology of agency seem incompatible. I examine two areas in which the phenomenology appears to speak against an event-causal (...) framework: (1) the phenomenology of acting and (2) the phenomenology of making choices. Specifically, some philosophers have asserted that the phenomenology of acting involves content that action is caused by the agent themselves rather than by their mental states. Some philosophers have argued that the phenomenology of making choices involves content that the agent stands apart from their mental states in a way that allows them to reflect on, evaluate, or even manipulate their mental states. I argue that in neither case does the phenomenology pose a real challenge to the causal theory of action. (shrink)

The article proposes a new way to define power and to evaluate it in ethical terms, based on a processual view instead of the habitual object-oriented one. It first presents an outline of process ontology, then proceeds to define power as the capacity of someone to redesign the spectrum of possible futures of other individuals, and then proposes the criteria for evaluating power acts in ethical terms as increasing the probability of long-term desirable futures. The final section of the article (...) discusses currently influential definitions of power and shows how they correlate with the proposed paradigm. (shrink)

The philosophical problem of free will has endured through centuries of enquiry. There is reason to believe that new factors must be integrated into the analysis in order to make progress. In the current physicalist approach, emergence and the physical limits of information representation are found to play crucial roles in the ontological dependence of volitional processes on their neural basis. The commonly invoked characterization of free will as 'being able to act differently' is shown to be problematic and is (...) reframed as a more precise explicatum conducive to formal analysis. Subsequently, it is found that the mind operates as an ontologically open system — a causal high-level entity whose dynamics resist reduction to the states of its associated low-level neural systems, even under conditions of physical closure. An affirmative stance on free will for conscious agents is outlined. (shrink)

Christopher Franklin summarizes the standard argument for an agent-causal libertarian account of free will and formulates an alternative, which he calls the ‘It Ain’t Me’ argument. The latter relies on agent-causal libertarianism’s causal non-reductivism. Franklin suggests that agent-causal libertarians should support their position by defending a nonreductive agent-causal account of reasons-responsive agency instead of employing the standard argument. This paper summarizes a proposed agent-causal account of free will; argues for a nonreductive agent-causal account of reasons-responsive agency in doing so; and (...) supports the proposed account with a variant of Franklin’s ‘It Ain’t Me’ argument. (shrink)

Recent technological developments have given rise to debates about automation and the future of work. These debates touch on concerns about the availability, nature, and meaningfulness of jobs in the present and near future. The aim of this article is to show that Hannah Arendt’s phenomenology of labor, work, and action can improve current debates about automation and the future of work. First of all, an analysis of Arendt’s critique of modern society and the more recent notion of ‘immaterial labor’ (...) demonstrates that we (still) live in a society dominated by labor and consumption. Second, a conceptual distinction between labor, work, and action can add relevant nuances to contemporary debates about automation and the future of work. Third, Arendt’s warning for a society of laborers without labor inspires to add over-consumption to the list of problems arising from automation. Fourth, Arendt’s description of the human condition can give clarity to contemporary worries about automation’s impact on meaning. It is concluded, finally, that a revaluation of work and action can counter the threats associated with the automation of labor. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate Ulrich’s impact on Kant and the immediate reception of Kant’s account of freedom. I argue that Ulrich’s critical inquiry into grounding and free will influenced Kant’s treatment of the subjective ground of the exercise of freedom in the Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. I analyze Ulrich’s critique in relation to Kant’s understanding of freedom as a kind of causality, exploring the connection between grounding and the subjective ground of freedom’s exercise. (...) I argue further that Ulrich shaped the subsequent debate on the scope of free will and the possibility of free immoral action by inciting the 1790s debate on moral imputation. (shrink)

In an age were artificial intelligence can do everything for us why should we do things for ourselves? What is at stake is the intrinsic value of doing things for ourselves, our relationship to the world, and the sense of personal identity that springs forth from our actions. An age were automated machines do everything for us, threatens to de-skill our perceptions and to turn the individual into a passive observer rather than an active participant in the world. Therefore, this (...) paper draws upon the phenomenology of skilled perception and the Aristotelian concept of Aretê to argue for the importance of doing high-quality work for its own sake and how such domains of activity are central to our personal identities. What is required to live authentically is the targeted automation of routinized work and to enable the individual to freely choose their own practical identities based on its potential to provide an engaging perceptual niche. AI may either enhance or diminish our authenticity in three salient ways; it can either be used to liberate us from disengaging work, to facilitate psychologically engaging work, or to annihilate engaging perceptual niches and to close off corners of reality from mankind forever. (shrink)

According to orthodoxy, the most fundamental kind of causation involves one event causing another event. I argue against this event‐causal view. Instead, the most fundamental kind of causation is thing causation, which involves a thing causing a thing to do something. Event causation is reducible to thing causation, but thing causation is not reducible to event causation, because event causation cannot accommodate cases of fine‐grained causation. I defend my view from objections, including C. D. Broad's influential “timing” argument, and I (...) conclude with implications for agent‐causal theories of free will. (shrink)

The view that to act is to cause change and that to be an agent is to be the causer of an action’s result has gained traction in the past twenty years or so. This view seems to have two significant corollaries. First, there is no distinction between doing an action and causing its result. Second, any two actions that have the same result will turn out to be identical. Ruben (2018) has recently used the first corollary to challenge the (...) view, and the second corollary raises further problems for the view. This article aims to refine this view and defend it against the challenges that arise out of its two corollaries. It is argued that being the cause of an action’s result is not the same as being its causer and that doing an action is not just causing its result but causing it in a specific way. (shrink)

Considérez les énoncés suivants : « La bombe a causé la destruction du pont » ; « L’explosion de la bombe a causé la destruction du pont » ; « Booth a causé la mort de Lincoln » ; et « Le tir de Booth a causé la mort de Lincoln ». Ces énoncés suggèrent que les objets, tels que les bombes ou les personnes, font partie de la catégorie ontologique des causes, au même titre que les évènements, comme le (...) tir de Booth et l’explosion de la bombe. À première vue, le fait que les objets et les personnes puissent être des causes n’a rien de particulièrement surprenant. Cependant, les philosophes du XXe siècle ont fait preuve d’une extrême méfiance à l’égard de cette idée. Une majorité de philosophes ont trouvé l’idée même de causalité par des objets ou des agents inintelligible, à tel point que les théories standards de la causalité présupposent que les entités reliées comme causes à effets sont des évènements, ou encore des faits, des propriétés ou des états. Pourtant, cette hostilité à l’égard de la causalité des objets est relativement récente ; la causalité agentive semble, au moins jusqu’à Thomas Reid (1710-1796), avoir été la norme, et non le mystère. La mise à l’écart des objets et des agents de la catégorie de cause est-elle justifiée? Un nombre grandissant de philosophes, les agentialistes (agent-causalists), soutiennent que non et cherchent à réhabiliter l’idée de causalité agentive (par des agents) et/ou substantielle (par des substances), tandis que d’autres, les évènementialistes (event-causalists), défendent que celle-ci est au mieux réductible à la causalité entre évènements, ou au pire que l’idée est incohérente. L’importance de cette question n’est pas négligeable, car elle revient à demander quels sont les moteurs du changement. En effet, nous voulons savoir si certains objets tels que les couteaux, les bombes, les animaux et les personnes sont parfois à l’origine du changement, ou si tout effet procède uniquement de changements antérieurs, d’évènements. Existe-t-il une relation causale, la causalité agentive ou substantielle, reliant objets et changements, différente des relations causales habituellement traitées par les philosophes de la causalité? Quelle est sa relation avec la causalité évènementielle? Et comment fonctionne-t-elle? (shrink)

This paper explores the distinction between active and passive powers. Interest in the distinction has recently been revived in some quarters of the philosophy of action as some have sought to elucidate the distinction between action and passion (the changes that happen to a substance) in terms of the former (Hyman, 2015; Mayr, 2011; Lowe 2013). If there is a distinction between active and passive powers, parallel to the distinction between action and passion, what is it? In this paper, I (...) distinguish two ways of drawing it. According to the first one, active and passive powers are distinguished by the ways in which their manifestations come about. According to the second, they are distinguished by their directedness, i.e. what they are powers to do. Both accounts are examined and the latter is defended against the former. I argue that active powers are powers to alter, modify, corrupt or change something. (shrink)

Despite growing interest in automated (or algorithmic) decision-making (ADM), little work has been done to conceptually clarify the term. This article aims to tackle this issue by developing a conceptualization of ADM specifically tailored to organizational contexts. It has two main goals: (1) to meaningfully demarcate ADM from similar, yet distinct algorithm-supported practices; and (2) to draw internal distinctions such that different ADM types can be meaningfully distinguished. The proposed conceptualization builds on three arguments: First, ADM primarily refers to the (...) automation of practical decisions (decisions to _φ_) as opposed to cognitive decisions (decisions that _p_). Second, rather than referring to algorithms as literally making decisions, ADM refers to the use of algorithms to solve decision problems at an organizational level. Third, since algorithmic tools by nature primarily settle cognitive decision problems, their classification as ADM depends on whether and to what extent an algorithmically generated output _p_ has an action triggering effect—i.e., translates into a consequential action _φ_. The examination of precisely this _p_-_φ_ relationship, allows us to pinpoint different ADM types (suggesting, offloading, superseding). Taking these three arguments into account, we arrive at the following definition: ADM refers to the practice of using algorithms to solve decision problems, where these algorithms can play a suggesting, offloading, or superseding role relative to humans, and decisions are defined as action triggering choices. (shrink)

Automation is inherently tied to ethical challenges because of its potential involvement in morally loaded decisions. In the present research, participants (n = 34) took part in a moral multi-trial dilemma-based task where the agent (human vs. machine) and the behavior (action vs. inaction) factors were randomized. Self-report measures, in terms of morality, consciousness, responsibility, intentionality, and emotional impact evaluation were gathered, together with electroencephalography (delta, theta, beta, upper and lower alpha, and gamma powers) and peripheral autonomic (electrodermal activity, heart (...) rate variability) data. Data showed that moral schemata vary as a function of the involved decider, and when the agent and behavior factors are crossed. Subjects did not consider machines full moral deciders to the same degree as humans and tend to morally better accept human active behavior and machine inaction. Moreover, the autonomic physiological activity might support the a-posteriori moral evaluation. In the evaluation of the agent’s consciousness, a beta ventrolateral prefrontal synchronization was detected for human action and machine inaction, while a generalized gamma synchronization occurred in artificial agent trials while rating the emotional impact of the decider’s behavior. The detected differences might point to a potential explicit and implicit asymmetry in moral reasoning toward artificial and human agents. (shrink)

This essay presents a substantive Thomist response to neurophilosophy’s main experimental challenge to free will: the Libet-style experiments on the neural antecedents of conscious voluntary actions. My response to this challenge will disclose that Thomists are rationally justified in rejecting both the conclusions of neurophilosophy skeptics of free will, and more fundamentally, the rival philosophical conceptions of voluntary action and free will that were chosen to be operationalized in these neuroscientific experiments. I show how the Thomists’ alternative conception of human (...) action justifies a significantly different interpretation of Libet-style experiments, one which reveals the psychological phenomenon targeted by these experiments is miscategorized as a voluntary action. (shrink)

Political action has a long history in the health workforce. There are multiple historical examples, from civil disobedience to marches and even sabotage that can be attributed to health workers. Such actions remain a feature of the healthcare community to this day; their status with professional and regulatory bodies is far less clear, however. This has created uncertainty for those undertaking such action, particularly those who are engaged in what could be termed ‘contentious’ forms of action. This study explored how (...) advocacy and activism were presented in nursing and medical codes of ethics, comparing disciplinary and temporo‐spatial differences to understand how such action may be promoted or constrained by codes. The data for this study comes from 217 codes of ethics. Because of the size of the corpus and to facilitate analysis, natural language processing was utilised, which allowed for an automated exploration of the data and for comparisons to be drawn between groups. This was complemented by a manual search and contextualisation of the data. While there were noticeable differences between medical and nursing codes, overall, advocacy, activism and even politics were rarely discussed explicitly in most codes. When such action was spoken about, this was often vague and imprecise with codes speaking of ‘political action’ and ‘advocacy’ in general terms. While some codes were far more forthright in what they meant about advocacy or broader political action (i.e., Nursing codes in Denmark, Norway, Canada) more forceful language that spoke in specific terms or in terms of oppositional or specific actions (e.g., civil disobedience or marches) was almost completely avoided. These results are discussed in relation to the broader literature on codes and the normative questions they raise, namely whether such action should be included in codes of ethics at all. (shrink)

Four Views on Free Will is a robust and careful debate about free will, how it interacts with determinism and indeterminism, and whether we have it or not. Providing the most up-to-date account of four major positions in the free will debate, the second edition of this classic text presents the opposing perspectives of renowned philosophers John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas. -/- Substantially revised throughout, this new volume contains eight in-depth chapters, almost entirely rewritten for (...) the new edition, in which the authors state their different positions on the debate, offer insights into how their views have evolved over the past fifteen years, respond to recent critical literature in the field, and interact and engage with each other in dialogue. In the first four chapters the authors defend their distinctive views about free will: libertarianism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and revisionism. The subsequent four chapters consist of direct replies by each of the authors to the other three. (shrink)

Early in his Essays on Intellectual Powers, Reid draws a distinction between mental power, mental operation, and mental capacity (EIP 21). To the untrained eye, these terms could probably be used interchangeably, and Reid believes this is correct, up to a point. He argues that, if we are interested in understanding exactly how the human mind works, we must use these terms with more precise meanings. This is part of his more general strategy of trying to always use the words (...) with their common meanings, as much as possible, but also pointing out that certain philosophical distinctions are needed to carry out the project of laying out the foundations of the science of the mind. This paper explains what the distinction between power, operation, and capacity is, according to Reid, with the goal of understanding why it is important to draw such a distinction, not only for the Reidian project, but for action theory, more generally. (shrink)

The disappearing agent problem is an argument in the metaphysics of agency. Proponents of the agent-causal approach argue that the rival event-causal approach fails to account for the fact that an agent is active. This paper examines an analogy between this disappearing agent problem and the exclusion problem in the metaphysics of mind. I develop the analogy between these two problems and survey existing solutions. I suggest that some solutions that have received significant attention in response to the exclusion problem (...) have seen considerably less attention in response to the disappearing agent problem. For example, one solution to the exclusion problem is to reject the exclusion assumption. Analogously, one solution to the disappearing agent problem could be to deny the claim that the agent-causal approach and the event-causal approach are mutually exclusive. Similarly, proportionality theories of causation, a solution to the exclusion problem, can be transferred to the disappearing agent problem. After establishing the plausibility of the analogy between the two problems, I examine how this latter solution in particular can be transferred from the one problem to the other. (shrink)

The Muʿtazilites were a group of Islamic theologians who believed in human free will and moral responsibility. However, they did not share the same opinion about how God relates to natural events or how humans generate their actions and resulting effects. This paper explores the theory of primary and secondary causes in the Bahšamīya branch of the Muʿtazilites of Baṣra. First, it discusses how these Muʿtazilites explain the process of becoming and passing away in the world without resorting to occasionalism. (...) Second, it introduces the theory of tawallud, which holds that human actions are not determined by the laws of nature or God, but rather humans generate effects through secondary causes. Finally, it examines the arguments presented by ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār, as a Muʿtazilite from the Bahšamīya school, against the theory of divine habit (ʿādah) in volume IX of the book ‚al-Muġnī fī abwāb at-tawḥīd wa-l-ʿadl‘ and proposes his idea of secondary causality as a necessary connection between events in nature that can be traced back to God as the primary cause. (shrink)

Many believe that we ought to treat people as individuals and that this form of treatment is in some sense incompatible with treating people as members of groups. Yet, the relation between these two kinds of treatments is elusive. In this paper, we develop a novel account of the normative requirement to treat people as individuals. According to this account, treating people as individuals requires treating people as agents in the appropriate capacity. We call this the Agency Attunement Account. This (...) view has the surprising implication that it's not only possible to fail in treating people as individuals but also possible to fail in treating people as members of groups, on the presumption that people's agency is sometimes nested in, and exercised via, agential groups. (shrink)

Antiquated Classical pictures of the universe have been formative in shaping the modern idea that, to the extent change is caused, it is fixed in advance. This idea has played a role in making it seem to many that what we are discovering through science supports the exclusion of free will from models for the relevant neural and bodily changes. I argue that giving up this unwarranted notion about causation opens us to the likelihood that how a person expresses free (...) will offers unique explanatory value. I then briefly discuss some further issues with either including or excluding expressions of free will from our explanations, as well as some implications for AI and everyday life. (shrink)

Recent algorithmic technologies have challenged law’s anthropocentric assumptions. In this article, we develop a set of theoretical tools drawn from new materialisms and the philosophy of information to unravel the complex intra-actions between law and computer code. Accordingly, we first propose a framework for understanding the enmeshing of law and code based on a diffractive reading of Barad’s agential realism and Simondon’s theory of information. We argue that once law and code are understood as material entities that intra-act through in-formation, (...) the concept of transduction allows us to trace how they push each other towards change. After developing the theoretical tools, we deploy them to make sense of how law and code have changed in response to increasing automation of decision-making and the appearance of unexplainable artificial intelligence (AI) code. Thus, we employ a case study to trace transformations of the right to explanation under the European data protection regulations. This provides the backdrop for our account of how law transduces into code (and vice versa) and a proving ground for our framework. (shrink)

The Key to Quantum Circuits AIM: Autonomous Intentional Masking (Nature’s Operating System) (The Unified Unitized Field) (Advanced Autonomous Agents) Frameless Frame of Reference and Motionless Computing, The Tokenization of Space, The Ontology of Information and Mind (Universally).

Mere capacity views hold that agents who can intervene in an unfolding movement are performing an agentially controlled action, regardless of whether they do intervene. I introduce a simple argument to show that the noncausal explanation offered by mere capacity views fails to explain both control and action. In cases where bodily subsystems, rather than the agent, generate control over a movement, agents can often intervene to override non-agential control. Yet, contrary to what capacity views suggest, in these cases, this (...) capacity to intervene does not amount to agential control or action. I illustrate this with a case study of how passive breathing, a mere behavior, is misclassified by mere capacity views. I end by revisiting the central alternative to mere capacity views: causal control views. Advances in our understanding of how agents exert control over unfolding movements indicate that the nature of control is characterized by ubiquitous, small-scale causal interventions. (shrink)

I argue that the three strongest arguments against metaphysical libertarianism—the randomness objection, the constitutive luck objection, and the physicalist objection—are actually unsuccessful and therefore that metaphysical libertarianism is more plausible than the common philosophical wisdom allows. My more positive thesis, what I will refer to as “Agent Exceptionalism,” is that, when making decisions and performing actions, human beings can indeed satisfy the four conditions of metaphysical libertarianism: the control condition, the rationality condition, the ultimacy condition, and the physicalism condition.

An important divide in the free will literature—one that is arguably almost as common as the distinction between compatibilism and incompatibilism—concerns the distinction between event and substance causation. As the story typically goes, event-causalists maintain that an action is free only if it is caused by appropriate mental events, and agent-causalists maintain that an action is free only if it is caused directly by a substance (the agent). This paper argues that this dichotomy is a false one. It does this (...) by introducing a new view called Causal Pluralism, which maintains that free will is compatible with both event and substance causation. Furthermore, it is argued that agent-causalists have good reason to adopt Causal Pluralism, and also that that the view has interesting implications for the free will dialectic. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that many scholars involved in the contemporary free will debates have underappreciated the philosophical appeal of agent causation because the resources of contemporary emergentism have not been adequately introduced into the discussion. Whereas I agree that agent causation’s main problem has to do with its intelligibility, particularly with respect to the issue of how substances can be causally relevant, I argue that the notion of substance causation can be clearly articulated from an emergentist framework. According (...) to my proposal, a free agent is _a causally powerful substance that emerges in an anomic way from her constitutive mental events_, downwardly constraining, selecting and, in this way, having control on them. As we shall see, this particular concept of agent causation not only makes sense of the deep insight behind agent libertarianism, but it also provides us with the resources to solve some of the main objections that have been raised against it. It is true that here I cannot develop a complete defense of the evidential credentials of emergentism. Still, even if the considerations that follow do not serve to convince detractors of agent causal libertarian accounts of free will, they do suggest that libertarian agent causation is more promising than is typically acknowledged. (shrink)

Libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge at first seem incompatible. Are humans in charge of their own destiny if God knows human agents’ free choices? We also have the related issue of God’s agency concerning foreknowledge of human events. Can God escape divine fatalism and interact with us meaningfully if he knows how humans will act in the future? There are ways to reconcile the three, but one proposal is to utilize the concept of separate divine persons. What if there (...) are two persons, with their difference that one is in time and one outside it? Through an exploration of this potential model one can see how foreknowledge, free will, and agency might fit together. (shrink)