Agent Causation and Dualism Essay

This is a concept that I do not agree with. This "mechanistic causality," I feel, is a category of the mind.

"The empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory." William Dembski

Naturalists hold onto the idea that there is No Prime Mover, leaving theists to beg the question, what caused the first “spark?” The theory of cause and effect is clearly definitive and thus can either be true or false. And if there is no first cause, then this theory does not hold up creating internal logical inconsistency.

The Mercantile Theory denies causal fault. Causal fault is laying the guilt and blame of an incident upon an individual who,

Frankfurt presents counterexamples to PAP to prove its falsity. He tells us to assume that there is a universal controller that wants to ensure certain outcomes. The controller makes it impossible for an agent to act otherwise, which causes her to act exactly as the controller wishes. Frankfurt argues that in such a case it is true that agent is not responsible for her action and that she could not have done otherwise, but he thinks that the agent’s lack of responsibility does not follow from her inability to do otherwise.

A far more likely explanation for the formation of these theories and one that plays a part in the

In the paper, “Human Freedom and the Self” Roderick M. Chisholm offers his theory of human freedom and defends it against a couple objections. One of the objections we will talk about which is the second objection is connected to the concept of immanent causation, where causation is by an agent, he argues how the statement “the prime mover unmoved” (page 391) has been subject to difficulty. Chisholm explains immanent causation as being an agent causing the event A to happen, but although the agent is causing A to happen the agent is not moved by anything. The argument to this objection is that “there must be some event A, which is caused not by any other event but by the agent” (page 391). Well since A was not cause by another event then the agent couldn’t have produced anything either to bring A about, so “what did the agent’s causation consist of” (page 391). Also another point that was made in the objection was the question “what is the difference between A’s just happening and the agents causing A to happen” (page 391). Chisholm responds by saying that there is a difference between man causing A and an event causing A. The two are not the same because transeunt causation is connected to determinism, which makes the train of events, happen and immanent causation as he explains it is when the agent causes the event. He then sums up his answer by saying the reason “lies in the fact that, in the first case but not the second, the event was caused by the man” (pg. 391) He

Firstly, Plantinga (1994) discusses epiphenomenalism; that physical events are completely independent of mental processes. He discusses that there is no causal

In section VIII, Part 1of his influential exploratory book “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, David Hume takes his analysis in another direction to subsequently further examine the controversy concerning what causes mankind’s actions. The dispute between mankind having free will and mankind’s actions being based off of external causes is simply a misunderstanding of definitions, because Hume states that everyone in reality has the same opinion on this matter. To confirm his claims, Hume commences by analyzing why it is probable for mankind to believe there are laws within nature of which control the human body, although the implications of necessary connection and causation originate from observations.

This premise is true as it is the basic fundamental understanding of cause and effect as everything has a cause behind it,

It is also a fact of life that the natural law permits no other effect to result from that the same cause under the same exact circumstances. There is, indeed, unbreakable prevailing regularity and interdependence of natural phenomena from which human get guidance for proper course of actions. According to Hume, human learns about causation and necessity from observable regularity in the law of nature. If there is no such

Hume raises the example of one billiard ball provoking motion in another ball. While the movement of the second ball consistently follows it’s collision with the first, “there is [nothing] which can suggest the idea of power.” (103) The mind may observe relationships and action, but the connecting power is imperceptible; cause and effect to a human being are nothing but correlating

The Principle of the Nomological Character of Causality, is Davidson’s second principle for Anomalous monism. As we review the next two principles we will run into many seemingly contradicting points that can be argued in favor anEd against Davidson’s Anomalous monism. The second principle states that, where there is causality, there must be law: events related as cause and effect fall under strict deterministic laws. Right away we can recognize the contradiction with the first principle of causal interaction. According to the first principle of casual interaction there are no psycho-physical laws in which we can define mental and physical term, but in the second principle it relies on strict deterministic laws. The principles appear to begin to contradict each other but Davidson depend on his specific explanations to make sense of his seemingly opposing

The first chapter of their book is formulated as both an exploration of the notions of causation embraced key philosophers, as well as a critique of these notions in a reply to Mill’s theories of causation.

Act and potency and their distinction are an important and fundamental theory in philosophy. It helps approach questions in metaphysics concerning substance, essence, and causation. In this essay, I will be using this theory of act and potency to show how the four causes and the theory relate to each other. Thus, the four causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause are related to each other and can be explained through the theory and concepts of act and potency.