Biographical Data

An Unifying Approach to Consciousness and Matter

CAUSALITY AND FREE WILL ANALYZED

Introductory Remarks

Under the Unified Theory, difficulties in the analysis of free will and in determining whether something termed free will does or does not exist are resolved. Before the insights achieved by the Unified Theory, analyses of free will often were bogged down in discussions of determinism, predeterminism, non-determinism, causality, intentionality, randomness, probability, and limitations imposed upon available alternatives. These discussions have generally been based upon assumptions now disproved by the discoveries of the Unified Theory.

Analyses of free will based upon predetermination often assumed, for example,

(1) that man`s behavior is necessarily predetermined by his genetic and environmental background,

(2) that man is a product of nature and nurture, and

(3) that if genetic and environmental factors could be completely understood or determined, man`s behavior would thereby become predictable.

Under the Unified Theory of consciousness and matter, such analyses confuse predeterminisn with predictability. For man to freely and conciously act, his behavior would necessarily be consistent with his character and personality, and to the extent that we understand his character and personality, we are thereby enabled to predict how he would choose to exercise his freedom.

(1) That man is an insular and isolated object--that is, a collection of unitons--in time and space that responds only as the passive recipient of outside forces acting upon him;

(2) that by some unknown mechanism man is a part of and thereby enabled to respond to a compass larger than his own compass that somehow serves as a passive and insular restriction upon him in time and space;

(3) That man, a product of consciousness in evolution, somehow is devoid of the attributes of consciousness in evolution that would require him to be a a freely and consciously acting participant in the manifestations resulting from the space-time progressions of the segue in which he resides;

(4) That his behavior is somehow "caused by" predetermined factors;

(5) That man`s behavior, and impliedly the behavior of unitons, are derivative from montons arising from consciousness in evolution; and

(6) That, related to (5) above, his behavior arises from the interaction one with the other of unitons, which are constructs of man and should not be used to falsely negate man`s capacity to have the will, a form of impetus, that is inherent in consciousness in evolution.

Causality is a presupposition not rtecognized by the Unified Theory. The laws of consciousness in evolution are not laws of causality. There are not factors acting upon consciousness that would "cause" it to evolve other than the will and impetus to evolve that is inherent in consciousness in evolution. The predeterminist arguments are also generally based upon the presupposition that forces act upon an object in time and space. These arguments put the cart before the horse. It is the free will inherent in consciousness that gives rise to time and space and to the objects of man`s physical world. The limitations of the physical world are not restrictions imposed upon man`s consciousness but are limitations arising from the Cartesian and perhaps the progressive natural reference systems.

As long as we perceive ourselves as being free agents in making decisions, we possess free will as a state of consciousness. Many factors may influence our decision making, but it is we who are exercising our free will based upon the influences of numerous contributing factors. These contributing factors acting upon different persons will be dissimilar and will lead to our exercises of free will distinct from each other; but each of us could have a sense of acting freely. Free will is based upon our self-awareness as freely engaging in our actions and decisions. When we believe that another person is controlling our actions, and depriving us of our ability to make decisions, we may feel that we lack free will and are thereby no longer responsible for our actions. Thus, the belief that we are not morally responsible for our actions, is often based upon our refusal to accept the moral consequences of our behavior, puting the blame on lack of education, poverty, parental abuse, discriminatory tactics, and other factors acting upon the free exercise of will by us. The same childhood influences that may make one of us a saint will make another of us a sinner. Whether our behavior is inherently moral or immoral is a decision we ourself make.

© Wilson Ogg