|
If no one is responsible for anything, aren't we just the sum of our experiences acting without control? Doesn't this take the agent completely out of the causal chain? I don't think you can just take the agent out of the causal chain and say "Well, you've got experience A, plus experience B, ad infinitum, equals result A, given set experiences A, B,..." I think agents have a role to play in causation, namely that we act upon our experiences to produce the action, and not that the experiences directly produce the action, which it seems to me that some of you are saying. Doesn't it seem counterintuitive to say that experiences produce results? An experience, or even reason for that matter, can't produce anything on it's own, not without an agent.
|