The idea that there are ‘laws of nature’ is a widespread scientific opinion. On the one hand, I argue that this idea has the crucial function to explain the obvious similarities of physical processes. On the other hand, I show that this idea can be replaced by the hypothesis supporting that a minimal consciousness immanent to matter governs its processes. This latter hypothesis may seem surprising, but compared to that of laws, it is more empirical in the sense that it (...) is inspired by our conscious experience, in particular our experience of automatic actions. And it is deflationist, because it allows us to reject the existence of laws, which must be considered as Platonistic forms. This hypothesis has been supported by Peirce and Bergson. In this paper, I try to clarify and complete their views, and to draw the consequences for the study of consciousness. (shrink)

Physical processes manifest an objective order that science manages to discover. Commonly, it is considered that these processes obey the “laws of nature.” Bergson disputes this idea which ultimately constitutes a kind of Platonism. In contrast, he develops the idea that physical processes are a particular case of automatic behaviors. In this sense, they imply a motor memory immanent to matter, whose actions are triggered by some perceptions. This approach is obviously panpsychist. It gives matter a certain consciousness, even if (...) the latter is different in nature from our consciousness. In some respects, this approach is similar to contemporary panpsychism because it claims that the psychic is a fundamental characteristic of nature, causally active. But it is also original because it does not constitute a theory of the origin of mind in nature. (shrink)

Bergson argues that there is an incompatibility between free will and determinism: while free will has a dimension of creation, of invention, determinism corresponds to the idea that the future is fixed in advance by laws. In addition, he rejects determinism. According to him, the singularity of our deep-seated psychic states makes that their evolution cannot be governed by laws. However, Bergson does not defend classical indeterminism because it reduces free will to a choice between alternative possibilities, that is to (...) say between pre-fixed futures. Such a conception does not take into account the creative dimension of free will. In fact, Bergson develops an original form of indeterminism based on a certain conception of causation. For determinism and classical indeterminism, causation is always the actualization of a pre-fixed virtual reality. For Bergson, causation can also be a creation, that is, the formation of something which is not pre-fixed. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to show that Bergson and James defend a form of panpsychism, and that on this point, Bergson probably had an influence on James. For Bergson, matter has psychic characters, in particular a memory of the immediate past and a motor memory. These characters are necessary to explain causation within the physical world, understood then as analogous to automatic activity in living beings. However, according to Bergson, there is a radical distinction between the inert and (...) the living: only the living is capable of creation. Probably inspired by Bergson, James develops a similar idea: causation in the physical world is understandable only by admitting that matter has psychic characters. Nevertheless, unlike Bergson, James does not make a radical distinction between the inert and the living. This leads him to make a link between matter and consciousness. (shrink)

In the contemporary debate on free will, most philosophers assume that the defense of libertarianism implies the defense of the notion of alternative possibilities. This article discusses this presupposition by showing that it is possible to build a libertarianism without alternative possibilities, apparently more robust than libertarianism with alternative possibilities. Inspired by Bergson, this nonclassical libertarianism challenges the idea that all causation implies the actualization of a predetermined possibility (an idea shared by determinism and classical libertarianism). Moreover, it challenges the (...) idea that free will is a mere choice between prefixed possibilities: for this libertarianism, free will is the result of a creative process of the mind—an entirely causal process whose outcome is not, however, predetermined. This nonclassical libertarianism describes the process of forming a will in a more realistic way than classical libertarianism does. Furthermore, it is not threatened by the problem of chance. (shrink)

In his book Matter and Memory of 1896, Bergson anticipated the quantum conception of matter: the idea that particles have a holistic nature, that matter is not substantial, that the movement and the position of a body cannot be determined simultaneously, and that physical processes do not obey a strict necessity. Surprisingly, he drew these conclusions from a reflection about the relation between mind and matter, in particular from his idea that perception is a relative coincidence of mind with matter, (...) that a sensory quality is a mnesic synthesis of very brief moments, and that consciousness admits of degrees. This latter point leads to a panpsychism which is neither idealist nor physicalist. (shrink)

Au sujet de la relation esprit-corps, Popper rejette le physicalisme, défini par le principe de clôture causale du domaine physique, et tente de construire une hypothèse interactionniste en accord avec la science contemporaine. Plus précisément, Popper reproche aux formes les plus élaborées du physicalisme d'entrer en contradiction avec la théorie de l'évolution, ainsi qu'avec le rationalisme. À l'opposé, il considère que l'hypothèse interactionniste peut se nourrir d'une comparaison minutieuse entre l'esprit et les forces physiques. Cette comparaison tend à rapprocher Popper (...) du panpsychisme. With respect to the mind-body relation, Popper rejects physicalism, as defined by the principle of the causal closure of the physical world, and attempts to build an interactionist hypothesis that would agree with the findings of contemporary science. More precisely, Popper criticizes the most elaborate forms of physicalism because they run counter to evolutionary theory and rationalism. By contrast, he thinks that the interactionist hypothesis can find support in a minute comparison of mind and physical forces. This comparison tends to draw Popper closer together with panpsychism. (shrink)

Jaegwon Kim développe l’argument suivant contre le dualisme psycho-physique : (i) Dans le dualisme, l’esprit est dénué de spatialité. (ii) Or, la relation causale requiert des relations spatiales entre la cause et l’effet. (iii) Par conséquent, dans le dualisme, l’esprit ne peut être ni cause ni effet. Après avoir exposé les détails de cet argument, j’en discute les prémisses. En m’appuyant sur Hume, je montre que la relation causale est concevable sans relation spatiale entre la cause et l’effet. Et en (...) m’appuyant sur la physique contemporaine, je m’intéresse à d’éventuelles relations causales non spatiales. (shrink)

Throughout his scientific life, Einstein thinks about the philosophical implications of his own work on time. From 1918, he makes a connection between the theory of relativity and the block-universe conception, according to which all moments of time coexist. Later, he clarifies this connection, explaining that the block-universe conception is the most convenient and objective interpretation of the theory. Einstein also develops the idea that, due to its deterministic commitment, physics as a whole allows to support the block-universe. With various (...) people, he discusses some objections against this conception. (shrink)

Joël Dolbeault | : D’abord, nous expliquons comment Bergson caractérise la liberté, et pourquoi celle-ci s’oppose à la fois au déterminisme et au hasard. Ensuite, nous montrons que la théorie bergsonienne de la liberté repose principalement sur l’idée que les états psychiques ne sont pas les occurrences de certains types, ce qui conduit à penser que leur apparition n’est pas gouvernée par l’action de lois. L’acte libre est causé par un sujet empirique, mais cette causalité n’est pas gouvernée par des (...) lois. Puis, nous soulignons l’originalité de cette théorie, notamment le fait qu’elle rejette le principe des possibilités alternatives, défendu par la plupart des libertariens actuels. À la fin de l’article, nous examinons plusieurs objections possibles contre cette théorie, en particulier l’objection inspirée par les expériences de Libet, ainsi que les réponses possibles. | : To begin with, we explain how Bergson characterizes free will and why it is opposed to both determinism and chance. Then we show that Bergson’s theory of free will is primarily based on the idea that mental states are not occurrences of certain types, which suggests that their appearance is not governed by the action of laws. The free act is caused by an empirical subject, but this causality is not governed by laws. Next, we highlight the originality of this theory, including the fact that it rejects the principle of alternative possibilities, defended by most of libertarians today. At the end of the article, we examine several possible objections against this theory, particularly the objection inspired by Libet’s experiments, and the possible answers. (shrink)

Le dualisme est peu répandu aujourd'hui, en philosophie de l'esprit. Le plus souvent, il est réduit au dualisme de Descartes, dont certaines faiblesses permettent une critique facile. Pourtant, un autre classique, plus proche de nous, défend un dualisme différent de Descartes : il s'agit de Bergson. Un des traits les plus intéressants du dualisme de Bergson est qu'il s'accompagne d'une conception relativement précise de la matière, qui rencontre assez bien la physique d'aujourd'hui. En comparaison, le physicalisme contemporain semble indifférent à (...) la question de la nature de la matière, et paradoxalement éloigné de la physique. In the phisosophy of the mind nowadays, dualism is not widespread. It mostly boils down to Descartes' dualism, whose weaknesses make for easy criticism. Nevertheless, closer to us, another classic defends a dualism different from Descartes': it is Bergson. One of the most interesting features in Bergson 's dualism is that it comes along with a relatively precise conception of matter, which fits current physics well enough. By comparison, contemporary physicalism appears indifferent to the question of the nature of matter, and paradoxically remote from physics. (shrink)

The more science progresses, the more it is evident that the physical world presents regularities. This raises a metaphysical problem: why is the world so ordered? In the first part of the article, I attempt to clarify this problem and justify its relevance. In the following three parts, I analyze three hypotheses already formulated in philosophy in response to this problem: the hypothesis that the order of the world is explained 1) by laws of nature, 2) by dispositions of the (...) fundamental physical entities, 3) or by a memory immanent to matter (a hypothesis developed by Peirce, Bergson and James). The third hypothesis may seem surprising. However, it can be shown that the three hypotheses have a psychomorphic dimension in the sense that they give to nature properties analogous to those of mind. In addition, this third hypothesis presents several interesting arguments. (shrink)

D’abord, nous montrons que, pour Bergson, le présent n’est pas un instant-limite qui séparerait le passé et l’avenir, car un tel instant est simplement conçu, en rapport à un temps homogène lui-même simplement conçu. Bien que possédant un intérêt pratique, cette conception du présent n’a pas de valeur spéculative. Ensuite, nous montrons que, selon Bergson, le présent connu par expérience, c’est-à-dire le présent vécu, se distingue qualitativement du passé par son extension: il est la conscience immédiate que j’ai de mon (...) corps, à la fois sensorielle et kinesthésique. Il est mon corps vécu, celui-ci embrassant toutes mes sensations, dépassant donc mon corps agissant. Enfin, nous tentons d’expliquer comment Bergson pense le présent physique, mais aussi le présent suprahumain, à partir de son analyse du présent vécu et de sa théorie des degrés de conscience. (shrink)

Bergson est connu pour son dualisme psycho-physique. Mais, dans sa philosophie, on trouve aussi une conception panpsychiste de la matière : l’idée que la matière inerte est douée d’un degré minime de conscience. Or, il est intéressant de remarquer que ce panpsychisme constitue en fait une théorie de la causalité, plus précisément une interprétation ontologique des notions scientifiques de « force » et de « loi de la nature ». Si cette théorie est pertinente, comme nous le pensons, elle apporte (...) un bon argument en faveur du dualisme interactionniste. Bergson is well-known for his psycho-physical dualism. But in his philosophy, we also find a panpsychist conception of matter: the idea that a minimal consciousness is linked to inert matter. Then, it is interesting to note that Bergson’s panpsychism is actually a theory of causality, more precisely an ontological interpretation of the scientific notions of ‘force’ and ‘law of nature’. If this theory is relevant, and we think it is, it provides a powerful for interactionist dualism. (shrink)