The ideas of the objective and the causal seem to be so closely connected as to be almost identical. An objective explanation is a causal one, and even when some phenomena are said to be causeless, like certain unpredictable quantum events, this term refers to a break on only one side of the causal chain, and is notable, indeed measurable, only because the other side remains perfectly unbroken. Events are objective when they are locked into causal relations with other objectivities. But another view of this is that since cause has no clear definition it effectively emerges as nothing more than the linking factor internal to objectivity. The distinction of objective and subjective is thus prior. But in this case the idea of causality also arises in the relation between the subjective and the objective, and as going in both directions. I experience these sensations because of those events in the world around me - this is such a natural way of thinking as to be almost beneath comment, and yet on examination it appears strange, as hiding a mystery. But here the causal mechanism is taken to be mostly outside of the subjective realm, the latter being merely the terminus of a cascade of informational events. It is far stranger in the other direction. Here causality is the natural concept that arises from the experience, or the capability rather, of purposive action. I intend to do something and then I do it. Even if the awareness of the intention is out of synchronisation with the causal sequence as retrospectively inferred by neuroscientists, the fact is that something has gone from the inside to the outside. We have the idea of causation, where we ourselves are the cause, without any knowledge of how it comes about. We have no inner sense of how our will brings about action, absolutely none at all. We just do.