![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Causal History Incompatibilism
Jan. 25th, 2006 05:23 pmMuse - [Apocalypse Please]--- The fact of the matter is that I simply don't accept the idea that a causal chain necessitates our actions being not-free. I believe that, if we are truly free, then we make decissions based upon prior situations, knowledge, their outcomes, and our then-current predilections. There is no freedom if our actions are uncaused.
If our actions are uncaused, then they have no Cause, not even our Free Choice. How then are we Free? Our actions, in this scenario, arise epiphenomenally from the milieu of chaos. They are meaningless.
If, however, our actions are determined, that does not mean that they are to have no input from our will, and choice. There is nothing to say that the will cannot be a factor. Perhaps we need some background.
Muse - [Time Is Running Out]--- In my Metaphysics class, today, we discussed Causal History Incompatibilism, which states that if our actions can be traced back to deterministic processes and causal factors, beyond our control (the big Bang, or God's Creation, for instance), then we are incapable of having control over those actions whihc arise, due to those factors. In other words, we are not free. In this schema, the freedomof our actions is supposedly dependent upon not being a part of the causal chain of events; this is crap. If our actions are not caused, then they are not free; if they are caused, then one of those factors May Be our free choice.
Muse - [Sing For Absolution]--- If we accept the idea of C.H.I., then one of two basic conceptions, in our system of action, is lost to physics: Mistakes or Learning. If C.H.I. is true, then either mistakes or learning have to be the natural state of the physical universe, and if it is learning, then we have no cause to not simply Learn Everything, and never make a mistake. We have no room for improper intentions, within a system. Look at it this way, say that we are within a completely mechanistic system, in which our actions are all caused by forces Outside of Our Control (set aside the obvious falseness of this, for a second). If this is the case, then we should have no conception, whatsoever, of proper or improprer, correct or incorrect. (Muse - [Stockholm Syndrome]). Our actions should hold the same mental value as rain V. shine. But we have intentions, plans, implimentations, long-term goals, and sometimes they are mistaken. Often times our plans do not do what we think they will. How, in a universe causally determined by factors outside of our control, are we able to have this incorrect plans? Moreover, why are we able to have them?
The killer question is, in the end, how am I even able to think about this notion of correct or incorrect, if all of my actions are neither. If the facticity does not exist, then how and why does the concept? What rational purpose does it serve?
Next, we come to the idea that mistakes are the way of things. (Muse - [Falling Away With You]). Say, for instance, that the universe needs a series of things bumbing into each other, before it properly interlocks, and things work in the most efficient manner. Fine; we have explained mistakes, and they are not, in fact, that. That still gives rise to indeterminacy. The inefficient configurations still existed, and they were disdgarded. How? Why?
My earlier comment about the obvious falseness of a world in which everything was caused by forces Outside of Our Control, was a bit off the cuff, i admit, but think of it this way: We exist, within the universe. By that very fact, we have the ability to causally affect our environment, if it does the same to us.
Muse - [Interlude]--- That being said, the question still may seem to remain, are those effects freely chosen? (Muse - [Hysteria]). I believe that, when linked with the above, they have to be. It hinges on the idea of intentions and conceptions. For what reason would we be made to be able to conceive of the forces that influence us, if not to affect and change them?
No action is free of causes, but every action is a choice among many, the final, determinant causes, being our intention and choice.
Blah. My head hurts. I'm out.
If our actions are uncaused, then they have no Cause, not even our Free Choice. How then are we Free? Our actions, in this scenario, arise epiphenomenally from the milieu of chaos. They are meaningless.
If, however, our actions are determined, that does not mean that they are to have no input from our will, and choice. There is nothing to say that the will cannot be a factor. Perhaps we need some background.
Muse - [Time Is Running Out]--- In my Metaphysics class, today, we discussed Causal History Incompatibilism, which states that if our actions can be traced back to deterministic processes and causal factors, beyond our control (the big Bang, or God's Creation, for instance), then we are incapable of having control over those actions whihc arise, due to those factors. In other words, we are not free. In this schema, the freedomof our actions is supposedly dependent upon not being a part of the causal chain of events; this is crap. If our actions are not caused, then they are not free; if they are caused, then one of those factors May Be our free choice.
Muse - [Sing For Absolution]--- If we accept the idea of C.H.I., then one of two basic conceptions, in our system of action, is lost to physics: Mistakes or Learning. If C.H.I. is true, then either mistakes or learning have to be the natural state of the physical universe, and if it is learning, then we have no cause to not simply Learn Everything, and never make a mistake. We have no room for improper intentions, within a system. Look at it this way, say that we are within a completely mechanistic system, in which our actions are all caused by forces Outside of Our Control (set aside the obvious falseness of this, for a second). If this is the case, then we should have no conception, whatsoever, of proper or improprer, correct or incorrect. (Muse - [Stockholm Syndrome]). Our actions should hold the same mental value as rain V. shine. But we have intentions, plans, implimentations, long-term goals, and sometimes they are mistaken. Often times our plans do not do what we think they will. How, in a universe causally determined by factors outside of our control, are we able to have this incorrect plans? Moreover, why are we able to have them?
The killer question is, in the end, how am I even able to think about this notion of correct or incorrect, if all of my actions are neither. If the facticity does not exist, then how and why does the concept? What rational purpose does it serve?
Next, we come to the idea that mistakes are the way of things. (Muse - [Falling Away With You]). Say, for instance, that the universe needs a series of things bumbing into each other, before it properly interlocks, and things work in the most efficient manner. Fine; we have explained mistakes, and they are not, in fact, that. That still gives rise to indeterminacy. The inefficient configurations still existed, and they were disdgarded. How? Why?
My earlier comment about the obvious falseness of a world in which everything was caused by forces Outside of Our Control, was a bit off the cuff, i admit, but think of it this way: We exist, within the universe. By that very fact, we have the ability to causally affect our environment, if it does the same to us.
Muse - [Interlude]--- That being said, the question still may seem to remain, are those effects freely chosen? (Muse - [Hysteria]). I believe that, when linked with the above, they have to be. It hinges on the idea of intentions and conceptions. For what reason would we be made to be able to conceive of the forces that influence us, if not to affect and change them?
No action is free of causes, but every action is a choice among many, the final, determinant causes, being our intention and choice.
Blah. My head hurts. I'm out.
