On Aug 30, 5:31 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/30/2011 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > If you deem all phenomena in the
> > universe to be a priori mechanistic, then that word has no meaning. If
> > you want it to mean something then you have to allow that some
> > phenomena are not mechanistic. In that case, if you had to say that
> > something in the cosmos was not mechanical, what might that something
> > be if not human feeling, imagination, creativity and free will?
> A muddle of meaning and value, words and events.  Words have meaning, they 
> refer to other
> things.  The word mechanistic describes certain philosophies or models of the 
> world;
> namely those in which there is no libertarian free-will.  The word is 
> meaningful if you
> have theories of the world that do include libertarian free-will; whether 
> those worlds
> exist or not.  

How could even a fantasy of free-will occur in a universe that was
purely mechanistic? If everything is mechanistic, then mechanistic can
only be a synonym for universality and non-mechanistic becomes
literally and permanently inconceivable.

> A mechanistic world model can still accomodate human (and animal) feeling,
> imagination, creativity and compatibilist free will.

How, specifically?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to