On Aug 31, 11:17 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> >> A mechanistic world model can still accomodate human (and animal) feeling,
> >> imagination, creativity and compatibilist free will.
> > How, specifically?
> There is no onus on us to answer that question in order to show that
> it can happen, since it is in fact what happens.
You assert a completely fallacious claim that "A mechanistic world
model can still accomodate human (and animal) feeling, imagination,
creativity and compatibilist free will." and then decline to answer on
behalf of 'us' on the grounds that you say 'it is what happens'?
So I can say that a universe made of strawberry jam can still
accommodate heavy industry and supercolliders, and you will ask me
how, and then I can respond that "There is no onus on 'us' to answer
that question in order to show that it can happen, since it is in fact
What you are saying, in no uncertain terms, is "There is no reason for
me ('us') to justify my ('our') reasoning, since I am right."
You could have instead just said "oh, I guess you might be right. A
mechanistic worldview probably does fail to account for feeling,
creativity, or imagination'.
> It's like asking how
> heavier than air flight is possible: birds are heavier than air, birds
> fly, therefore heavier than air flight is possible.
Yeah, no, it isn't. You are stating clearly that the entire cosmos is
either mechanistically determined by particle physics or random. I'm
saying that view does not account for things that obviously do not
fall into either category, like enthusiasm, beauty, meaning, logic,
imagination, novelty, science, design, technology, life, pain,
struggle, choices, etc.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at