On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 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 happens'.
You claim that consciousness is a separate, non-physical thing that
can act on matter but there is absolutely no evidence for that. What
we are left with, then, is a mechanistic world. Since consciousness
occurs in this world, consciousness is consistent with a mechanistic
> 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 a fact that feeling occurs in a mechanistic world. The
explanation for it may be elusive, the "Hard Problem" of
consciousness, but that does not change the brute fact that it
>> 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.
My point is that we can observe that something occurs and conclude
that therefore it is possible, even without being able to explain how
it occurs or how to replicate it.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at