On Sep 13, 9:54 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/13/2011 4:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 3:24 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>> If it was completely determined by other things, then it's existence
> >>> would be redundant.
> >> Which is why it doesn't exist. Unless you just mean that feeling that "I
> >> want what I want
> >> and I don't know why".
> > Yes, that's the feeling. But it's also the feeling that "I want to
> > know why". It's the existence of any feeling at all. Totally redundant
> > to function.
> No it is not totally redundant. That's an illusion due to our use of
> language. We
> imagine that there are no feelings that go with words but that's false. Ask
> yourself why
> a sound logical argument feels compelling. It's not redundant to function;
> it drives the
> choice of what to think and say.
Yes, in reality we of course use feeling all the time, but I'm saying
that that reality cannot be justified from a purely functionalist
perspective. I don't imagine that there are no feelings that go with
words at all. I think that words function like prisms and lenses of
feeling. They are nothing but a way of focusing feeling. Functionalism
would have us believe that a scripted computation can drive the choice
of what to think and say in the exact same way that feeling can, which
I think is radically overconfident.
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