On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz' "per-established
> harmony" idea. Could you sketch your thoughts on the similarity that you
> see? I have my own thoughts about pre-established harmony, but I see, in
> Craig's ideas, other concepts similar to those of Leibniz that do relate to
> a notion of "harmony" and other somewhat unrelated concepts but not
> necessarily include the "pre-established" aspect. I haev an argument against
> the concept of "pre-established" as Leibniz uses it.
>From what I understand of Craig's theory it describes a difference between
first person and third person experience/reality. Each being two sides of
the same coin, where first person experience is the interior side of what
its like to be the material. The first person experience of is
indeterminable (and possibly relies on the indeterminism of physics?) and
can cause physical changes above and beyond what can be predicted by any
third-person physics. While we are a machine according to this theory, we
are a special machine due to our history as organisms and the special
properties of the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. which form the
basis of our biochemistry. Functional equivalence is either not possible,
or will lead to various brain disorders or zombies. Consciousness to Craig
is an epiphenomenon, since he has said there is no reason to evolve this
tehnicolor cartesian theater.
The similarity I see to the pre-established harmony is that Liebniz posits
two realities, a physical reality and reality of experiences. Each follows
their own laws independently of the other, but physics does not affect or
could not implement a mind, nor is the mind really affecting physics.
Instead, physical law is such that it coincides with what a mind would do
even if there were no mind, and the mind experiences what physical law would
suggest even if there were no physical world. It is analagous to a
matrix-world where we experiencing a pre-recorded life and experiencing
everything of that individual. Liebniz postulated his idea when it became
clear that Newton's laws suggested a conservation of not only energy (as
Descartes was aware) but also momentum. Therefore an immaterial soul could
have no affect on physics. This led Leibniz to the idea that God setup both
to necessarily agree before hand.
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