On Apr 17, 6:54 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 7, 3:43 pm, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Stathis and Brent, > > > > I'll respond to both at once since they are the same core objection: > > > > "Why does feeling have to have "purpose"? " > > > > "I can't even conceive of what it would mean for them > > > to be justified. " > > > > They have to be justified and have a purpose because that is what a > > > deterministic universe would require. > > > Nope. Determinism requires efficient causes,, > > not final causes or purposes. > > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
Some priori brain state. > > > Otherwise I can just say that a > > > deterministic universe includes libertarian free will, ghosts & > > > goblins, whatever. > > > Libertarian free will contradicts the requirment > > for sufficent causes. > > No more than feeling. No, Feeling isn't defined in terms of the presence or absence of any kind of determinism or causality. > >The others don;t contradict determinism. > > Why not? They are not defined in terms of it or its absence. > > > What business does a feeling have being in a > > > universe that is essentially a very sophisticated clock? > > > Something happened that would cause a feeling. > > Are you being serious? Yes. Why shouldn't you have laws of the form "If <<see kitten>> then <<feel warm and gooey>>" ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
