On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
> Some priori brain state.
What could make a brain state cause a feeling?
> > > > 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.
Causality is a condition within feeling, as is free will. Feeling
gives rise to free will directly. Whoever is doing the feeling is
ultimately determining the expression of their own free will.
> > >The others don;t contradict determinism.
> > Why not?
> They are not defined in terms of it or its absence.
You are the only one defining free will in terms of an absence of
causality. I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling and free
> > > > 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>>" ?
Because there is no logic to it. If you are positing a universe ruled
by laws of mechanistic logic, then you are required to demonstrate
that logic somehow applies to feeling, which it doesn't. If you have
mechanism, you don't need feeling. You can have data compression and
caching without inventing poetry.
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