On Apr 22, 10:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > will.
> It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality.
> What does that leave?
The creation of causality.
> >> 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.
> By this reasoning nothing can ever have an adequate explanation, since
> if the explanation offered for A is B, you can always ask, "But why
> should B apply to A?"; and if the answer is given, "Because empirical
> observation shows that it is so" you can dismiss it as unsatisfactory.
It depends what A and B are. If A is a cloud and B is rain, then you
can see that there could be a connection. If A is a neural fiber and B
is an experience of blue, then there is a gigantic gap separating the
two which can't be bridged just because we are used to looking at
physical objects relating to other physical objects and think it would
be convenient if subjects behaved that way as well.
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