On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality.
>> What does that leave?
> The creation of causality.
But are decisions that a person makes freely caused or uncaused?
>> 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.
If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an
obvious connection between clouds and rain either.
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