On 4/22/2012 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 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
It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality.
What does that leave?

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.

I guess Criag hasn't read Lewis Carroll:



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to