On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> A psychophsical law or identity.

An omnipotence law could cause omnipotence too.

>
> > > > > > 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,
>
> says who?

The notion of a cause is an idea - a feeling about order and sequence.
To have cause you have to have memory and narrative pattern
recognition. Without that, there really is no difference between a
cause and a non-cause. Only disconnected fragments.

>
> > as is free will. Feeling
> > gives rise to free will directly.
>
> Says who?

Says most people who have ever lived. If I feel like doing something,
that feeling allows me to possibly try to do it. It's very
straightforward.

>
> > Whoever is doing the feeling is
> > ultimately determining the expression of their own free will.
>
> Says who?

According to you nobody can say anything except what they are
determined to say, so what possible difference could it make who
happens to say it?

>
> > > > >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
> > will.
>
> Maybe you could make that clear to the rest of us.

By writing this sentence I am causing changes in a computer network,
your screen, your eyes, and your mind. Do you doubt that I am choosing
to do this? What physical law do you claim has an interest in what I
write here?

>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Statements of scientific law tend not to be analytical in any case.

But there is nothing to it whatsoever. You are saying that it should
help solve a math problem if the computer can smell spaghetti just
because we seem math on one side and spaghetti on the other.

>
> >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.
>
> I dare say vast tracts of the universe are unnecessary.

Then your insistence upon mechanism is devoid of anything except
arbitrary sentiment. Why not have a classical pantheon of gods? We
could say they improve computation too.

Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to