On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling >
That's a rather odd way of looking at it, but if so then you can clearly see that when billiard ball X hits ball Y ball X has a sudden change in feeling and decides to stop while ball Y feels like moving and does so; what arises from all this we call "causality". I would use different words but if that helps you to see clearly so be it. > and free will. > Yes, noise can cause things to happen and deterministic events can cause all sorts of noises, including the "free will" noise. >What could make a brain state cause a feeling? > Brains are in the state they are in because of causality, if you can "see clearly that causality arises out of feeling" then I don't see your problem. If billiard balls can have feelings why not brain states? > You are the only one defining free will in terms of an absence of > causality. > There are after all only 2 alternatives, the absence of causality or its presents, you can be a Cuckoo Clock or a Roulette Wheel, take your pick. > > you are required to demonstrate that logic somehow applies to feeling, > which it doesn't. It most certainly does! I use logic to deduce that if I throw a baseball at your head your feelings will change, if we actually perform this experiment I would bet money my deduction will prove to be correct. >You can have data compression and caching without inventing poetry. > But poetry can be cached, and it can be compressed too just like any other form of information, except white noise. > It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in > varying degrees for their actions. > People are always responsible for their actions. > When we talk about someone being guilty of a crime, that quality of guilt > makes no sense in terms of being passively caused or randomly uncaused. > It makes all the sense in the world provided you stop and ask yourself, what is the purpose for punishing anybody for anything? The answer is to stop them from doing similar things in the future and as a deterrent to stop others from committing crimes of that sort. > I don't find it mysterious at all that consciousness could come from > configurations > of objects, I find it impossible, > Impossible or not the rock solid FACT remains that changes in the configurations of objects (like atoms or molecules or cells or baseballs or brains) changes consciousness and changes in consciousness can change objects (such as what happens to billiard balls in every game ever played). So apparently the Universe does not care if Craig Weinberg believes something is possible or impossible. > as do most people. > And it is well known that the naive philosophical beliefs of most people are always correct. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
