'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the universe. It makes no sense logically. '
Why not? Feelings cause brain and body states that could be usefull from the point of evolution. On 26 apr, 17:20, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 25, 1:02 pm, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, although I think that what 'feels' and 'decides' is not the ball > of X, but the interior experience of X. X itself is the symmetry or > sense which separates the object-energy-space topology from the > subject-motive-time topology. What appears as causality from the > outside in seems like choice from the inside out. Neither are correct > or incorrect, but rather are a consequence of the perspective. Without > participation, there is no causality. Without causality there is > nothing to participate in. > > Of course, if we are talking about billiard balls, we have no idea > what the subjective experience is like. It could be an experience that > only happens when something important happens to the ball, and only > for a second. It could be a generalized experience of all similar > inorganic materials everywhere in the universe. My guess is that it is > very far removed from the kinds of experiences human beings could > relate to. The sounds and sights of billiard balls are our only clues > but such clues aren't very helpful when it comes to brains. > > > > > > and free will. > > > Yes, noise can cause things to happen and deterministic events can cause > > all sorts of noises, including the "free will" noise. > > I don't understand how you won't see that would mean that your opinion > about free will is also noise? Without free will, arguing with you > would be like arguing with someone about what color their own eyes > seem to them. If there is no choosing what you believe, then what > could possibly be the point of 'debating' anything? > > > > > >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? > > Because a billiard ball is an actual thing and a brain state is an > abstract idea about patterns we detect in the brain. The brain is the > spacetime-matter-energy container of X, the person is the timespace- > sense-motive experience of X. Neither one causes the other, they are > both symmetric expressions of X. We can only be on the inside of X, so > our own experience ranges from free will to automatism and our > experience of the outside of X ranges from determinism to randomness. > > > > > > 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. > > The whole idea of 'picking' clearly, obviously, relies on a third > alternative of intentional choice. Does a Cuckoo Clock pick? Does a > Roulette Wheel? Which one reasons and has a preference? > > > > > > > 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. > > I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the > universe. It makes no sense logically. > > > > > >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. > > Sure, but it doesn't need to exist in the first place. You can't > justify the existence of poetry by information theory alone. > > > > > > 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. > > Why would they be? Are cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels 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. > > It can't be a deterrent to anyone if nobody has the free will to > control their own behavior. > > > > > > 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). > > Of course matter and mind can change each other. That doesn't mean > that mind is a product of matter. The TV show isn't a product of the > TV set. > > > So apparently the Universe does not care if Craig Weinberg believes > > something is possible or impossible. > > I am the universe. Whatever I believe is what the universe believes > local to me. > > > > > > as do most people. > > > And it is well known that the naive philosophical beliefs of most people > > are always correct. > > Have sophisticated theories of established authorities fared much > better in history? > > Craig -- 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.
