'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 <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 1:02 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> 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 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