On Apr 26, 11:02 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 4:34 pm, graytiger<dirk.vanglab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> '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.
> > I don't think that there is any possibility that any evolutionary
> > advantage could be derived of the fact of feeling itself. Any benefit
> > conferred by feeling would be redundant as long as you have the
> > functionality that you are attributing to that feeling. Only behavior
> > can count for evolution, not feeling.
> But behavior comes from internal states, e.g. adrenalie, testosterone,...,
> and that's feeling.
Molecules aren't internal states, they are objects in space. We
associate them with feeling because we are conditioned with a
worldview which has not yet challenged that assumption. All that we
really know is that that the certain molecular activity occurs at the
same time in roughly the same place (local to a person-body) as
feelings. Testosterone or adrenaline in a test tube don't cause the
test tube to feel anything (except maybe contact with a substance of a
particular density and temperature or something), so they are
definitely not feelings.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at