On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

so?

> > > > > > > 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.

That doesn't mean a cause itself is.

> To have cause you have to have memory and narrative pattern
> recognition.

To *recognise* a cause you have to have memory and narrative pattern
recognition

> Without that, there really is no difference between a
> cause and a non-cause.

Without that, there really is whatever there really is.


>Only disconnected fragments.

Who told you that the universe absent huamns is disconnected? God?

> > > as is free will. Feeling
> > > gives rise to free will directly.
>
> > Says who?
>
> Says most people who have ever lived.

I don;'t think so.

>If I feel like doing something,
> that feeling allows me to possibly try to do it.

How do you know that isn't deterministic?  A lot of people would say
that your desires
cause your action, and you can't choose your desires.

> 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,

I am not sayign determinism is true, just that FW isn;t true apropri
in the way you keep saying.


>so what possible difference could it make who
> happens to say it?

Who says things have to make a difference in order to happen.

>
> > > > > >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?

Even determinists can admit that your are choosing, since they regard
choice as another deterministic process.

>What physical law do you claim has an interest in what I
> write here?

Who says physcial laws have to be "interested"?
>
>
>
> > > > > > > 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.

No. I am saying that there can be an if-then relationship between
phsycial

states and mental states. I am not saying that all such relationships
hold.

And I am certainily not casting causality in terms of things being
"needed" or "taking an interest"
or "helping".

> > >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.

I am not insisting on it, I am just expaliing it as it has been
understood
for the past few centuries. Our understanding of mechanism is that it
has nothing to do with necessity of final causes, or sentiment or
interest,
and that it just churns away deriving future states from past ones.
You keep criticising this anthropomorphic notion of determinism
that is very much your own.

>Why not have a classical pantheon of gods? We
> could say they improve computation too.

Huh?

-- 
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