On Apr 27, 9:11 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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?

So it's a fallacy to say that X can exist because there could be a Law
of X that allows it to exist.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > 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.

I think that it does. Without the possible perception of causality,
what is 'cause'?

>
> > 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

I'm not talking about human recognition in particular, I'm saying that
ontologically you cannot have a 'cause' without something that
remembers the initial condition and can detect that a change has
occurred. Otherwise there is only a perpetual now, uncaused, with no
memory. There is no time, no changes, no events at all, just a
perpetual forgetting and incomprehensible fragments. Being born as a
blank slate every trillionth of a second. Cause isn't realizable in
that universe because there is no memory of a non-now moment with
which to infer time, sequence, and cause.

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

A lot of people believe that, but I don't think that's what reality
is. Everything we know about perception and relativity points to a
realism that is profoundly dependent upon perspective. What is a
tomato without any point of view? If I am a virus, a tomato is like a
planet. If I am the size of a mountain, a tomato is a speck. Without
perception, there is no 'is'. Awareness is all that is (not just human
awareness, but many frames of perceptual inertia that have accumulated
in the cosmos, including human awareness).

>
> >Only disconnected fragments.
>
> Who told you that the universe absent huamns is disconnected? God?

Who told you that perception requires humans? Nothing that I am
talking about is limited to humans, other than the fact that we can
only comment with certainty on our own perception.

>
> > > > 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.

I believe that you think that, but I can't see how. When we say the
word "I" followed by any verb, we are saying ' this self does X of
it's own free will'.

>
> >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.

There is bi-directional feedback. You can choose which of your many
desires to privilege with attention, action, etc. We tell our body
what to do, it tells us what to do.

>
> > 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.

I'm saying the opposite, that the fact FW is even conceivable means
that determinism is not true.

>
> >so what possible difference could it make who
> > happens to say it?
>
> Who says things have to make a difference in order to happen.

You did. By continuing to ask 'says who' and 'who says', you imply
that there is some point in asking that. I am pointing out that
nothing could be more meaningless than asking 'says who' when you
assume that there really is no 'who' that decides freely to say what
they want. Who cares who says? Why does that make a difference to you?
What does your concept of authority rest on? Free. Will. Intention.
Personal qualification.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > >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.

Determinism can be seen as a process of free will also. The difference
is that conscious choice really doesn't make sense in a fully
deterministic universe, but all determinism makes sense as a category
of motive experience.

>
> >What physical law do you claim has an interest in what I
> > write here?
>
> Who says physcial laws have to be "interested"?

I'm speaking figuratively. What physical law do you claim determines
what I write here?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > 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.

Sure, there is if-then representation between physical states and
mental states, and vice-versa. That doesn't mean that they both aren't
presentations in their own right. If anything, it is the physical
states that are always a representation.

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

If you say that everything is deterministic, then you are saying that
anything that exists needs to fit in with the context of what has been
determined. Everything needs to follow laws. You can't just have a
pipe organ appear out of the vacuum. That is exactly what awareness
would have to be in a deterministic universe though - a sudden,
unexplainable, and useless invention.

>
> > > >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.

To say that all future states are derived from past ones means just
what I am saying, that everything in the universe has to be justified
by the necessity of the mechanism. You can't posit a cosmos of rigid
mechanistic order and then claim that anything can happen for no
reason.

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

Why not? Apollo would improve photosynthesis, agriculture, etc. Why
not him?

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