On Apr 27, 4:02 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
That doens't follow, and it isn't. Even if there is some specific problem with X=omnipotence, that doens;t mean there is for other values of X. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'? What the perception is a perception of. A cat is what a perception of a cat is a perception of, etc. > > > 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. Says who? > Otherwise there is only a perpetual now, uncaused, with no > memory. Says who? >There is no time, no changes, no events at all, just a > perpetual forgetting and incomprehensible fragments. Says who? >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. That makes no sense. You are similtaneously claiming to that there is no reality, and that you know what reality is. > 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. All the evidene is that there was a unvierse a long time before humans came along. >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. You presumamnly need some kind of panpsychism to prop up your perception driven view of relaity. OTOH, people who think that things Just Are, don't need that posit. > > > > > 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'. Naah. Eg "I trip over and break my arm". > > > >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. There are various theories. You don't know it isn;t deterministic. > > > 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. That arguemnt doens't work. That somehting is conceivable does not make it really possible let alone actual. > > >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. Well, there is a point. Persons can have reasons and evidence for their opinions even if they are determinstic. > 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. I have no idea what that means. > > >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 does the figure mean? > What physical law do you claim determines > what I write here? > The laws of electromagentism are particualrly relavant to the mesoscopic scale of humanity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. I have no idea what point you are making there. > > 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. Has to, not needs to. > Everything needs to follow laws. Ditto. <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. Awareness is pretty damn useful. I am aware of things I want to eat, and things that want to eat me. > > > > >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. You're equivocating on reason. D-ism requires everythng to have a prior intial cause, but nothing need exist for a reason, in the sense of an aim goal or final cause. > > >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 Huh? I never said anythign existed in order to improve computation. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.