On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.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.
> I used X to show specifically that the whole principle of justifying
> something by saying maybe there is a law which makes it so is a
There is no evidene of omnipotence. There is evidence for feelings.
> > > > > 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.
> What makes you think that that it is possible for something to exist
> without being perceived by something (including itself)?
It seems likelier than things, such as the dark side of the moon, just
springig into existence the first time they are seen.
>It's a common
> assumption, but I think it's totally empty. Existence, in reality, is
> nothing more or less than perception.
I think that is based on the kind of confusion you made above, between
X and perception-of-X.
> > > > > 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?
> What difference does it make who says it? Can you refute it in some
I think it is more a case of can you support your exraordinary claims.
> > >There is no time, no changes, no events at all, just a
> > > perpetual forgetting and incomprehensible fragments.
> > Says who?
> If I say that a square has four sides, will you ask the same thing?
That's not an extaordinary claim.
> > > > >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.
> You need some kind of mechanemorphism to prop up your prejudice
> against panpsychism.
> > OTOH,
> > people who think that things Just Are, don't need that posit.
> Of course they do, since their 'thinking' makes them completely
> different from any 'thing' that ever 'Just Was'.
Not completely different, since we can solve some problems in AI.
> This is the delusion
> of mechanism - that faith in disbelief somehow escapes the
> epistemological bankruptcy of faith in belief.
> > > 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".
> I trip is still free will compared to 'I was pushed'.
Why would want to break my arm?
> Accidents can
> still be willed, and with different degrees of consciousness.
> > > > 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.
> I know that it doesn't make sense for it to exist if it were
You don't know that things can only exist if they need to.
> > > > > 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.
> I didn't say that it did. I say that it means determinism is not
> universally true. If color didn't exist, you could not conceive of
> color. If you can conceive of color - that means that the universe
> can't only be black and white.
That argument doens't work either. I can conceive of colours that
human's can't see. Or that nothing can see.
> It doesn't prove there is color, it
> doesn't mean that you have experienced color, but it does mean that
> ontologically there cannot be only black and white. You have to
> imagine a universe that is truly empty, before you fill it with all of
> your 21st century prejudices and look at it in the simplest possible
> terms. If your only choices are black and white, then color is not
> conceivable in any way. No more than you could conceive of another
> spectrum of all new colors right now.
> > > > >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.
> Opinions can't exist without free will.
Sure they can. You just can't have freelly chosen opinions.
> They are nothing but the
> intellectual readiness to express the positions you prefer, for the
> purpose of influencing others preference through their free will to be
> won over or not.
One cog can influence another, in a sense.
> > > > >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?
> It means that physical laws aren't literally 'interested' in what I am
> doing, but their effect on determining what I am doing can be
> considered a form of being interested or paying attention.
Or not. Since I don't anthropomorphise physical laws, I don't have
to answer the quesion about what interest they have.
> > > 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.
> Ok, has to.
> > > Everything needs to follow laws.
> > Ditto.
> Fine, but what is the difference?
Efficient causation versus final causation.
>Nothing in the universe needs
> anything until suddenly on the surface of this one planet in this
> backwater galaxy humans invent 'need' out of whole cloth?
Yeah. Why do you find that so strange? We invented any number of
You think money, marriae and mortgages are part of the warp and weft
of the universe?
> > <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.
> No. Awareness adds nothing to the effectiveness of machines to survive
> and reproduce.
If a machine falls down a precipice it was unaware of, that is pretty
inimical to its ability to survice and reproduce.
>As you said, electromagnetism can explain everything.
> You can't have it both ways: either the universe makes sense as a
> deterministic machine and feeling is completely superfluous and
> unexplainable, or feeling is causally efficacious and we use it to
> determine our own behavior and alter evolution.
There are other options.
> > > > I am not insisting on it, I am just expaliing it as it has been
> > > > understoodf
> > > > 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.
> What is the prior cause of the invention of feeling?
What s the prior cause of the development of wings or legs? You don't
"a" cause, you have a complex ecosystem that evolves in a complex way.
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