On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  
>>  
>> If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
>> purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
>> on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
>> scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
>> conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
>>  
>>
>> We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
>> random. 
>>
>
> Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
> here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.
>  
>
> Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create 
> an efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they 
> don't move around and recombine randomly - except in your head.  
>

Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out 
will eventually learn to become an author? Of course 
 

> Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?
>

Of course not. Are you an Darwinian supremacist?
 

>  
>  
>  
>>  It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
>> after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
>> like that again.
>>
>
> No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
> thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
> algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
> possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
> Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
> realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
>
>
> That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that 
> a brain can't instantiate feelings.
>

Ok, then you *know* nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
That doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in 
a universe driven only by bottom up evolution.


>  You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in 
> the first place, and it cannot.
>  
>
>>   So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
>> that 'sick at your stomach' feeling. 
>>
>>  
> That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill 
> friendly cells. 
>
>
> No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their 
> young. 
>

T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the 
body. What's the difference?
 

>
>  That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
> molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
> metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
> everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way 
> around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?
>  
>
> But then you have no way to explain why they feel this instead of that.
>

They feel what makes sense for them to feel in relation to the entirety of 
the cosmos. They feel what it is to experience the thing that they are in 
the context that is meaningful to the history of experiences that have 
developed through them.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rvbmmBIPeYAJ.
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