On 11 April 2014 02:17, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 9:55:08 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > >> On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since >>> their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. >>> >> >> My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the >> statement quoted above. Hence you have "refuted yourself thus!" :-) >> >> > No, we can't smuggle in our real world experience of dreams affecting our > behavior into the theoretical world that functionalism would allow. If we > do, it's begging the question; we are saying in effect 'Music must have an > effect on cars, since cars come with radios'. Music might make you drive > your car faster or miss your exit, but that doesn't mean that music itself > should be explained as arising from the manufacture of automobiles. If you > look only at what a car requires, and are careful not to smuggle in what > *your use* of a car includes, then we can see that evolution can only > really account for physiological behaviors, not subjectivity. All > subjective experiences could and would be replaced by unconscious > automation in a purely biological view of life. > Fine, so a counter example is dismissed as "smuggling in" because you don't like it. When I use a word it means what I want it to mean... ffs. If that's your idea of a reasonable response, excuse me while I put you on my ignore list. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
