On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality. What does that leave? >> 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. 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. You can have data compression and > caching without inventing poetry. By this reasoning nothing can ever have an adequate explanation, since if the explanation offered for A is B, you can always ask, "But why should B apply to A?"; and if the answer is given, "Because empirical observation shows that it is so" you can dismiss it as unsatisfactory. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
