On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It isn't the absence of causality, it isn't the presence of causality. >> What does that leave? > > The creation of causality. But are decisions that a person makes freely caused or uncaused? >> 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. > > It depends what A and B are. If A is a cloud and B is rain, then you > can see that there could be a connection. If A is a neural fiber and B > is an experience of blue, then there is a gigantic gap separating the > two which can't be bridged just because we are used to looking at > physical objects relating to other physical objects and think it would > be convenient if subjects behaved that way as well. If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an obvious connection between clouds and rain either. -- 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.
