From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun Dec 26 1999 - 00:11:48 MST
Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> On December 25, 1999 Wrote:
>Non-determinists take motivational causes to be unanalyzable in some
>respect; I take this view to be incoherent for reasons which you've raised
>in the past against other people who have claimed to have Free Will.
But motivational causes are ultimately unanalyzable if you only want to hear
about motivational causes. I just can't explain X if all I can talk about is X.
About all I can say is I did X because I like it, or I did X because X will
help me get Y and I like Y. That won't get you any closer to the nature of
"like" but I really don't know what else anybody can say on the subject.
If you allow other causes you can get a little further but the sequence
of "why?" questions is never very long, especially for something as
fundamental as death or consciousness.
Why do I like life better than death?
Because I want to.
Why?
Because that's the way my brain is.
Why?
Because that's the way my genes ordered it built.
Why?
Because that's the way my genes themselves are built.
Why?
Because that's the way I inherited them from my ancestors.
Why?
Because if they had been different in that respect my ancestors
would have died shortly after their birth and I would not exist.
Why?
I don't know. I don't know why the laws of logic are the way they are,
if they could be different, or even if the question is meaningful.
>Why not get rid of Consciousness
The only way I know to do that is to put a bullet in my brain. I'd rather
not do that.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:12 MST