Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Re: Mechanism and Determinism
Message-ID: <27500105@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 15:05:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500105
Posted: Mon Aug 26 15:05:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 00:10:06 EDT
References: <1559@pyuxd.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:pyuxd:-155900:ISM780B:27500105:000:1005
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Aug 26 15:05:00 1985


>>  Why is there subjective
>>experience?  The best answer I can think of is that there must be subjective
>>experience in a world where we experience it.  If we were in a world were
>>there were none, then we wouldn't be asking the question.

>You didn't answer the question.  Why is there subjective experience in ANY
>world?

Because there is.  Please give me some criteria for determining what is and
is not an answer to a teleological question.  As far as I can see, such
answers can only reliably be asked of the entity that formed the intent.
If you ask me why I did something, or why my program works the way it does,
I can answer because I actually know the intent.  But, as for why the world
works the way it does, the question is only meaningful if there was an
intender, and if you can find it or someone who reliably knows its intentions.
Otherwise, the best you can do is try to determine *how*.

>What is subjective experience, anyway?

It's what's happening, man.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)