211
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: + +
→Section on morality
The error stems from the materialistic assumption that only physical forces or physical phenomena can be causes. But an angel just appeared beside me and said, "That is balderdash, my good man!" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)
The error stems from the materialistic assumption that only physical forces or physical phenomena can be causes. But an angel just appeared beside me and said, "That is balderdash, my good man!" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Even if non-materialist forces can be causes (which I agree with), they are still important causes. For example, if I decided to have a hamburger for lunch, I may be influenced by the smell (external) and a series of previous events (including my past experiences) from the start of creation. Some of that would be my reflection on what I like, and would be non-physical, but it is still a causal line from the moment of creation. To me, that would argue for a deterministic outlook, because the non-physical causes would still be considered causally related. Personally, I have no problem with that as a compatiblist, but I really don't understand any real way for us to have thoughts that aren't "caused" one way or another. I don't think that Hume was, in terms of philosophy of mind, a materialist, so I think this could also fit in with his arguments. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 13:26, 8 December 2008 (EST)