RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
August 3, 2014 at 3:51 pm
(August 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Note that in none of this have I claimed that anything, including qualia, is independent of the natural universe. I'm saying that since the capacity for the subjective is intrinsic to the universe, and since it has no bearing at all on our understanding of any physical mechanism, a purely physical model is an insufficient description of reality.
Why word it like that? Of course the capacity for subjective experience is in the universe. Where else could it be. But this way of putting it suggests that it is spread uniformly like space, time or ether. It also suggests that it does not owe its existence to the necessary conditions of the physical world as "smiles" do. If you believe that qualia are (subjective) states experienced by creatures with the necessary physical attributes, why not just say so? If that's what you have in mind, there is no disagreement. Qualia is different in kind by virtue of being the first person experience of entities in the universe which are capable of first person experience.
