🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #458

Re: Dualism

#458
From: Joseph O'Rourke
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:04
40 lines
2510 bytes
In article <Bv9vGp.Ax3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

>Precisely what needs to be explained is why that [blue] radiation "feels"
>like anything at all -- i.e. why that all physical processing is
>accompanied by an experiential feel [...] 
>There is also the secondary question
>of why it feels like *that* rather than like *this* -- it seems
>perfectly coherent that our blue experiences and red experiences
>could be systematically inverted, for instance. [...]
>Evolution is irrelevant to the question of why *this* physical
>s[t]ructure gives rise to *this* experiential feel.

We seem to be getting to the crux of the dispute here, not only
between you and other netters, but between e.g. Dennett & Block (say).
So let's pursue this further.

You want an explanation of two facts:

	1. Why we feel at all.
	2. Why it feels like this rather than like that.

Despite your rejection of evolution, I believe it can give a type
of answer to both.  We feel because it is evolutionarily advantageous
to experience pain, to have our pulse quicken at sharp sounds, etc.
And perhaps it is neurologically most efficient for these survival
advantages to be implemented via experiential feel, rather than
zombie reactions.
	Why this rather than that may again answer to what is
most advantageous and most efficient:  there is some sense to
experiencing blue as darker than red, since it *is* darker;
so inverting blue and red might weaken other cues of the experiential
feel, other uses.  So perhaps inverted spectra are perfectly possible,
but just not a wise use of neurological resources.
	If explanations along these lines do not satisfy you, then
it seems you seek a finer neurochemical understanding of why
opiates make us feel good, why epinephrine heightens awareness, and
so on.  Surely this type of micro-understanding of our brain processes
is on the way.
	If even these explanations would not satisfy you, then
perhaps you could make clear what type of explanation *would* satisfy you.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.130441.29896@sophia.smith.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke
References: <Bv9AIx.HBz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Sep28.005156.11177@sophia.smith.edu> <Bv9vGp.Ax3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke
From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: Dualism
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.130441.29896@sophia.smith.edu>
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
References: <Bv9AIx.HBz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Sep28.005156.11177@sophia.smith.edu> <Bv9vGp.Ax3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:04:41 GMT
Lines: 40