Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #458Re: Dualism
From: Joseph O'Rourke
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:04
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:04
40 lines
2510 bytes
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!orourkeReferences:
<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