🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep29.155144.15901@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>Evolution is irrelevant here.  Evolution will get you as far as the
>>current physical structure of the brain.
>
>You are assuming your conclusion.  That is, in saying that evolution
>determines physical structure but is irrelevant to qualia, you are
>assuming that qualia have nothing to do with physical structure.  But
>if, in fact, we did evolve, if evolution only explains the physical,
>and if qualia exist, then surely this combination is strong evidence
>that qualia are physical.

No, I'm not assuming my conclusion.  I'm just saying that precisely
what is in question is the relationship between brain structures and
consciousness -- whether this is identity, or nomic supervenience,
or whatever.  An evolutionary story will be able to tell you why a
particular brain structure evolved, but about the further
("philosophical") question, it has nothing to say.  This alone of
course doesn't refute physicalism -- it simply means that the
physicalist has more work to do (i.e., give an account of how this
sort of brain structure and function could entail the existence of
qualia).

As for your "strong evidence", obviously this doesn't count against
the alternative point of view, which is that there are contingent
laws of nature that link physical states with qualia.  Evolution
selects the physical states, which give rise to qualia by virtue
of these laws of nature.

>>What needs to be explained
>>is: why, given that the brain is like so, do qualia exist?
>
>So, all your asking is for a complete functional description of the brain.

No, I'm asking for an account of why something with a functional
description like that would have qualia.  It's a further question.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."