[Wittrs] [C] Re: Ontological vs. Causal Reduction
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:51:17 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> you don't experience light rays interacting with rhodopsin in your
eye;
> but, that event causes electrochemical signals to start down the optic
> nerve. the signal arrives at the visual cortex and causes some effect.
> there might be a physiological effect also; but, there is certainly an
> experiential effect: you experience visual imagery.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that the physiology caused the
imagery. At what point does the physiology yield imagery? Is it a
product of nerve activity? I feel we can examine the conceptual basis of
this claim apart from any empirical finding. Even if we can specify a
correlation for "seeing" and certain cells firing, we still need to find
a way of expresses this relation that doesn't leave us with a magical
transformation or Chalmer's gap.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
