As I understand Chalmers is one of the problems that a reduction of phenomenal consciousness to physical facts stand in the way this: Even if I know all of the physical world reveals itself to me this does not yet why, for example, the pain in my foot feels so and so.
In contrast, according to Chalmers are non-phenomenal facts. If I know anything about the underlying micro-physical and functional facts, then I know for example why (or that?) Water behaves so and so.
Because of this difference can be facts about water facts about H 2 reduce O; facts about consciousness can, however, as not to reduce facts about the brain.
My objection: Even with physical facts, we are not always able to conclude, from our complete knowledge of basic facts on more facts. An example of this morning I read in the Süddeutsche. Here's the link: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/, wl1/wissen/artikel/112/72040 /
The headline reads: ".. Run, Dino, run researchers try to understand, how did the dinosaurs moved, as the exact movements were, but will probably remain a mystery."
The thesis of the article is that we will never know exactly how the exactly dinosaurs are gone (what position, which movements, what speed, etc.), even though we are the skeletons, fossils, computer simulations, and more at our disposal. Although we can rule out various hypotheses, such as dinosaurs are gone, but still we can not just pick out a movement and say, this is the right one.
I give that we have no complete knowledge about dinosaurs. But we have no complete knowledge about the brain. And even if we (in addition to the current dinosaurs themselves) would have all the information one could then claim not still believe that we do not know how accurate they are wrong? Should we then say that the facts are on motion dinosaur in non-physical facts?
0 comments:
Post a Comment