hello, > > [gav] > this statement presupposes SOM. > (subjective) experience begins (occurs after) the > transduction of energy > into neural impulses (object). > > it reduces experience to a physiological (materialistic) > base. > > [Krimel] > Regardless of the alleged advantages of radical empiricism, > it builds on > sensory empiricism. We can not experience relations between > our sense > impressions if we have no sense impressions.
gav: how can radical empiricism be built upon sensory empiricism? radical empiricism is *radical*: it presupposes nothing. sensory empiricism, as you would define it, presumes the subject and object and a mechanism by which one knows the other. one view is more empirical than the other and is therefore more basic. by def this is radical empiricism. > > [gav] > i am not trying to be smart when i say that the logic of > this seems simple > and clear. what part of my efforts at explanation do you > have issue with? > > experience is happening simultaneously with the > transduction of energy into > neural impulses; neurophysiological activity is a > relatively prosaic > analogue of experience. > > [Krimel] > The idea of disembodied "experience" happening in the > absence of neural > impulses is a heavily fanciful analogue that might appeal > to the children of > especially uneducated adults if it was explained in a > soothing tone of > voice. gav: i didn't say anything about experience happening in the absence of neural impulses, though for trees and organisms without neurons it obviously does. the neural impulses don't cause the experience in humans - that is what i have been saying in plain language for a while now - they are concurrent; the neurochemistry is an analogue. for pete's sake read what i write man! slowly. the rest of your offering here is puerile. > > As for your underlying assumption that it is just > correlation I have been > waiting for you the explain the correlation between Phineas > Gage's change in > personality and the spike through his forehead. Or on a > more personal note, > if you don't think the neural chemistry causes changes in > brain states why > would you engage in fungal sacraments' in a Liverpool > bath? gav: the mushrooms caused my experience to alter from the norm - more vivid, funnier, profound, connected; i am sure my brain chemistry was altered too. neural chemistry and brain states are synonyms so your question, as is often the case, doesn't make sense. > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere. Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
