= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on How to think like a quantum monadologist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
Something somewhere is green. So if you propose an account of the world, reductive or otherwise, which purports to be about greenness, something in it had better actually be green.
Do you dispute in any significant way my assertion that the existing reductive accounts of color seek to reduce it either to causal properties or to configurational properties? Are you willing to defend any particular form of identity theory when it comes to color?
If someone presented an analysis of sensation into parts which, when combined, really did give you back what you started with, I certainly couldn't criticize it on these grounds. Though it's rather hard to imagine what such an analysis could be like. For example, I don't think you can say that color is made of hue, saturation and intensity, in the same way that a square is made of four line segments. The line segments each have an independent existence and being part of a square is a contingent matter for each of them, whereas HSI seem to me like dependent aspects of a necessary unity. You can't have "intensity of color" without actually having a color there.
The reductive analyses being proposed, however, are of a different character. When the parts are put back together, you have a quite different sort of entity, which is why I complain that they are really dualism or eliminativism.
Perhaps, then, color can't be reduced, only described. But that doesn't mean it has to be disconnected from a causal scientific account of the world. If the actual nature of color is that it is a component of certain monadic states, plays a certain specific causal role in the interaction of monads, etc - there's nothing there which is inherently beyond the reach of scientific reasoning.
That doesn't make any sense. Something, somewhere, is a violin. If I propose a reductive account of the violin, none of the component parts I talk about will be a violin. Something, somewhere, is shaped exactly like the building in which I live. A reductive explanation of the building in which I live won't contain any components that are shaped like the building in which I live.
On consideration of Robin Z's earlier example (temperature), I see that in the usual case of reduction, we have a phenomenon (temperature sensations) with a putative cause ("temperature"), and reduction simply clarifies or changes the nature of the cause. But when we have a reductive "explanation" of consciousness, we are engaging with the phenomenon as such and trying to say what sort of thing it is, not what sort of thing it is caused by. And these proposals for what color is are all missing the mark. It is as if I were to say that a violin is really a sentence in a dictionary.