Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:27 pm
I claim the anatomy and physiology of perception and conceptualisation is necessary and sufficient for explaining sensation and perception of sensation, and conceptualisation too. This thing has been done and dusted.
It might be sufficient to explain it, but this explanation will never capture the reality of it.
One can explain in great detail what the experience of "redness" is according to all different branches of science, but this still doesn't explain the direct experience, the reality of seeing (aka colour) itself.
Why there is an experience of "redness" has many conceptual answers - ranging from light of a specific wavelength hitting the eye and being processed accordingly and being transmitted to the brain etc etc... but why, or rather what, is experience at all? How is it structured? What is its relationship to conceptual thought and as such, to language? What is real and what is imagined? What is actually experienced and what is made up?
These are the questions we should (and do) discuss, and we should investigate them first and foremost on an experiential level, not on a conceptual level, not simply trusting in existing scientific explanations, but rather by observing and investigating what we actually experience here and now.