(August 5, 2019 at 7:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 5, 2019 at 7:40 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You can account for perception of direction by appealing to only the physical/biological. But I think where the confusion is happening is that you think perception is only about the subjective experiential aspect of it, but there's also the physical aspect whereby the nerve cells in the brain are fired in a way as to make properties about the object you're looking to be a certain way that makes sense to the brain. But if you're talking about the subjective aspect, and if it is the case that the brain doesn't really cause this type of aspect, it still wouldn't change the fact that evolution accounts for the eye and vision just fine. Whatever consciousness may be, it's still contingent on the brain in some way. If the brain doesn't really cause it, it sure as hell "turns its switch on" or "fires it up" in some way. Therefore, evolution still can operate on this consciousness via operating on the brain.
Ok, so to simplify lets just throw out subjective experience all together, lets pretend every organism is a zombie, without consciousness. Information still needs to be processed in the same exact way. Activation of the left side of the retina still needs to processed as coming from the right side of the world, and that's not something that happens just by cupping of the eye patch. That's what's not addressed by Dawkins.
Subjective experience doesn't really processes information anyway, its all processed in the background, and the subject merely "sees" the pretty end result.
Ok let's pretend consciousness serves no function. This is for the sake of argument, of course. What is the problem exactly? What is it the brain cannot do to account for "blind" perception? I agree that the eye is not enough for high level perception, so what again is the problem?
