'all it claims is that in so far as a sensations
statement is a report of something, that something
is in fact a brain process.'
'it is that, in so far as 'after image' or 'ache'
is a report of a process it is a report of a
process that happens to be a brain process'
'sensations are nothing over and above brain processes'
(1)
a scientific explanation - i.e. - identification of sensation
(consciousness perhaps) with a brain process - is neither here
nor there - it's a no brainer
it is simply placing an event - or understanding the place
of an event - in the place of events
it's like putting a snap in a photo album
or just locating a number in a sequence
it is just that this is not a straightforward issue
consciousness / sensation is a questionable matter
it's not clear that it's a snap at all -
or that it's a number
but - if it is assumed that it is
this or that - it has a place
as Smart represents it - it's a question of placement
and he makes it clear there is only one place
we have to make it fit
(2)
but the thing is - we will never know really if it does fit
even if a sensation - and identifiable
it will never look - as observed - scientifically -
a sensation - will only be seen from the inside
it will never look like a brain process
may well be
perhaps an argument against Descartes yes -
or maybe just an assertion against Descartes
in any case
where's the plus?
