The duality principle: Irreducibility of sub-threshold psychophysical computation to neuronal brain activation
Synthese 153 (3):451-455 (2006)
| Abstract | A key working hypothesis in neuroscience is ‘materialistic reductionism’, i.e., the assumption whereby all physiological, behavioral or cognitive phenomena is produced by localized neurochemical brain activation (but not vice versa). However, analysis of sub-threshold Weber’s psychophysical stimulation indicates its computational irreducibility to the direct interaction between psychophysical stimulation and any neuron/s. This is because the materialistic-reductionistic working hypothesis assumes that the determination of the existence or non-existence of any psychophysical stimulation [s] may only be determined through its direct interaction [di1] with a given neuron/s [N] that together forms the ‘neural registry’ computational level [NR/di1]. But, this implies that in cases of (initial) sub-threshold (sensory-specific) psychophysical stimulation which is increased above the sensory-specific threshold but below Weber’s psychophysical ‘dv’—the psychophysical computational processing [PCP] produces an apparently ‘computationally indeterminate’ output. This is because materialistic reductionism asserts the contingency of PCP upon the existence of a direct interaction between ‘s’ and ‘N’ within the NR/di1 level, but in the special case of Weber’s sub-threshold psychophysical stimulation the same PCP/di1 also asserts the non-existence of ‘s’ (as demanded by Weber’s psychophysical law). However, given robust empirical evidence indicating the capability of PCP to determine whether (or not) ‘s’ exists, we must conclude that PCP may not be carried out from within NR’s direct interaction between a particular psychophysical stimulation and any set of neuron/s in the brain. Hence, the Duality Principle asserts the conceptual irreducibility of sub-threshold psychophysical stimulation to any direct NR/di1: s-N interaction, thereby challenging the current materialistic-reductionistic assumption | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBirgitta Dresp (1998). Area, Surface, and Contour: Psychophysical Correlates of Three Classes of Pictorial Completion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):755-756.
Giovanna Hendel (2002). Psychophysical Supervenience: Digging in its Foundations. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:115-141.
Max Velmans (2007). Psychophysical Nature. In Harald Atmanspacher & Hans Primas (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Springer.
Alexander Miller (1993). Some Anomalies in Kim's Account of Davidson. Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (3):335-44.
Steven M. Rosen (1976). Toward Relativization of Psychophysical "Relativity". Perceptual and Motor Skills 42:843-850.
W. L. Stanton (1983). Supervenience and Psychophysical Law in Anomalous Monism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64 (January):72-9.
Jaegwon Kim (1985). Psychophysical Laws. In Brian P. Mclaughlin & Ernest Lepore (eds.), Action and Events. Blackwell.
Peter C. M. Molenaar (2006). Psychophysical Dualism From the Point of View of a Working Psychologist. Erkenntnis 65 (1):47-69.
Daniel A. Pollen (2006). Brain Stimulation and Conscious Experience: Electrical Stimulation of the Cortical Surface at a Threshold Current Evokes Sustained Neuronal Activity Only After a Prolonged Latency. Consciousness and Cognition 15 (3):560-565.
William Child (1993). Anomalism, Uncodifiability, and Psychophysical Relations. Philosophical Review 102 (2):215-245.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads20 ( #61,504 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
