According to Nagel, what do most reductionist theories not even try to explain?

Question

According to Nagel, what do most reductionist theories not even try to explain? A) Water B) Lightning C) Consciousness D) Brains What does Nagel argue is necessary for physicalism to be defended? A) Phenomenological features must be given a physical account. B) Everything in the universe must be tested for non-physical features. C) We must discard all beliefs of which we are uncertain. D) We need to create technology that allows us to enter the minds of bats. Why does imagining yourself to have webbing on one's arms, poor vision, sonar, etc. not capture the experience of the bat itself? A) Humans have very poor imaginations. B) This only recreates what it would be like for you to be a bat. C) Bats cannot imagine. D) We already have objective knowledge about these things.

Explanation / Answer

Question 1: C) Consciousness

According to angel, most theories do not even try to explain consciousness or if there is something known as the conscious thing or the mental state. Hence the answer is consciousness. Angel has argued that people have conscious mental states.

Question 2) A) Phenomenological features must be given a physical account.

Nagel says that it is important to include a physical or chemical account of phenomenological features. Nagel said, "it is not possible to exclude phenomenological features of experience from a reduction the way we exclude the phenomenal features of a substance when we give a physical or chemical account of it"(529-30).

Question 3) B) Bats cannot imagine

Nagel said that it is not possible to give a physical explanation for a character because these view points are attached to a single point of view, since we have objective accounts established for these and these objective accounts would leave out these experiences.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---