Colin Hales wrote:
> In brain material and brain material alone you get anomaly: things are NOT
> what they seem. 'Seem' is a construct of qualia. In a science of qualia,
> what are they 'seeming' to be? Not qualia. That is circular. Parsimony
> demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that we
> need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other
> 'seeming' delivered by qualia.
>
> Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the
> 'seeming' system.
>
> Colin Hales
I don't understand that? Qualia = "directly perceived seemings". I don't know
what you mean by a "science of qualia" - why we would need one? I said "the way
things seem" is a model, i.e. a construct. The model is what we assume and
that's what we investigate. I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me in
different words or trying to point to some correction?
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 15 2006 - 23:27:50 PDT