Bruno Marchal > > At 23:35 03/06/03 +1000, Colin Hales wrote: > >Dear Folks, > > > >Once again I find myself fossicking at the boundaries and need to ask > >one of those questions. My first experience with an asker of such a > >question was in the last couple of years at high school. I'll tell > >you about it because, well, the list could use a little > activity and I > >hope the 'fabric' list doesn't mind the rather voluminous joining > >post. The story: .... > > > Your post is not very clear to me. If you can link me (us) to a place > where you elaborate a little bit, that could help ... > > Bruno > >
Hi Bruno, I've enjoyed the list dialog but I'm on a mission and the dialog is off it. Selfish, but I have a timescale. I'll likely resume here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/ I am trying to delineate and explain to myself, in way convincing enough for general consumption, what may be the only 'fundamental' aspect of a very deep physicalist model of qualia. This fundamental aspect may be related to the nature of the deep structure of spacetime that causes EPR style apparent non-locality. Things are proximal deep down that don't appear proximal to us at the macro-3-space scale we inhabit. That proximity is inherited because it makes the matter we are constructed of. What it means is that inverse phenomenology, which you experience as 'appearance' when matter is acting like it is interacting with exotic matter that doesn't even exist, may inherit nonlocality. Split a single brain apart and you still have one entity having one set of qualia. At least that's what I'm trying to work out. My clumsy first pass at this is 2C Mary. I hope I get better at it! cheers, Colin
