> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:everything-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:36 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth?
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > If we "realise that things cannot be as they seem" then this is new
> > and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not
> > that "things are as they seem" be understood in a narrow sense, such as
> > what our senses can immediately apprehend. Complex scientific evidence,
> > philosophical considerations, historical experience: all of it has to be
> > to the mix and whatever comes out is what we should accept as the
> > best theory. We know that it may not be the truth - indeed, that we
> > never actually know the truth - but it is the best we can do.
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> Brent Meeker
> OK, I agree. "Things as they seem" in the broader scientific sense is
> what I
> mean by a model of reality. I sometimes think that's why there has been
> such a
> long and continuing argument about the interpretation of quantum
> Although we can do the math and check the experiment - things just can't
> that way".
> Brent Meeker
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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at