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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
