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

Reply via email to