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 
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to