You have described a way in which our perception may be more than can
be explained by the sense data. However, how does this explain the response
to novelty? I can come up with a plan or theory to deal with a novel situation
if it is simply described to me. I don't have to actually perceive anything.
philosophers, mathematicians can all be creative without perceiving anything.
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:54:05 +1100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: computer pain
> To: email@example.com
> Stathis said:
> > If you present an object with "identical sensory measurements" but get
> different results in the chip, then that means what you took as "sensory
> measurements" was incomplete. For example, blind people might be able to
> sense the presense of someone who silently walks into the room due to
> their body heat, or the breeze created by their breathing, or perhaps
> > some proximity sensor that we have not as yet discovered.
> > But even supposing that perception involves some non-local
> > interaction (which would of course be an amazing finding
> > on its own, regardless of the
> > implications for consciousness), much interesting scientific
> > work has nothing to do with the scientist's direct
> > connection with his object of study. A
> > scientist can read about empirical data collected
> > by someone on the other side of the world and come
> > up with a theory to explain it; for all he knows, the data
> > is completely fabricated, but this makes no difference
> > to the cognitive processes
> > which result in the theory.
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> RE: "Incomplete" sensing
> Sorry, Stathis, but no amount of sensory feeds would ever make it
> 'complete'. The sensory data is fundamentally ambiguous statistic of it's
> original source. That argumant won't do it. The question is: what physical
> processes cause the brain's field structure to settle on a particular
> solution. That constraint is NOT in the sensory data.
> Yes it will be an amazing result to everyone else. but me. I find it
> amazing that eveyone thinks it could be anything else or that somehow the
> incomplete laws derived using appearances can explain the appearance
> generation system. It's like saying the correltated contents of the image
> in a mirror somehow fathom the reflective surface of the mirror that
> generated the appearances.
> RE: Science
> I know accurate science requires certain behavioural normatives. Effective
> science has skill sets, individual characteristics of the temperament and
> genetic propensities of individual scientists. I know it has a social
> aspect. All this is true but irrelevant.
> From one of the metascience gurus:
> "Science is not done by logically omniscient lone knowers but by
> biological systems with certain kinds of capacities and limitations. At
> the most fine grained level, scientific change involves modifications of
> the cognitive states of limited biological systems".
> Philip Kitcher, 1993
> "The advancement of science : science without legend, objectivity without
> It's going to be fun watching the macro-scale electric field change in
> response to different objects when the sensory measurement is demonstrably
> the same. The only reason we can;t do it in brain materia is we can't get
> at it without buggering it up with probes and other junk related to the
> measurement. Our imaging techniques measure the wrong things.
> It'll light up a light when the subjective experience changes. We can wire
> it up like that. That will be a spooky day. I have to leave now. Merry
> XMAS and 2007 all you everything folk...
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at