Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > > > > Colin, > > > > 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. Writers, > > philosophers, mathematicians can all be creative without perceiving > > anything. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > Imaginative processes also use phenoenal consciousness. To have it > described to you you had to use phenomenal consciousness.
Cutting-edge physics is creative to a fault, and quite hard to literally imag-ine as well. >Once you dispose > of PC you are model bound in all ways. You have to have a model to > generate the novelty! PC pervades the whole process at all levels. Look > what happens to Marvin. Even if he had someoine tell him there was an > outide world he'd never know what the data was telling him. He can make a good guess. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---