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

Reply via email to