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