I believe that this time I could say that you express your position. For example in your two answers below it does not look like "I don't defend that position".

On 28.05.2012 10:55 Bruno Marchal said the following:
> I comment on both Evgenii and Craig's comment:
>> On May 26, 11:57 am, Evgenii Rudnyi <> wrote:


Velmans introduces perceptual projection but this remains as the
Hard Problem in his book, how exactly perceptual projection

It does not make sense. This is doing Aristotle mistake twice.

Velmans contrast his model with reductionism (physicalism) and
dualism and interestingly enough he finds many common features
between reductionism and dualism. For example, the image in the
mirror will be in the brain according to both reductionism and

That does not make sense either. There are no image in the brain. In
 fact there is no brain.

As for Aristotle, recently I have read Feyerabend where he has compared Aristotle's 'Natural is what occurs always or almost always' with Galileo's inexorable laws. Somehow I like 'occurs always or almost always'. I find it more human.


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
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to