---
Qualia and Matter
---
The riddle of the relationship between Qualia (which I
define as raw experience) and the Physical World
(which I'll call 'Matter' and define as geometrical
relations) seems to be one that ties people in mental
knots. The solution is amazingly simple and dazzling
in
Le 27-juil.-05, à 03:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
we deny
Hi Lee,
Thanks for answering all my mails, but I see you send on the list only
the one where you disagree. Have you done this purposefully? Can I
quote some piece of the mail you did not send on the list? I will
answer asap.
Also, for this one, I did not intend to insult you. Sorry if it
Le 27-juil.-05, à 00:12, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :
I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the
following:
Thanks for trying to reconciliate us :)
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existance of a material cause for those
perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's razor.
The argument that the look, texture,
Nice try, imo. I would say I agree with you except I don't follow your
precise math at all.
Your old/young lady analogy is rather weak and could be misleading,
also.
Then you should avoid saying Scientists believe that the universe is
one giant computer.
Not only many scientist disagree,
Le 27-juil.-05, à 15:55, chris peck a écrit :
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory
perception is indirect, and therefore the existance of a material
cause for those perceptions is an unjustified inference in
contravention of
Hi Bruno;
There are problems with Berkley to be sure, but I dont think Johnson had
much of a grasp of them. Are there good objections to Berkley? Certainly.
Did SJ propose any? Not really.
I agree ontologically. But I disagree epistemologically. It is like with
Mendeleev classification of
Chris writes
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existence of a material cause for those
perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's razor.
The argument that
Hi Lee;
You see Samuel Johnson as a realist?
I think I started off a naive realist, became a realist and quickly became
confounded by the absurdity of the position. If I 'understood that there can
be things like optical illusions', I did so honestly, they told me something
very clear about
Hi Imo,
I'd concur with Bruno in 'nice try'. I have lost count of the number of times I
have seen someone dive in with a proclaimation like yours. I include myself in
this :P
My reacent outburst is an example!
I can only encourage you to follow your ideaS and poke every eye you see. A bit
of
Hi Bruno,
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it
Recipe for becoming a non-realist.
1. Study your perceptions *introspectively*.
This has several advantages. First, you are an authority
(in fact, the ultimate authority) on your own perceptions,
and so little in the way of humility will ever be needed.
You can start out, as it were,
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you should avoid saying Scientists believe
that the universe is
one giant computer.
Not only many scientist disagree, but actually this
is in contradiction
with the comp. hyp. (the computationalist hypothesis
which asserts that
I am
Hal wrote
Brent Meeker wrote:
In practice we use coherence with other theories to guide out choice. With
that kind of constraint we may have trouble finding even one candidate
theory.
Well, in principle there still should be an infinite number of theories,
starting with the data is
Charles writes
[col]
I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers
don;t type what I think. That's the relaity of it! :-)
Do you have a spell-checker?
Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast because
I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-)
Blast away!
16 matches
Mail list logo
