From: Mark Waser (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 18:26:08 MST
> I just read that paper, which briefly mentions absent, fading and inverted
> qualia. But clearly those ideas are in the domain of philosophy; I don't
> understand what you think is "scientific" about them. How do they relate
> any replicable experiments?
I don't understand why it is clear that those ideas are "only" in the domain
of philosophy and why that makes them any less valuable. What is
"scientific" about them is that there is a reasoned process from examination
of evidence and hypotheses to (eventually) falsifiable conclusions. Yes,
a lot of the particular paper that I cited were only "thought" experiments
(fading qualia was a major topic, not briefly mentioned at all) but there
are referenced replicable physical experiments like the studies where
inverting lenses were placed over the eyes of chickens (inverted qualia).
You can also easily google for far more . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT