Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!hermes.oc.com!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Qualia (was Re: Minsky's new article)
Message-ID: <CzHopA.35n@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <19941116.150347.522@almaden.ibm.com> <CzHDBz.KJ0@spss.com> <jqbCzHL3A.CqG@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:43:57 GMT
Lines: 13

In article <jqbCzHL3A.CqG@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <jqb@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <CzHDBz.KJ0@spss.com>, Mark Rosenfelder <markrose@spss.com> wrote:
>>But why should a physical theory not be able to talk about the results
>>of the physical processes involved-- here, to talk about our subjective
>>experiences?  Physical theories of vision *do* explain aspects of our 
>>subjective experience now; they are not merely limited to descriptions
>>of the physical processes underlying vision.
>
>I suggest C. L. Hardin's "Color for Philosophers" (ISBN 0-87220-039-6 pbk)
>as required reading on this subject.

Oh, Jim, you've spoiled my nice setup.  I was hoping someone
would challenge my claim, so I could recommend that very book.
