RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
December 23, 2016 at 3:53 am
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2016 at 5:48 am by emjay.)
Welcome to (potentially) Seeing Red part 2... have fun guys 
Seriously though, your view of qualia seems similar to mine, mud. Mine is that phenomenal representations (qualia) and their relationships and activations in consciousness directly correspond, on a one-to-one basis, with the equivalent neural representations, relationships, and activations in the neural networks of the brain... imo demonstrated in part by the fact that everything that can be 'noticed' in consciousness... whether content (eg what is seen) or meta (eg the visual field itself)... must have a neurally accessible representation because you can form associations with it... refer to it and/or name/label it.
But for the sake of my break that's as far as I want to get into it right now... in any case, been there, done that in Seeing Red... so consider this another thought dump without expectation of reply But you guys have fun... as I'm sure you will 
and Merry Christmas 
Seriously though, your view of qualia seems similar to mine, mud. Mine is that phenomenal representations (qualia) and their relationships and activations in consciousness directly correspond, on a one-to-one basis, with the equivalent neural representations, relationships, and activations in the neural networks of the brain... imo demonstrated in part by the fact that everything that can be 'noticed' in consciousness... whether content (eg what is seen) or meta (eg the visual field itself)... must have a neurally accessible representation because you can form associations with it... refer to it and/or name/label it.
But for the sake of my break that's as far as I want to get into it right now... in any case, been there, done that in Seeing Red... so consider this another thought dump without expectation of reply
But you guys have fun... as I'm sure you will and Merry Christmas
