...experience.

The URL is http://www.rpi.edu/ brings.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...q.

This recipe was seminally suggested for another domain by Alvin Plantinga [9], and was penetratingly analyzed soon thereafter by James Ross [10]. As Ross points out, the inference from the consistency of p and the consistency of q to the consistency of 5#5 is problematic, as was noted by Pseudo-Scotus early in the fourteenth century. In our deployment of the schema in question, no such inference is made. We simply assume that the consistency of TTC and E can be seen to hold by inspection.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...7#7

`8#8' can be read as asserting that p is logically possible, or coherent.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...them.

Ned Block, in a recent essay on consciousness in Behavioral and Brain Sciences [3], calls this brand of consciousness P-consciousness. Here is part of his explication:

So how should we point to P-consciousness? Well, one way is via rough synonyms. As I said, P-consciousness is experience. P-conscious properties are experiential properties. P-conscious states are experiential states, that is, a state is P-conscious if it has experiential properties. The totality of the experiential properties of a state are ``what it is like" to have it. Moving from synonyms to examples, we have P-conscious states when we see, hear, smell, taste and have pains. P-conscious properties include the experiential properties of sensations, feelings and perceptions, but I would also include thoughts, wants and emotions. ([3], p. 230)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...receives.

Of course, it may or may not be true that humans are systems having this property. Block [3] thinks that ascribing this function to phenomenal consciousness is a misguided move. At least one of us (Selmer) is inclined to think that Schacter's model, with respect to phenomenal consciousness, contra Block, is fundamentally correct. See Bringsjord [4].

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...principle:

The following principle is to be used with observations about the evidentiary equivalence of Stalinesque and Orwellian explanations, e.g.,

Both models can deftly account for all the data - not just the data we already have, but the data we can imagine getting in the future. They both account for the verbal reports: One theory says they are innocently mistaken, while the other says they are accurate reports of experienced mistakes. Moreover, we can suppose, both theories have exactly that same theory of what happens in your brain; they agree about just where and when in the brain the mistaken content enters the causal pathways. They just disagree about whether that location is to be deemed pre experiential. They give the same account of the nonverbal effects, with one slight difference: One says they are the result of unconsciously discriminated contents, while the other says they are the result of consciously discriminated but forgotten contents. Finally, they both account for the subjective data - whatever is obtainable from the first-person perspective - because they even agree about how it ought to ``feel" to subjects: Subjects should be unable to tell the difference between misbegotten experiences and immediately misremembered experiences. (p. 124-125, [5])

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.