From:  "Adhanom Andemicael" <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/post?protectID=100071080056038132025098163064114002078143091215039109074150077019004076219176010>
Date:  Wed May 22, 2002  8:22 pm
Subject:  Re: Motion



[Peter Lloyd]
... So it really looks as if there is a distinct quale, which I have called
'sense-of-motion', which occurs in the conscious mind when there is a moving
stimulus to the eyes, or when the unconscious apparatus decides to generate
such an impression (e.g. in dreams about moving things) ...


[Adhanom Andemicael]
I came to this same conclusion a number of years ago. I suggested at that
time that the mental impression of motion might be understood as a *single*
mental impression or sensation (i.e., as a single "quale," as you describe
it). (More recently, I've discussed the question at Tucson III and in the
Quantum-Mind forum.)

The following is an excerpt from a post of mine to Quantum-Mind:

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9810&L=quantum-mind&P=R7712

[Andemicael; q-mind--Oct 6, 1998]
... my point here is that motion may very well be an illusion. But what *is*
an illusion? By definition, it is something which is perceived (something
which we *see*). We cannot deny that we *see* motion through any reasoning
process; but we may, of course, question whether what we see happening is
"REALLY happening," objectively. We have to realize that our mental
impression of motion is ITSELF an occurrence that takes place within the
context of time's passage. I am pointing out that *this* mental impression
needs to be explained within the framework of a persisting set of mental
states.

(We may very well dismiss motion as an *objective* phenomenon via our
conscious reasoning processes; I am not challenging this here. HOWEVER, we
cannot deny the fact that we see the illusion itself.) ...



Adhanom Andemicael
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/post?protectID=100071080056038132025098163064114002078143091215039109074150077019004076219176010