Murray and Jackson reply

Lepetit and Jackson reply:.

Reply to Jackson.

TO THE EDITOR—We appreciate Dr Jackson’s thoughtful comments regarding the diagnostic criteria for encephalitis proposed by the International Encephalitis Consortium (IEC) Working Group [1]. He raises concerns that (1) individual patients may have laboratory or pathologic evidence of encephalitis without meeting the clinical criteria specified in the IEC case definition, and (2) that patients w...

Knowing Qualia: A Reply to Jackson

In a recent paper concerning the direct introspection of brain states (1985b) I leveled three criticisms against Frank Jackson's "knowledge argument." At stake was his bold claim that no materialist account of mind can possibly account for all mental phenomena. Jackson has replied to those criticisms in his 1986. It is to those replies, and to the issues that prompted them, that the present cha...

No troubles with bubbles: a reply to Murray and Gold

Murray and Gold discuss two "shortcomings" of the Bubbles method [Vision Research 41 (2001) 2261]. The first one is theoretical: Bubbles would not fully characterize the LAM (Linear Amplifier Model) observer, whereas reverse correlation would. The second "shortcoming" is practical: the apertures that partly reveal information in a typical Bubbles experiment would induce atypical strategies in h...

The Authors’ Reply