Eh, if this question seems odd, it's tied in with another thread... I want to know if it follows from the above that "All observables are qualia" is false. If not, I want to know what additional info I need. Certainly some thoughts and memories are not qualia, otherwise his argument is circular (assume he knows better), yes? IOW, if his argument is not circular, then "All thoughts and memories are qualia" is false. If "All thoughts and memories are qualia" is false, then "Some thoughts and memories are not qualia" is true, yes (A and O statements are contradictory)? If he uses qualia only as observed (I'm told he does use qualia this way), I can interpret "Qualia are observables" as "All qualia are observables", yes? This may not actually follow from the above- so I'm adding it on. So the true premises I have are 1. Some T(houghts and memories) are not Q(ualia). (an O statement) 2. Some T are O(bservables). (I) 3. All Q are O. (A) "Some T are O" and "Some O are T" are equivalent (they have equivalent Venn diagrams), yes? So I also have 4. Some O are T. (I) From 1, 2, 3, or 4, I want to conclude 5. Some O are not Q. (O) Running through the valid syllogism forms, I don't see how I can conclude 5 from 1, 2, 3, or 4 without 6a. No Q are T. (from EIO-2, EIO-4) 6b. No T are Q. (EIO-1, EIO-3) 6c. All Q are T. (AAO-2) 6d. All T are O. (OAO-3) 6e. Some O are not T. (AAO-2) And I don't see any way to get any 6 from 1, 2, 3, or 4. All valid forms with E conclusions (6a and 6b) have an E premise. All valid forms with A conclusions (6c and 6d) have two A premises. I only have an O, an A, and two Is. 6e requires additional premises 6f. Some Q are not T. (OAO-3) 6g. Some O are not Q. (AOO-2) 6f requires additonal premises 6h. Some Q are not O. (AOO-2) 6i. All T are Q. (AOO-2) 6j. Some O are not T. (OAO-3) 6h is false (by 3). 6i is false (by 1). 6j is 6e, which I cannot conclude from 1, 2, 3, or 4. 6g is 5, which I cannot conclude from 1, 2, 3, or 4. Did I miss something? (I hope I don't need to take a longer route.) Could I get 5 from a "more powerful" system (than categorical syllogisms)? It seems categorical syllogisms should be able to handle it (but what do I know). I will look again but would appreciate some help; I'd especially like to know if what I've done so far is right- I've never really worked with syllogisms before.