[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[Eliezer S. Yudkowsky]

John K Clark wrote:
> "Robin Hanson" <rhanson at gmu.edu>
> 
>> You *cannot* declare both "I know qualia exist because I see them",
>>  and also "scientific investigation cannot find qualia"
> 
> Although I pretty much agree with your views on this subject I can
> quibble with the above statement. I am certain that qualia exists
> because I have access to my direct experience of physical sensation;
> if you hit me on the head with a hammer I don't need the scientific
> method to know that it hurts me.  I am also certain that my qualia is
> causal because the outside world (your hammer) can change my qualia,
> and my qualia (pain) can change things in the outside world (your
> nose is now bleeding).
> 
> However there is no way I can prove the existence of my qualia to you
>  because you can not understand my direct experience of physical
> sensation just as I do without you becoming me.

John, that's like saying that you know water exists because you drink 
it, but scientific investigation might not be able to find water because 
our instruments can't actually drink water, only scientists can. 
Nonetheless we understand water pretty well.  H20 as an object of 
accurate modeling and accurate prediction, and as an object of drinking, 
are two different ways to interact with the same molecule.  I do not 
think that an STM fails to understand anything about an H2O molecule 
because someone is standing next to the STM shrieking, "But water is for 
drinking!  Water is for DRINKING!"  Drinkableness is not an extra 
phenomenal aspect of water which no scientific instrument can detect, 
even though scientific instruments don't drink.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence