[extropy-chat] Consciousness is a process in multi-dimensional time! [Was: Qualia Bet]

[Marc Geddes]

--- gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:28:26 -0500, Marc Geddes
> <marc.geddes at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> 

> 
> I want to call these proto-qualia 'objective qualia'
> and say that it takes  
> a suitably equipped being to detect them. I want to
> say fried green  
> tomatoes are objectively green (at least before they
> are fried) and that  
> any being with eyes to see should be able to see
> their green-ness.

I told you in an earlier post that an infinite number
of different oberservers would see an infinite number
of slightly different shades of green, since qualia
are based on the interaction of current experience
with past memories.  Which observer's view-point
should be picked out as the 'objectivity correct' one?
 Green is not in the object I'm telling ya.


> 
> I want to reject the notion of a Cartesian Theater
> in which we represent  
> the external world to ourselves via something
> analogous to a subjective  
> movie screen, and say instead that the mind
> experiences the world  
> directly. As I mentioned in another message, the
> Cartesian Theater leads  
> to an infinite regress. If I am the 'little person'
> or 'homunculus' inside  
> my head who watches these subjective movies about my
> external world, then  
> shouldn't I have yet another subjective movie and
> another homunculus  
> inside my homunculus? And so on and so on? :)

The idea that we experience the world directly is an
even bigger mistake than the fallacy of the Cartesian
Theater. 

Suppose for instance that someone is afraid of snakes.
 They have a 'fear qualia' whenever they see the
snake.  Surely you can see that the 'fear qualia' is
not in the snake?  Nor does it make any sense to say
that there are 'green qualia' in green objects.

> 
> This is not to say we have no mental models of
> ourselves in the world. I  
> think we do have these models but that they are
> tools of intelligence  
> rather than of awareness. I think we experience the
> world and then form  
> mental models about our experience.  The mental
> models help us solve  
> problems. They help us (or our  future AI robots) to
> answer the question,  
> "What should I do about my experience?" but they are
> not prerequisites to  
> experience.
> 
> So are these proto-qualia platonic? Seems reasonable
> to me. This makes  
> them objective, even if we may dispute whether they
> are really 'in' the  
> objects of our experience. I would say they are in
> the object in the same  
> way that the idealized platonic sphere is 'in' a
> baseball.

If some verson of panpsychism is correct then I would
agree that there are indeed proto-qualia (at least) in
all objects.  But *we* (external observers) don't
experience these qualia.  The qualia would be
'experienced' internally by the objects, not by us.  
    
> 
> > I can eliminate a subjective component from my
> definition.  Let me define
> > Qualia as composed of a combination of a Meme and
> an object.
> 
> Do you ever question your theory for reason of it
> being so complicated?  
> Seven-aspect neutral monism?? What are these seven
> different aspects of  
> the one neutral stuff? I confess I have not yet
> studied your paper in  
> detail, but perhaps you can give me a hint.
> 
> -gts
> 

Most people call me a crack-pot for being far far too
simple!  My theory of metaphysics is as simple as it
can possibly be whilst still remaining consistent with
known scientific facts.  

Read the summary of my 'Mathematico-Cognition Reality
Theory' (MCRT) that I posted to the list yesterday. 
It should only take you 10 minutes and it's in plain
English.  It explains what I think the 7-aspects are. 
You need to read it in the context of my theory - much
better than me simply firing off one sentence answers
which won't mean a thing to you.

In the MCRT thread I've posted (in general, fuzzy
terms admittedly) the answer to life, the universe and
everything in 30k of plain English :D  It's astounding
that NO ONE recognizes it!  

The field in the race to build the first AGI has
apparently narrowed to one...me.  I'm going all out to
code and launch the first AGI and 'take out' the
Singularity soon in a spectacular rock 'em, shock 'em
KO punch which will stun the living daylights out of
everyone (and especially Yudkowsky and Wilson) for all
time :D 



"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last day”


Please visit my web-site: 
http://www.riemannai.org/ 
Sci-Fi, Science and Fantasy

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com