[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:00:41AM -0500, gts wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:20:56 -0500, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>  
> wrote:
> 
> >When you find your way back to that point, where you're asking about
> >the system "just" doing calculations, and whether it really
> >"experienced" anything, then ask yourself how you would know--or
> >better yet, how would it know?
> 
> If we're trying to understand qualia then the ability to "know what we are  
> experiencing" is really a different question and beside the point.  Higher  

No, it is precisely the point. Measuring a physical observable
is different from system measuring representation of an observable
within itself.

A molecule can measure a photon wavelength. But it can't observe
itself making that measurement. You need more computational hardware
for that. Making decisions based on said measurement takes more 
resources still. Generating coded statements about such and
transmitting them across a spherical matter assembly in its
own gravitational trap to similiarly structured systems
takes more resources still.

Obviously, no molecule (nor bat) can do such.

> organisms are interested in reflecting on the nature of themselves and  
> their qualia, because as you point out in another message, that modeling  
> of their environment with self included gives them an advantage.
> 
> Lower organisms probably just live by experience (qualia) and blind  
> instinct.

That's an assertion presented as fact. All organisms represent their
environments. Depending on their complexity, the accuracy of that
model varies. However, regardless how that model is represented,
it is there, and the system makes measurements and makes decisions
affecting its future fate, regardless whether it's Heidegger or a lowly
E. coli tumbling through food gradients.
 
> I doubt flies know they are alive or that they experience the world. They  

So now <fnord> contain the richness of model description, too?

> seem to experience qualia without having a self-concept and without having  
> knowledge of their own existence.

You're contradicting yourself. Your <fnord> is a naked measurement, then
suddenly the next moment it's the whole enchilada, the whole primate 
experience bundled in.
 
> Aside from mobility, blind instinct, and the ability to replicate, I  
> wonder how an insect is in any way different from a camera. I wonder if  
> there is no difference. If there is no difference then pan-psychism is  
> true.

Are you sure you're not a Martian? You make about as much sense.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051124/69c60dad/attachment.bin>