[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On 11/24/05, gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

 I think it would be helpful if we understood what the
> hell we're talking about when we talk about qualia. :)
>
### It is probably worthwhile to reflect on the meaning of "understanding".

I tend to use this word to denote the ability to predict and control
an aspect of the world. I can say I understand a bicycle when I can
ride it, take it apart, and put back together. Prediction is the
essence of intelligence (see Jeff Hawkins' book "On Intelligence"),
and understanding is the job of an intelligence. I am completely
satisfied with this form of understanding, as applied to anything that
I want to understand. Give me the predictive capacity to let me master
the future, and I will be as content as a yogi achieving nirvana.

It seems though, that many of us (yogis and some Extropes) desire both
more and less: they want to quench an ineffable thirst, to achieve the
satisfaction of a wordless desire, to achieve the peace of true
enlightenment, without necessarily wanting to do anything about
whatever they are enlightened about.

I presume that the latter form of understanding is subserved by
different neural structures than the ones used in generating the
former. It may be that the latter is sited somewhere in the temporal
cortex, where states of mystic elation can be triggered by stray
currents. Predictive understanding is best expressed in the calm and
calculating convolutions of the frontal cortex.

I feel reasonably confident that the progress of science will bring us
predictive understanding of qualia - being able to manipulate, elicit,
change and extinguish them at will. This understanding will be like
the understanding we have of circles, which we can draw without
fathoming their true Circle-nature. I am equally convinced that no
mystic understanding of qualia will flow directly follow from this
feat, since I think that the relevant parts of the temporal lobe are
quite resistant to frontal influences, at least in some people.

I used to say that trying to understand qualia through science is like
trying to make a diamond necklace, while using a wet noodle as a drill
bit. Now I would say there are two diamonds, one real, one fake.
Science is drilling the real one, albeit excruciatingly slowly. The
other one is not affected by the noodle at all - but then, why bother
about fake diamonds?

Rafal