[extropy-chat] Qualia bet with Eliezer

[Brent Allsop]

Eli,

> Someday you will understand how qualia work.  And when you do, you are
> going to be WAY embarassed by the fact that qualia turn out to be PLAIN
> OLD PHYSICS, not mysterious physics but ordinary physics, just like the
> LAST SIX THOUSAND MYSTERIES that the human species encountered, from
> stars to phlogiston to elan vital.  That's what makes the mistake
> EMBARASSING.

It looks like we've got some problems with semantics or definitions here.
You seem to be admitting that qualia exist.  Do you admit that there are
qalia?  And if so, would  you disagree with someone like Daniel Dennett that
says "There are no qualia"?

If so, this makes defining the terms of a bet a bit more difficult because I
want to find someone like Dennett that is obviously brilliant but claiming
qualia do not exist.

If I defined quale to be a property or piece of information that could not
be adequately described or communicated by abstract communication based only
on the physics of cause and effect?  Then would you say that qualia - as
I've defined it here, do not exist?

And what do you mean by "PLAIN OLD PHYSICS"?  Do you mean that which is only
causal?  Or might something in addition to causality be included here as
plain old physics as I claim?

And by the way - would you describe a "quantum leap" where an electron
disappears from one location and instantly appears at a very different
location as "PLAIN OLD PHYSICS"?  Because I would argue that the possibility
of there being phenomenal properties that cannot be adequately described by
abstract causal communication alone as much more "PLAIN OLD PHYSICS" than
such "quantum leaps".


Finally - how is this for a stab at the specification of terms of a bet?:

I claim that before the end of 2015, you will admit the following:

1. There are qualia or phenomenal properties (as I've defined above.)

2. I was blind and stupid not to realize this sooner - and had I only
thought about this more rigorously as many people less intelligent than
myself (such as Brent Allsop) have done I would have noticed what should
have been long ago blatantly obvious.

3. The discovery of qualia or phenomenal properties (which I once thought
did not exist) which scientific evidence is now showing us do indeed exists
is the most significant scientific discovery made to date and will more
profoundly effect our future than any other thing we've so far discovered.

If you will agree to pay me $100 if you, in your judgment, admit to all of
these before the end of the year 2015 then I will agree to pay you $100 at
the beginning of 2016 if you have not yet admitted the above and paid me.

If not Eliezer, is there anyone else that would be willing to take such a
bet?  Could we persuade someone like Daniel Dennett to take such a bet?  Or
if some people don't like these terms - how might we tweak them so they are
meaningful and agreeable to both parties?

Brent Allsop