[extropy-chat] Qualia bet with Eliezer

Wed Nov 30 00:29:52 UTC 2005

Robin,

> So in a sense I already agree with your #1

Awwwrrrr!  So we are basically in the same camp then!  You agree that qualia
do exist!  The other two were mostly just added in for fun and vanity.
Thank you for not taking advantage of me and my vanity!

The only difference is I don't like your terminology and some of its
implications.

A "probe"?  Surely we can causally observe things without a "probe" can't
we.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging doesn't use a "probe" does it?  You wouldn't
consider light a probe would you?  That is why I use the much more versatile
and encompassing: "Any Causal observation".

What the heck is the term "inner life" supposed to mean?  What is it
constructed of, what is it like, and so on?  What does an "inner life" have
to do with what red is like and how it is different than green and warm?

And the way you describe it makes it sound like it is impervious to
scientific investigation, hacking, enhancing, and all that critically
important fun stuff.  So are you also saying there will never be anything
like effing or sharing of anything to do with such an "inner life"?

Actually - this is a real good thing!  The more people that are agreed the
better.  That is if we are right and qualia really do exist - right?

So Eliezer, or anyone else not in the qualia camp - do you want to take my
bet?  If you are not against us - then you are for us right! ;)

Brent Allsop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robin Hanson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:32 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Qualia bet with Eliezer
> 
> At 11:59 AM 11/29/2005, Brent Allsop wrote:
> >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?  ...
> >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?
> 
> I am willing to accept a similar bet.  $100 may not be enough for me to
> bother
> to remember the bet and track you down if I win, so how about $1000 or
> $10,000?
> 
> But if you are going to accept my judgement regarding whether I win the
> bet,
> its seems proper that I should make clear to you my current opinion.
> 
> We are made of parts which have causal (really correlational) relations
> with
> each other.  We can probe and understand this stuff by changing some
> things
> and seeing how other things vary.  By now we have pretty elaborate
> knowledge
> of these relations, and can understand a lot but not all of the
> causal relations
> between the parts of our brains and the world.  That is, we know a lot
> about
> how our brains work.
> 
> We also believe that at least part of the things we are made of are in
> addition
> capable of feeling, of having "an inner life."  At any one moment one part
> of
> our brain feels it has strong reasons for believing this about itself, and
> we
> then presume that other parts of our brain now and at other times
> also have such
> inner life.   We similarly presume that other people whose brains are
> similarly
> constructed have similar inner lives.
> 
> But, probing can only ever really tell us about causal relations, not
> about
> inner lives.  Since probing is all we will ever have to work with, we
> will never
> get any more data about inner lives.  And we must accept that these
> inner lives
> cannot be the cause of our believing we have inner lives.  So all we will
> only
> ever have are our naked presumptions.
> 
> I also think it is rather unlikely that there are specific particles
> or particle
> properties that correspond to these inner lives.  So we are unlikely to
> find
> missing causal inputs into our brains coming from some new "qualitrons."
> More
> likely this ability to feel and have an inner life is true of all matter,
> appropriately arranged.
> 
> So in a sense I already agree with your #1, and if so can never agree with
> #2,
> but disagree pretty substantially with #3.   I'm willing to bet against #3
> at
> even odds, and probably at even stronger odds.  Nothing interested will be
> discovered here, though our presumptions may slowly change as beliefs do
> in
> philosophy, as a result of realizing the implications of different
> assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
> Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
> MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
> 703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat