[ExI] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at comcast.net
Sun Nov 16 01:33:15 UTC 2008

Hi Damien,

I'm going to answer with the assumption that the phenomenal theory here 
is true:


Of course, if any of this is ever demonstrated not to be not true, it 
will falsify this theory.

First off,  there is no phenomenal music outside of our head (that we 
know of so far).  There is just the synchronized behavioral vibrations 
of various things which the phenomenal *musicality* in our head represents.

Next, to say there are 'qualia detectors' is a backwards way to think of 
consciousness.  Our ears detect the behavior of the vibrations in the 
air.  Then after some processing, our brain organizes or configures 
itself in such a way that it has this *musicality* which represents this 
behavior in a conscious unified awareness way.  It is the final 
conscious result of such a detection, not the other way around.

Phenomenal sound, along with much else in our consciousness is far more 
complex than simple hard reliable red and green.  We believe it is most 
important to start with the phenomenal nature of red / green and 
understand that - and how it is unified into one singular world.  Once 
you get that, then we believe we will be able to proceed into the deeper 
more complex sounds, feelings, and all emotions of consciousness which 
are just more complex instances of the phenomenally conscious.

The fact that the surface of a red stawbery behaves in such a way that 
it reflects 700 nm light is no less "turtles in every direction" than 
the possibility that, in addition to these behavioral properties, matter 
also has phenomenal properties blind to cause and effect observation; 
properties that are more than behavior, or abstracted representations of 
such, and objectively 'effable' as described in this early leading camp 


The really important thing is simply that everyone else can reliably 
reproduce and demonstrate what it is like as in 'oh THAT is what salt is 
like' for you.  As Chalmers more or less says: 'its part of the 
furniture of the universe'.

So, have I converted anyone to any of these camps?  If not what camp are 
you in?  Who is going to be in THE right camp before everyone else?  I 
don't think we have much time before we all know 'THE ONE' camp.  And 
once that happens, the world will be a very very different, perhaps even 
unrecognizable possibly objectively / sharably / spiritual, if you will, 

Brent, what is it effing like,  Allsop

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:38 AM 11/15/2008 -0700, Brent wrote:
> >If, as this theory predicts, we discover that something in our
> >brain does have phenomenal properties
> Ah--then does the brain also have non-reductive *musicality* 
> properties over and above these postulated 
> hearing-air-vibrations-as-sound-qualia properties? I mean, sure, let's 
> say we need these mysterious additional raw qualia detectors just to 
> *eff* sounds qua sounds, but doesn't that leave out our capacity to 
> identify and enjoy *musical* sound qualia? Are these meta-[in]effable 
> properties? You might say No, appreciating music is just a 
> neurocomputational/affective response to the basic sound qualia, both 
> innate and learned, but isn't that just *evading the issue* of the (as 
> it were) unutterable mysteriousness of music, its meta-[in]effable 
> character? And so on, turtles of different voice in every direction.
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20081115/ebc09df7/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list