[ExI] Digital Consciousness .
msd001 at gmail.com
Wed May 1 13:17:59 UTC 2013
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:24 PM, spike <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
> Rather, I had only one quante, but now I have a bunch of quantia.
> As in many soft sciences, as soon as we can get some kind of hard numbers,
> the credibility of the field and my own confidence in it goes up
> dramatically. I am more a numbers guy than a words guy.
that doesn't look anything like an SI unit. We need to be able to
measure a planck-scale-quale, count up a mole of qualia and define
that a quante. It will just contribute to the confusion if arbitrarily
"many" quante magically become quantia: We should stick with the SI
convention and refer to megaquante (Mq) 'fading' down to kiloquante
(Kq) then all the way down the microquante (µq) or the
barely-perceptible picoquante (pq) [which everyone would
intrinsically 'mind' because of the old adage]
here's some familiar numbers for you:
More information about the extropy-chat