[ExI] Fwd: Paper on "Detecting Qualia" presentation at 2015 MTA conference

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sun Feb 1 23:11:51 UTC 2015

Hi John,

On 1/31/2015 5:51 PM, John Clark wrote:
 > But at the end of the day the really important question isn't the 
nature of REDNESS or GREENNESS  it's the question I asked in my last 
post that you didn't answer, do you believe as I do that consciousness 
is fundamental?
 >   John K Clark

I think there is elemental fundamental stuff in nature, and that this 
behaves in fundamental ways.  We call this the laws of nature. For 
example, we know that mass, because of gravity, attracts other mass.  We 
don't know why it does, just that it does.  And this knowledge enables 
us to dance in the heavens.

This theory also predicts that this elemental fundamental stuff, in 
addition to behaving according to these laws, also has fundamental 
qualities, like redness.  It predicts that particular qualities are one 
and the same as particular behaviors.  The prediction is that nature 
builds our composite consciousness out of these elemental qualities.  In 
the 3 color world, the scientists don't know why glutamate has a redness 
quality, just that it does.

And the prediction is that we will be able to detect these qualities, 
but only if the zombie information we use to detect them is interpreted 
correctly.  And once we can do this, in addition to dancing in the 
heavens, we will be able to significantly expand our visual knowledge of 
visible light, from having 2, 3, or 4 primary colors, to representing it 
with hundreds or more.

On 1/31/2015 5:51 PM, John Clark wrote:
> I don't think there would be any difference subjectively or 
> objectively between somebody who saw everything in black and white and 
> somebody who saw everything in black and red.

Oh, this is great.  I think, then, we completely agree on everything.  
Obviously, there is some difference between this white and red, 
otherwise this would be a meaningless sentence to you and I.  And, I 
completely agree that, behaviorally, and intelligently, at least, both 
zombie knowledge and inverted knowledge, can all act the same, and be 
just as intelligent.  And I agree that, like Dennet does, you can choose 
to only focus on this behavior, and ignore (or 'quine' as Dan likes to 
call it instead of ignore) qualia.

Everything behaves the same, at least until you ask them: "What is red 
like for you".  In order to know the difference, you need to be able to 
compare the two elemental qualities in the same binding mechanism / 
consciousness.  And instead of quining qualia, as you are, we are 
focusing on qualia and making testable scientific descriptions about 
what does and does not have qualia, which can be experimentally proven 
to all, to be right.

You must admit, that when we first throw the switch, and you for the 
first time experience a new blue, and from then on your knowledge of 
visible light is much more diverse and phenomenal, it will be quite 
convincing of which theory is right?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list