[ExI] Fwd: Paper on "Detecting Qualia" presentation at 2015 MTA conference
brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Mon Feb 2 04:45:26 UTC 2015
On 2/1/2015 6:47 PM, John Clark wrote:
> And I still don't think you answered my question about consciousness
> being fundamental. Do you think the series of all "why" continue for
> infinity or do some of them eventually hit a brute fact? I think data
> processed intelligently producing intelligently is just such a brute
I guess I just don't understand what you are asking, then. Because the
prediction is that the brute fact will be proven that something in our
brain has a fundamental redness quality.
> > Everything behaves the same, at least until you ask them: "What
> is red like for you".
> And one of them would say "red is what gives black contrast, without
> it vision would be useless", and the other one would say "I understand
> completely, in my language we call that white".
I guess if you can't see all the obvious mistakes and confusion in these
kinds of statements, and how "calling" something white (White is a piece
of zombie information), has nothing to do with the quality being called
"white", and how we are not talking about smoething being tagged, but
the qualitative nature of the tag, itself, which enables you to know it
is a redness tag (as apposed to a grenness tag) Then I am not sure what
else I can say to help.
Isn't all that matters is the following? The prediction is that we will
be able to develop the ability to throw a switch turning on a new hack
in your brain, and when we do this, you will for the first time,
experience a new blue you have never experienced before. If we do this,
you must accept that this theory about the qualitative nature of
whatever it is that has a new blue quality, as correct, and that you
will no longer be a new blue zombie?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat