[ExI] Zombie glutamate
brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Feb 14 19:22:06 UTC 2015
Tomaz, William, and many others, it seems to me from what they say,
still don't understand what a redness quale is or is not. Nor do they
understand what zombie glutamate is or is not. Maybe they have red the
But if they have, I see no evidence that they understand what it is about.
Stathis, it seems to me, at least understands what a redness quale is,
and us not. But he is still missing the most important part of what I
am trying to say, as proven when he states:
> Brent believes that consciousness is not due to the system
structure but rather to the substrate.
this is absolutely wrong. I fully accept that it is possible that the
system structure may be responsible for an elemental redness quale we
can experience. What I am describing is, how can you prove to everyone,
qualitatively, experimentally, whether it is system structure, some kind
of a particular material, like glutamate, some kind of quantum
weirdness, or maybe some kind of recursively complex system that enables
a 'redness quality to arise'. I am open to any of these as being
possible theories that science is about to prove correct using the
qualitative methods I am describing. What I am describing is how do you
theoretically bride the qualitative information gap, so you can prove
who has it right, and who has it wrong. All I am saying is that
whatever is responsible for us experiencing a redness qaule, is
detectable, by doing the same technique that our brain does, when we are
able to detect that we have redness knowledge vs greenness knowledge.
All I am doing is describing the qualitative theory that will enable
that, by getting around the quale interpretation problem.
The only reason I don't use a system theory, in the idealized 3 color
world example, as required to bridge the qualitative information gap
with a falsifiable theory, is because nobody has described any possible
falsifiable way, which a system could cause a redness quale to arise.
Once you provide that, I will be happy to use that in the falsifiable
idealized effing theory example to better communicate to you how your
belief that there is a 'hard' problem is completely wrong.
Bill W asked:
"I am not saying that it is a waste of time, I just want to know what
you intend to do with the answers?"
Right now, the prediction is that all of theoretical physical science is
nothing but qualitatively blind zombie science. Theoretical physical
scientists are spending billion of $$$ on things like the large hadron
collier, and getting almost nothing. Yet they are completely missing the
qualitative nature of physics, just like the brilliant scientist Mary
that hasn't stepped out of the black and white zombie room yet, and
experienced, for herself, what real glutamate is like and how it is
different from zombie glutamate.
In my opinion, the greatest discovery in physics, ever, will be the
discovery of its qualitative natures. It will include the realization
that all of our science, to date, is just zombie science. You don't
need to spend billions of dollars to achieve that greatest discovery in
physicists ever. You just need to answer the question you are asking,
so people will realize the significance and importance of knowing that a
sunset, likely has a qualitative nature about it. And your knowledge of
the sunset, as phenomenally glorious as it is, has nothing to do with that.
More than any other discovery in physics, discovering nature's
qualitative properties. so we can do more than zombie science, so we can
do qualitative science of redness, will we be able to finally answer
the questions: What are we, what are spirits, what is consciousness, and
most importantly, what is it all qualitatively like.
And if you can't see why that is important, then, oh well, I have no
hope for you, and you ability to understand what uploaded Godly
consciousness could be qualitatively like, or basically what heaven will
be like, in the near future. Uploads are going to be a lot more than
On 2/14/2015 9:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> Here is my question: even if you could identify the exact electrical
> and chemical goings-on in the brain when a person experiences some
> sensation, what exactly will you know? How will it help you know
> something else? We know, for ex., that the amygdala is involved in
> emotions, particularly anger. How does that help us understand anger
> and how to deal with it? I am not saying that it is a waste of time,
> I just want to know what you intend to do with the answers?
> bill w
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
> <stathisp at gmail.com <mailto:stathisp at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com
> <mailto:johnkclark at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> > Brent believes that consciousness is not due to the
> system structure but rather to the substrate.
> If computers with the same logical structure but with
> different substrates (say vacuums tubes, Germanium
> transistors and Silicon transistors) all came up with
> different answers when you multiplied 27 by 54 I'd have a lot
> more confidence that this theory is correct, but they don't,
> they all come up with 1458. Actually calling this a theory is
> giving it too much credit as there is no experiment that can
> be performed to prove it wrong, or even a experiment that
> would allow you to learn a little more about it.
> There are experiments that can be performed - try a physically
> different, but chemically identical substrate using alternative
> isotopes. It would work just the same, proving that working just
> the same is what is important, and not what the parts are made of.
> Stathis Papaioannou
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat