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

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Jan 31 13:48:55 UTC 2015

Hi Flexman,

On 1/30/2015 10:47 AM, Flexman, Connor wrote:
>     But why does the mind experience 650 nm light as a qualia? How
>     could it not, if the mind experiences a sensation then it is a
>     qualia by definition.  I mean, how in the world could
>     we experience 650 nm light as 650 nm light?
> I definitely agree with John here: our brain has to process some 
> neuronal firing as an experience, a qualia.

I agree with John, Also, in the same way that I agree with flat 
earthers, when they say" "The sun goes around me every day."  If you 
want to live in that little flat earth world, then, OK.  But what a 
about inverted qualia, or new blue you've never experienced before. In 
your little world, you may not be interested in that, but I am 
interested in a slightly more advanced world, that includes that kind of 

> Redness is the qualia of the neuron for red firing.
A great theoretical prediction, yes.  (Could be falsified)

> Anger is the qualia of the neurons for aggression (or anger itself?) 
> firing.

> These things are just our internal view (being inside an algorithm).
Well, could be, but you are starting to velar off into not well defined 
metaphysical like non detectable stuff.

What, exactly, in your world is an "internal view"  How do you detect, 
especially the qualitative nature, of whatever this "internal view" is?  
And what, physically does it mean to "be inside an algorithm"?  How 
would you prove to everyone that you are physically "inside an 
algorithm"?  Remember, if you know something, there must be something 
physical that is that knowledge.  And if you know something, 
qualitatively, like a redness quality, there must be something, 
detectable, that is responsible for that redness qualitative nature.  
You must keep things physical, or else it is metaphysical.

> Note it's not really a qualia caused by the neuron, it just is our 
> experience of that thing. I personally still don't understand why we 
> necessarily experience qualia, and why my perception exists in this 
> brain, but I don't think getting metaphysical helps with this question.
> Connor

Exactly, you must not be metaphysical, as you seem to be leaning. The 
paper is about "Detecting Qualia" 
.  If you are willing to expand your naive model of physics, just a bit, 
you will discover a very phenomenal physical (that means detectable) world.

Brent Allsop

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150131/f0c1da04/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list