[ExI] Fwd: Paper on "Detecting Qualia" presentation at 2015 MTA conference
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 15:31:14 UTC 2015
Either you didn't read the paper entitled "Detecting Qualia" (
or you didn't understand any of it. You must have at least read the
title: "Detecting Qualia", but evidently you refuse to understand what most
people understand such to mean, as proof by you asserting that there is "no
way to measure it". Since you don't seem to get it, I guess I'll have to
explain it to you: Detecting, is the same as measuring, and if it is
detectable, it is physical, and experimentally demonstrably to all to be
physical, just like all physics.
I reckon this comment was directed at me (Bill W). All I know about qualia
I learned from wikipedia. (Why we need a new word for something that has
been studied for millennia puzzles me, although psychologists like myself -
experimental variety, that is - are worse than anyone at making up new
terms for old things and pretending to have discovered something).
I did not read the paper nor will I. Not one of my areaa. But when I see
'metaphysics' I have to wonder. This group seems to be made up of
physicists, engineers, and other hard nosed scientists and to me,
metaphysics belongs in seminaries and such, not science. Hence my comments.
I believe that I know as much about metaphysics as anyone who ever lived -
which is to say - nothing.
I want to add that given my differences with most of the group, I will
occasionally exhibit my naivete' . When I do so, I expect to be treated
tactfully as when Anders wrote me a highly tactful reply telling me without
scorn that I was way behind in what I was commenting on (AI) and so I quit
those comments (thanks you, Anders).
Thus I think that the comment from Alsop suggests to me that an attitude
upgrade is in order.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat