[ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat May 14 11:50:25 UTC 2016
Thanks for expending the effort on this, I really want to try to better
understand this line of thinking so I can better communicate.
On 5/12/2016 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Brent Allsop
> <brent.allsop at canonizer.com <mailto:brent.allsop at canonizer.com>>wrote:
> I can agree with everything you are saying, even when you say "we
> do know that a program with a million lines of code can
> manufacture the qualia 'red'". I must admit that this is a very
> testable scientific theory that could be proven correct by
> It's already been tested and proved to be correct.
> I know for a fact that my brain can manufacture the red qualia and I
> know for a fact that a program with a
> million lines of code
> (and probably less) assembled my brain from generic atoms.
We are talking about two different thing here. There is the
manufacturing process, and then there is what is manufactured. DNA
instructs something to be build that is responsible for or has an
elemental redness quality. You are talking about the DNA manufacturing
process, and I am talking about what is built from that. Would you
agree that there are likely other ways of building what is responsible
for an elemental redness and greenness qualities besides DNA manufacturing?
> OK, so something less than a million lines of code can
> "manufacture" the elemental qualia red.
> That and interactions with the environment.
> I assume you will agree that a different set of code can
> "manufacture" the qualia green, and that eventually we will be
> able to know, recognize, and detect each of these and their
> differences in each of our minds.
> Maybe but not necessarily, Godelian limits on self knowledge might
> come into play.
So you are saying that qualia will eternally be ineffable or not
understandable / mapable / observable, even for simple qualia like
elemental redness an greenness?
> Then we will be able to see each of these in our brains, and be
> able to tell things like if my code "manufacturing" red is more
> like your code "manufacturing" green.
> I might know that a certain pattern of neuron firings in my brain
> produces the red qualia in me, but you're brain is organized
> differently than mine otherwise you would be me, so what sort of
> qualia your brain is producing I have no way of knowing, I don't even
> know for certain that your brain is producing any qualia at all. I
> might be the only conscious being in the universe, I doubt it but I
> can't prove it's not true nor will I ever be able to. That's why all
> this talk about qualia is a dead end, if you want to make progress
> investigate intelligent behavior.
Again, you are conflating two things together and thinking of them as if
they were the same. You are talking about composite qualia and I am
talking about elemental qualia. I am predicting that there is an
elemental, fully understandable / mapable qualia level, especially for
qualia like redness and greenness. And that we can detect, understand,
a communicate the quality (detect if we have roughly inverted qualia or
not) to each other at this level.
> you are still being blind to the difference between an abstract
> representation that represents what is "manufactured" and the real
> quality being "manufactured".
> I know for a fact that I am not blind and I know for a fact that I
> can experience the
> red qualia
Obviously, but you are still completely missing what I am trying to
say. Let me see if this helps. Would you agree that an abstract symbol
like the word "red" does not have a redness quality? And the only way
to know what the word "red" means, when you say it, is to know how to
properly interpret, qualitatively, what you mean for it to represent?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat