[ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat May 14 17:19:27 UTC 2016
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
Just how would we know, in the beginning of our learning of language, what
anything means without reference to what other people tell us it means? A
consensus. What people take as the meaning of a word IS the meaning of it,
even as it may change over the years. As a psychologist, I say that if you
look at the word 'red' and experience a visual object that is red, then
yes, the word, in that instance, does have a red quality. If it conjures
up communism, then no. (of course we are in philosophy where anyone can be
right, or wrong, or neither).
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com>
> Hi John,
> 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>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 demonstration.
> 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?
> Brent Allsop
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat