[ExI] fun outsider's view on ai

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 14, 2016, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:

​> ​
> We are talking about two different thing here.  There is the manufacturing
> process, and then there is what is manufactured.
>

​I don't understand your distinction. If I make a book and the book makes
money then I make money. The information in DNA makes a brain and the brain
makes the subjective red qualia, therefore ​DNA makes the the subjective
red qualia; or at least that's what happened with my DNA and my brain.

​> ​
> Would you agree that there are likely other ways of building what is
> responsible for an elemental redness and greenness qualities besides DNA
> manufacturing?
>

Yes I would agree with that and I would also agree that I am not the only
conscious being in the universe, although I can't prove either one and
never will.
​ But there are some things I can prove although the proof is available
only to me. I know with rock sold certainty that energy, just 25 different
kinds of parts, and a assembly instruction booklet less than a million
lines long (and probably a lot less)  the subjective experience of red can
be produced. I strongly suspect, although can not prove, that other
people's DNA gives them subjective experiences too.   ​

​> ​
> So you are saying that qualia will eternally be ineffable or not
> understandable / mapable / observable,
>

​Ineffable may be too grand a word, it's not that there is some deep truth
that our puny human minds can never grasp, it's just that the chain of
"what caused that?" questions is not infinitely long and some things are
just brute facts. And after saying that consciousness is what data feels
like when it is being processed there is simply nothing more to be said on
the subject of consciousness. Evolutionary Biology has been screaming in
our ear since 1859 that consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of
intelligent behavior and I think it's high time to listen to what it's
saying,     ​



> ​> ​
> I am predicting that there is an elemental, fully understandable / mapable
> qualia level,
>

​And I predict that if Darwin was right then qualia effects behavior and
behavior effects qualia and thus the Turing Test works for consciousness
and not just intelligence. ​
​I further predict that Darwin ​was right.


> ​> ​
> especially for qualia like redness and greenness.
> ​
>  And that we can detect, understand, a communicate the quality
>

​
I can detect redness no doubt about it, and when I talk about it to other
English speakers they seem to understand what I mean, and I understand that
when matter that is organized in a johnkclarkian way interacts with 630
manometer electromagnetic waves a red qualia is produced. What more is
needed?
  ​


​>​
> Would you agree that an abstract symbol like the word "red" does not have
> a redness quality?
>

​Symbols don't exist is isolation.
​The symbol "red" must exist in a environment that understand English
otherwise "red" is not a symbol at all it's just a squiggle, but with
people who can read English it manufacture the quail red qualia in them.
Likewise in all cells on this planet the sequence of bases CUA in DNA
symbolizes the amino acid
Leucine
​, but in the biology ​on another planet it might symbolize another amino
acid or is might be meaningless and symbolize nothing at all.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/5c8a4023/attachment.html>