[ExI] [Exi] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering
brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Mar 14 02:59:52 UTC 2017
I'm using "qualitative" in relation to qualia. As in a redness qualia
has a specific set of detectable subjective and objective qualities.
Or a redness experience is qualitatively different than a greenness
Quantitative information is that which is represented with abstracted
numerically comparable values, like 1, 2... What is physically
representing the numerical 1, 2... value is irrelevant, or abstracted
away. For example a redness qualia could be defined and interpreted as
if it was 1 (or what we don't want), and greenness could be defined and
represented as if it was 2 (or what we don't want). Or the reverse
could be defined to be true. You can get the abstracted value from
whatever is representing it by properly interpreting it. In other
words, today's computers can represent 1s, and 0s, with lots of
different physical or qualitative representations, but they all must
have the correct interpretation to get the various correct abstracted 1
or 0 from the particular physical representation. There is no
translation mechanism involved with the qualitative values of a redness
we can experience. Your redness just is, and if you interpret it as
anything else (such as 1 or stop...), you are getting away from the
original quality of the qualia doing the representation.
Effing the ineffable is still simply theoretical, yet to be proven by
science. Many people, like John, are predicting that it will always be
impossible to eff the ineffable or that it will be impossible for me to
know anything about John's redness. I, on the other hand, am predicting
that it will soon be possible to eff the ineffable, at least at an
elemental level, via the various week, stronger, and strongest
methodologies (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 ). So,
if science is able to reliably demonstrate such, it will falsify john's
theory. A simplified example testable theory is that glutamate is the
objectively observable side of subjective elemental redness. In other
words, the observable physical qualities of glutamate are one and the
same as the qualities we can subjectively experience as redness. So, if
you can prove that if you have one, you always have the other, and only
the other, the theory has been proven. If you ever find any exceptions
to this or that someone experiences redness, without glutamate, for
example, this particular theory is falsified. Once you have reliably
demonstrated this to be true, for any theory, with no exceptions, you
can then "eff" the ineffable, by observing that another person is
experiencing glutamate (or whatever) which science will have proven
without exception is one and the same as subjective elemental redness.
Does any of that help?
On 3/11/2017 11:13 AM, Ben wrote:
> Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Hi Stathis and John,
> It seems to me that there is a clear reason you guys are struggling
> with all this,"
> I see no evidence that either Stathis or John are struggling with it.
> They seem to understand it perfectly well, as far as I can see.
> "A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be
> simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences."
> There's that word again. I don't know why you keep using it. Could you
> explain, please, the difference between a 'qualitative' and a
> 'quantitative' experience? You must think there is one, or you
> wouldn't keep using the word.
> "we are also aware of lots of other qualitative pieces of information, "
> Ah, yes, information too. What's the difference between 'qualitative
> information' and 'quantitative information', please?
> Finally, could you please provide a definition of this phrase you keep
> using, "effing the ineffable"? On the face of it, it's
> self-contradictory, but presumably you mean something by it. What?
> Ben Zaiboc
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat