[ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering

Thu Mar 23 00:05:22 UTC 2017

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > There is no way to, within a single neuron, change qualitative nature of
> one voxel of our visual field of awareness, in a way that that all other
> neurons, representing all the other tens of thousands of qualitative voxels
> interact with them, sufficiently so they can do any kind of comparison.
> There must be some kind of deferent neural behavior in your theory, to
> enable qualitative comparison and awareness on such a large scale.

You keep using the word "qualitative" but quality is subjective and there
is absolutely no way to compare

the

subjectively

of one neuron with the subjectivity of another neuron, or compare the
subjectivity of a 100 billion neurons that make up a brain with the
subjectivity of another brain.

> > 
> Also, the theory predicts that even if there isn't easily elemental
> qualia, that
>
once we start completely re architecting, enhancing and merging brains, you
> will be able to create a qualitative meta combined John Brent that is fully
> aware of all of John's consciousness and Brent's consciousness.
>

Consciousness theories are a dime a dozen, they're notoriously easy to
dream up because there are no facts they must fit. W
hat experiment could I perform even in theory to prove that your theory was
correct? There is none. W
hat experiment could I perform
even in theory that would
 prove that your theory was
wrong
?
There is none.

> > 
> Such a metta combined supper brain will be able to completely experience
> John's redness, and brent's redness
>  
> sufficiently to be able to be aware of and point out, which parts of these
> two rednesses are the same, and which are different.
>

How could anyone know John Allsop had done that correctly? How could even
John Allsop know that? Your theory may say he did but there is no way to
ever know if your theory is right or wrong. So it's not science.

> 
> So, if science demonstrates any of this kind of, effing the ineffable in
> any way, do you not agree that it will falsify your theory that predicts
> redness and greenness are not approachable via science and not objectively
> effable, or discoverable, in any way?
>

I still don't know what "effing the ineffable" means, if it's ineffable
then you can't eff it, but if science can find a way to directly
detect consciousnesses without resorting to behavior then obviously that
would prove I'm wrong. But that's one big if, in fact I would maintain its
a impossible if.

> > 
> Do you want me to start listing the many evidences that there is quite a
> bit of qualitative diversity between humans, that you seem to be completely
> ignoring?
>

Yes. If you have any evidence of the
qualitative diversity
 (or similarity)
between humans
 that doesn't need the axiom that different conscious experiences produce
different behaviors and different behaviors imply different consciousness
then I would very much like for you to list them.

> > 
> That is another thing that such science fiction movies get completely
> wrong, by think synths only become "self aware", once they become
> qualitatively conscious
>

What's the difference between conscious,
qualitatively conscious
, and self aware, and what test can I perform to determine which one other
people  have that doesn't depend on behavior?

> > 
> The non conscious synths are very "self aware", even likely more self
> aware than we are.  The only difference is, their self awareness is
> composed of patters of oneness and zeroness.
>

Now I'm really confused, are you saying that the problem with computers is
that at their most basic fundamental level they are digital? I hope that's
not what you're saying because the genetic code is digital too and it made
you the man you are, well that and the books you read, but books are
digital too, as is this post.    

> 
> And when a newly conscious synth uses memory to compare his redness
> knowledge of red, with his old oneness knowledge of red.  This old oneness
> knowledge of red is much more "self aware" than what you or I were before
> we were born, or even when we are asleep and not dreaming.
>

I don't know what "
oneness knowledge of red
" means.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170322/e1da0bbd/attachment.html>