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

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If the system is designed to detect real glutamate, and you change it so
>> that it is not detecting real glutamate, then of course it will fail in its
>> job to detect real glutamate. But that is the wrong question to ask. We are
>> discussing qualia. Your theory is that glutamate is directly and uniquely
>> responsible for red qualia, and therefore if the glutamate goes, the red
>> qualia will go. What I am trying to show is that the glutamate can go but
>> the red qualia will remain. Therefore, the glutamate cannot be directly and
>> uniquely responsible for the red qualia.
>>
>>
> It's all the same.  And remember, you need to stop making the mistake,
> which you have done again here, that when I use the term glutamate, I am
> talking about real glutamate.  You made the claim that in your neuro
> substituted system, that it would have qualitative distinguishing
> abilities.  For you, every time I say glutamate, don't think of it as real
> glutamate, you need think of it as if it was whatever it is, in your
> system, which is able to be qualitatively distinquished.
>
> Part of our consciousness is a real detection system of whatever is the
> neural correlate of redness.  So, if we are talking about qualia, we are
> talking about consciously detecting the real thing, and distinguishing it
> from greenness.  That's what consciousness is, it is a detector of
> qualities of nature of something in our brain.  If you neurosubstitute out
> this ability to do this detection (either subjectively or objectively),
> your argument becomes invalid.
>
> Try to do the neuro substitution on the described glutamate detection
> system.  If you do it in the same way, your conclusion must be that real
> glutamate can't be responsible for whatever qualities you are detecting
> about it.  The same way for any kind of functional redness quality.  When
> you do your simplistic neuro substitution, you must conclude that no such
> functionality can exist.
>
> But, if, in your system, you include something that has detectable
> qualities, and a way to detect them (either subjectively or objectively)
> there are no impossible problems, and there is a real part of nature that
> has a redness quality, without it being some kind of: "A miracle happens
> here."
>
>
Brent, saying "you need to stop making the mistake" is an impolite way to
treat those who are still participating in this endless merry-go-round of
qualia discussion.

The dress is blue-and-black and the dress is white-and-gold.  The ballerina
spins to the left AND to the right.  I would expect that a discussion of
qualia would at least be meta-conscious of the impact of perspective /
subjectivity of right-and-wrong.  afaik your goal of "effing the ineffable"
seems to be about forcing someone (anyone/everyone) to adopt your exact
understanding of this topic.

"every time I say [a word], don't think of it as real [a word]" <-- where
else have you ever had a conversation such that this type of argument makes
ANY sense?

this ongoing conversation has so ruined the term "qualia" for me that I
cringed every time I saw it as a company name in the TV show "Humans" -
it's become synonymous with an unanswerable question.  It's a koan like
"How long is a piece of string?" or "What did your face look like before
you were conceived" or "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"


I'm curious what value you see in forever fighting this fight.

fwiw: I'm replying on-list instead of privately because I trust that we're
all friends having casual conversation and I'm adding two cents to change
the course to some other facet of what *I* feel is a stalled discourse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170330/8eb18a40/attachment.html>