[ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Sun Dec 22 02:20:19 UTC 2019

I think we are just talking past each other.
You said you only have redness if "ONLY THE RELEVANT OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR
of each component of the system is preserved".  Then only Glutamate
behavior is the relevant observable behavior.  And when one is aware that
it has changed to greenness, it is the different glycene behavior that is
the only diferent relevant observable behavior.  Isn't it?  Or can you
substitute half of the strawberry redness "relevant observable behavior"
with greenness "relevant observable behavior" and the system will still say
all of the strawberry is red?

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 6:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Stathis:
>> 1. If glutamate is swapped for glycine and glutamate receptors for
>> glycine receptors in half the neurons in your brain, all the neurons in
>> your brain will continue firing in the same sequence, and all the muscles
>> in your body will continue contracting in the same sequence.
>> This is where you are problematically removing the binding system that is
>> directly aware of what glutamate is functionally like and how glycine
>> functionality is physically different.  You must have the ability to
>> computationally bind thousands of pixels made up of half glutamate
>> strawberry and half glycine leaves, and these are all computationally bound
>> together so you can be aware of all of them at the same time.  When you
>> remove this ability to distinguish between two different physical
>> representations in this way, the fading/dancing problems come up.
> Of course, if the scientist misses something it won't function in the same
> way. Maybe glycine receptors are slower to respond to glycine that
> glutamate receptors respond to glutamate, which would slow down the rate of
> neuronal firing, which in turn might change both the way colours are
> perceived and the way this is reported by the subject. But that is not what
> this thought experiment is about. It assumes that EVERY RELEVANT OBSERVABLE
> BEHAVIOUR of the glutamate-receptor system can be replicated by a different
> neurotransmitter-receptor system. Being "directly aware of what glutamate
> is functionally like" is not an OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR of the
> glutamate-receptor system, like the speed of response of the receptor to
> its neurotransmitter is.
>> Where in this system you are describing is the ability to be aware of
>> redness, which includes the ability to say that anything other than redness
>> is not redness?  No matter where I add this functionality, you always
>> remove it with this anti binding system mistaken way.  And of course, when
>> you make these kinds of logical mistakes, problems like “fading”/”dancing”
>> qualia emerge.  If you include that functionality, it becomes obvious how
>> everything just works, and this “fading”/”dancing” problem is just
>> irrelevant.
>> No matter how many times I say you need to provide this ability to detect
>> only redness, and nothing else, you just continue to say that doesn’t
>> matter.  And the fact that you say that is proof that you aren't yet
>> thinking of it the right way.  This mistake is the cause of all the
>> fading/dancing problems.  The fact that you keep asserting this doesn’t
>> matter just proves you are not thinking about qualia in the right way.  You
>> must include an ability to know when something has physically (or
>> magically, or functionally) changed.
>> If you provide there, there will be no "hard" problems.
> What I am saying is that the ability to detect redness, distinguish
> redness from other colours, become excited at the experience of redness, if
> it is present at all, MUST be preserved if ONLY THE RELEVANT OBSERVABLE
> BEHAVIOUR of each component of the system is preserved. You don't agree,
> but you haven't explained what exactly would go wrong if glutamate were
> replaced with glycine. It is as if I proposed changing a component in your
> car with a component identical in EVERY RELEVANT OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR but
> you believed the car would behave differently despite this, unless the
> component came from the original manufacturer.
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191221/500ac5ca/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list