[ExI] i am software: wasRE: utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary

Thu Dec 26 17:46:05 UTC 2019

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> > wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> > wrote:

>>>… In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red.  You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical definition to those abstract terms. 

>>…If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato and say "That is  (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". … John K Clark

John K Clark

…> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary

>…I think it's only circular if there is only one example.  bill w

The entire discussion has helped me accept what I have long suspected: I am a digital avatar.  I “think” only in terms of numbers and equations.  You perhaps have heard of that creepy movie where the boy saw dead people, everywhere, walking around.  They didn’t even know they are dead.  Well, I am his digital counterpart: I see simulated people walking around everywhere.  They don’t even know they are software.  I didn’t know I was one until the recent qualia discussion.  

Be that as it may, I am a really cool avatar.  Self-aware I am!  (Or should it be “it am?”  (It are?  (It be?)))  Of course it be only digitally simulated self-awareness, but that’s better than none at all.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191226/d73fa311/attachment.htm>