[ExI] ai emotions
brent.allsop at gmail.com
Sat Jul 20 21:03:51 UTC 2019
“*math* happens here”
“Math-based technology is taking the world by storm as we speak."
Agreed, but how do you get this physical property on your screen:
>From even the abstract word “red”, let alone any mathematics, without
someone pointing and saying: “THAT is red”?
And I don’t understand why you continue to focus on light, which only
ambiguously references any particular physical qualities we can be directly
aware of. Nobody can know if you are talking about your redness, or an
invert’s redness which is the same as your greenness?
“Meaning that you are free to use all available data to guess what red
looks like to me, but you will never truly know for sure.”
“I suppose that my answer is actually qualia are not approachable by
currently available techniques.”
I think you are just making all this too hard by failing to distinguish
between physical reality and knowledge of reality. Any physical color you
want can represent 1, and any physical color, as long as it is different,
can represent the number 2. And you can’t get 1s or 0s from any physical
property or quality, unless you have a working dictionary set of
abstracting hardware, which can get the intended 1s and 0s, from whatever
physics happens to be representing them.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:09 PM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> Quoting Brent Allsop:
> >>> But what do you mean by
> >>> this?
> >>> ?red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists
> >>> with or without brains, but redness does not.?
> >>> I?m assuming that both of these are *different* in your model in the
> >>> inverted and inverted set: ?Brain -> Redness??
> >> Yes, that particular expression would be different for somebody with
> >> inverted qualia such that red + their brain = greenness.
> >>> You?ve indicated that the downstream, ?redness? does not exist without
> >> the
> >>> upstream ?brain??
> >> Yes.
> > Then you are talking about "magic", or ar saying " a miracle happens
> > As I am talking about being causally (in any way physically detectable)
> > from whatever it is that is this redness you experience.
> No, I am saying *math* happens here. By the time redness becomes a
> thing you are able to perceive, it has already entered the stage of
> becoming abstract data, literally the bits of (0 = no, 1 = yes) of
> individual neurons in your visual cortex neural pathways firing in
> response to the red light. Different neural pathways would be
> activated by green light.
> Moreover, since no two peoples brains are wired identically, the
> neural pathways that are activated in your brain in response to red
> light are presumably going to be different than those in mine.
> The only miracle here is that sufficiently complex math can learn
> about itself and the world around it. Is that magic? It could be
> construed as such in the sense that all sufficiently advanced science
> and technology is, for all intents and purposes, magic to the
> But magic or not, this math-based technology is taking the world by
> storm even as we speak.
> >>> If there is one pixel on the surface of the strawberry that is
> >>> between red and green, what is the physical change in the physics of
> >>> brain in your model?
> >> It should not change that much. In fact you might not even notice it
> >> unless you were really up close and looking for it. For example if you
> >> look closely at the flesh tones of human portraiture painted by
> >> classically trained artists, you can see small regions of reds,
> >> greens, blues, and other seemingly unrelated colors making up what
> >> appears to be a single homogeneous skin tone under various conditions
> >> of simulated light and shadow.
> > You are avoiding the questions. I'm talking about a small patch on the
> > strawberry just large enough for you to clearly see, and pay attention
> > that is changing from red to green. What physics is changing?
> Some few neurons in your visual cortex are firing differently than
> they would be if the green spot was not there. Neuron B is firing in
> lieu of neuron A. The physics, apart from the difference in light
> wavelengths, is pretty much the same except in so far as "that neuron
> over there" is firing instead of "this neuron here". So I guess the
> answer the spatial coordinate of some of the many firing neurons are
> different if the green spot is on the strawberry. Does that help?
> >>> And is the difference between ?Redness? and ?
> >>> Greenness? physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by
> >>> observing anything upstream from your "Redness" and "Greenness"?
> >> No, I don't think so. Your question is a little like asking if it is
> >> possible to crack a code without having any access to clear text or
> >> the cypher key. And the answer is: no, not in the life time of the
> >> universe for all but the most simple of cyphers.
> > So you are saying qualia are not approachable, nor observable via
> > then?
> If the human brain is Turing complete, then as a consequence of Rice's
> Theorem and the Halting Problem, consciousness and its attendant
> qualia are inaccessible by any means short of statistical inference.
> Meaning that you are free to use all available data to guess what red
> looks like to me, but you will never truly know for sure.
> Then again, as far as I know, quantum computers might change that so I
> suppose that my answer is actually qualia are not approachable by
> currently available techniques.
> Stuart LaForge
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 738 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the extropy-chat