[ExI] How many current members of ExI?

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 00:49:01 UTC 2020

Thanks, everyone, for all the great comments, they all mean a lot to me.
Just a few comments:

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:17 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> There is a difference with believers because they think irrationality is a
> positive rather than a negative, and call it “faith”.

I think it is positive, if it really is positive.

For example, typical Mormons think they have faith that there is a devil.
I love to point out believing there is a devil, is neither faith nor hope.
It it the opposite.  It is faithlessly giving up and accepting as true, the
more terrible of two alternatives as being true or necessary.

While at the same time  Mormon Transhumanist (non atheists) have their "New
God Argument <https://new-god-argument.com/>".  I understand the compelling
mathematical arguments being made, there, so it is devastating to my
atheistic faith and hope, that it isn't necessary for Gods to hide.
Because of those arguments, I feel I must accept that there is far more
chance that there is a God, hiding from us, than there isn't.  But I can
also, rationally, point out that it isn't absolutely certain.  There is
still some small chance we might be the first, or something.  So, this is
where my faith and hope reside, even though I must rationally accept that
it is unlikely, at least until my faith is 100% falsified (i.e. god really
appears to us all or something)

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:03 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Strong beliefs (including atheism) come before rational thought and
> are much more powerful than rational thought. So there's no way to
> talk atheists or believers out of their convictions, and discussions
> are much more likely to end in name calling than in mutual
> understanding.

This is only true for beliefs that aren't falsifiable (Strawberry is better
than Chocolate) or beliefs that haven't YET been falsified. (Functionalism
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function/18> vs
Materialism <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-are-Material-Qualities/7>
vs Dualism <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Substance-Dualism/48>, there is
a god, and so on).
As long as experimentalists remain qualia blind (only using one word for
all things 'red') there will remain a huge gap in our understanding of
qualitative consciousness, qualia, or the "spiritual".  Any belief that
hasn't yet been fully falsified, can still be justifiably hoped for,
resulting in all the many remaining "crap in the gap" theories of
consciousness.  This is similar to the God of the Gaps idea in the field of

That is why Canonizes is all about falsifiability.  The only good camps,
are those that are falsifiable.  Once each camp admits how their camp can
be falsified, then it is up to the experimentalists to force us all into
THE "scientific consensus" camp.  We've already seen one camp abandoned by
it's supporter, because of falsifying data coming from the large Hadron

I talk about 'qualia blindness' below.  Check out this new set of 13
questions to find out if you understand qualia blindness
<https://qualia.insite21.com/survey/1584554976> and let me know if that

Falsifiability is the power of the "Representational Qualia Theory
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6>" super camp
which has a near unanimous consensus.  Even Dennett's "Predictive Bayesian
Coding Theory <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory/21>"
supports it.

It shows how all the many subcamps mentioned above, making different
falsifiable predictions about the the nature of qualia, can be falsified.
Once experimentalists start focusing on finding out, which of all our
abstract descriptions of stuff in the brain, is a description of redness,
(by using more than one word for all things red) they will be able to
discover what it is that is intrinsically red, falsifying all but THE ONE
theory that can't be falsified.  Once experimentalists demonstrate to us
what it is (in nature or out) that has an intrinsic redness quality, that
will finally falsify all the crap in the gap theories, and we will finally
be able to see a definitive "scientific consensus" in this field with no
more supported crap theories.

Yes, if experimentalists can prove how redness is more than only an
intrinsic property of something like glutamate as it reacts in a synapse,
by demonstrating that redness can be substrate independent, I will have to
join Stathis' (more hopeful?)  functionalist
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Functional-Prprty-Dualism/8> camp.  But,
then, Stathis, what if no matter what people try, redness is never
possible, without glutamate...?  I just hope that they don't work through
all know physics, proving that none of it has an intrinsic redness
quality.  Because that would mean redness is some type of new physics
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Orch-OR/20> or some type of dualism
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Higher-dimension-Theories/35>, some of
which is still hiding from us, or worse even possibly not approachable via
science <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2>.  ;(

We just need to start distinguishing between reality, and knowledge of
reality, so we can start looking for intrinsic colors of physics
<https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/>, before we can finally find
out what it is in this world that really has all the intrinsic colors we
can't deny exist.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200419/31c78afe/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list