[ExI] Mental Phenomena
brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Feb 4 16:23:33 UTC 2020
The narration, and a whole lot more is forthcoming.
“It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world”
In a way, we can objectively measure the size of this so called “little
world”, by knowing who, and how many experts support “Representational
Qualia Theory <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6>”
which is the definition of this so called “little world”. It includes, to
lessor and greater degree of involvement at least 40 experts including: Steven
Lehar <https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Steven-Lehar/4>, Daniel Dennett
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory/21>, John Smythies
<https://canonizer.com/topic/81-John-Smythies/17>, David Chalmers
<https://canonizer.com/topic/81-David-Chalmers/2>, Stuart Sameroff
<https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Stuart-Hameroff/22>, and a growing number
of others. In other words, I believe there is strong evidence that all of
these experts would agree with me, that it is your so called “world” which
is qualia blind and naive, unable to account for what we know about the
physics of consciousness. Can you find ANY expert in this filed (including
any statement, or peer reviewed paper or book by any expert), that would
provide any kind of support to the contrary?
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:31 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On 03/02/2020 21:08, Brent Allsop wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> You asked:
> “Now why on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become the
> experience of greenness? *How* could it?”
> By simply inverting the red green signal anywhere in the causal chain of
> events that is perception as proven can be done here
> <https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/> (skip to the “Inverted
> Perception” part).
> It remains a fact that you could engineer (using just such inversions both
> upstream and downstream from physical knowledge) one robot to represent red
> knowledge with your redness, and another robot to represent red with your
> greenness. See “Inverted Qualia
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum>”) They could both pick
> strawberries equally well.
> You seem to be admitting that you only use one word for all things “red”.
> That is the definition of “Qualia Blindness”. In that world there is an “explanatory
> gap <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap>” because you need at
> least two words (red and redness) to model simple effing of the ineffable
> ideas like: “My redness is like your greenness, both of which we call
> red.” As long as we remain qualia blind, nobody can know the true physical
> color of anything.
> It's not a "hard mind body problem" it's just a color problem.
> I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record. You
> keep referring to an incomprehenisble video with no explanation, showing
> images that seem to be taken from a child's encyclopaedia (that is NOT how
> our visual system actually works, it's just a vague simplification that
> probably does more to obscure than reveal), with some mysterious
> 'inversion' of what is assumed (wrongly) to be a simple 'colour signal'.
> And you totally ignore any attempt to actually progress the conversation,
> including very relevant questions. Instead, you keep going back constantly
> to the same stock (mostly meaningless, as far as I can see) phrases, using
> the same nonsense terminology. I may as well be talking to a chatbot.
> It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world, with
> almost no relation to reality, and are intent on repeating the same
> packaged phrases over and over again, without making any attempt to explain
> them or check them against what we actually know about how our brains work.
> Ben Zaiboc
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat