[ExI] Mental Phenomena

[Brent Allsop]

Hi John,



“The brain chemistry might be different but the end result, your behavior,
would be exactly the same.”



No, the behavior will not be the same when you ask them: “What is red like
for you?”  We will have a dictionary between brain chemistry and redness,
and experimentalists will be objectively observing things like who is and
who isn’t a red/green qualia inverted.  People will know this, and be able
to tell you they are ‘red/green’ qualia inverted form the norm, an so on.
i.e. very different responses to the question: "What is redness like for
you?"



Would you and Ben agree that your beliefs about the legitimacy of using one
word for all things “red” would be falsified, if my prediction that about
10 years after the majority of experimentalists start doing non qualia
blind observation of the brain, someone will discover what it is, that has
a redness quality.  This will falsify all be THE ONE true theory of
consciousness and lead to the above explained behavior of people finding
out things like who is and who is not red/green qualia inverted from the
norm.


To say nothing of the 1. week, 2. strong. and 3. strongest forms of effing
the ineffable, and finding out what color physical things really are.






On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:40 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:55 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> > Evidently, you’re not fully grasping what is going on
>>
>
> One of us is certainly not grasping something. This big change you talk
> about is just a change in a convention not in anything substantial; you're
> just changing the origin point of a coordinate system, you're changing one
> meter to 39.37 inches.
>
>
>> >> “There would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a
>> change of some sort had been made.”
>>
>>
>>
>> > False.  Subjectively a physical redness quality you are directly aware
>> of would change from redness to greenness, a huge subjective change.
>>
>
> Suppose I tell you I will make this "huge subjective change" sometime in
> the next hour but not exactly when. I tell you to ring a bell the instant
> you detect this "huge subjective change". How in the world are you going to
> know when to ring that bell?! As long as the change has been made
> consistently there is absolutely no way you could tell. If you can't tell
> that a "huge subjective change" has even been made then it can't be huge,
> in fact it can't be a subjective change of any sort big or small. And that
> tells me the only thing that gives a color qualia meaning is its
> relationship with other color qualia, and that's why a old fashioned
> photographic negative had as much information as the positive print.
>
> >> “And there is no way I could see any change in your objective behavior
>> either.”
>>
>>
>>
>> > False, Objectively, you could observe whatever physics it is which
>> that brain is using to represent conscious knowledge of the red
>>
>
> The brain chemistry might be different but the end result, your behavior,
> would be exactly the same. And semiconductor physics and vacuum tube
> physics are different but when computers based on those technologies add
> 2+2 they both output 4, and there is no difference between one 4 and the
> other 4.
>
>
>> *> What is it that you think: “My redness is like your greenness, both of
>> which we call red.” Means?*
>>
>
> We can both see a difference between a strawberry and a leaf in addition
> to their shape and size.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200204/8462efe6/attachment.htm>