[ExI] Mental Phenomena

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Tue Feb 4 20:55:25 UTC 2020


On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:54, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Hi John:
>
>
>
> Evidently, you’re not fully grasping what is going on if you think what
> you are saying is true.  Once we discover which physics it is in our brain
> which has a redness quality, we will have a dictionary connecting the word
> “redness” to that physical quality.  (example being glutamate behavior is
> redness behavior.)
>
>
>
> “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.  Because
> we have such a dictionary, people will be able to answer questions like:
> “What is your redness like?”  with “glutamate” and you will know that is
> like your greenness, and so on.
>

Subjectively you couldn’t notice a change if the physical change was
compensated for with another physical change; for example, if the glutamate
was changed and the glutamate receptors was also changed. It is always
theoretically possible to make such a compensatory change, and for this
reason it is impossible to attach qualia to any particular substrate or
physics.

“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 with (example:
> glutamate) and when it physically changed (example: changed to glycine) you
> would know that that brain is a qualia invert from what it was, before.
>
>
>
> And there will be the 3 different forms of effing the ineffable to
> objectively verify all this.
>
>
>
> What is it that you think: “My redness is like your greenness, both of
> which we call red.” Means?
>
> Once we have the dictionary, and better ability to observe the brain,
> we’ll be able to ask people questions like: What do you represent red
> with?  People will know if they are normal, or a red/green qualia invert
> from normal people.
>
>
>
> And if we see a bat using glutamate to represent echolocation information
> with, we’ll be able to answer the question: “What is it like to be a bat?”
> with, it is like glutamate, or your redness.
>
>
>
> And the best part, all the absurd religious beliefs about qualia, such as “substance
> dualism <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Substance-Dualism/48>”, “everything
> including rocks are conscious
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Panexperientialism/34#statement>”, “consciousness
> is down at the quantum level <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Orch-OR/20>”
> and all the mistaken people making careers of arguing there is a “hard mind
> body problem” of some kind will finally be put out of business.  So many
> other absurd ideas people currently believe in will be objectively proven
> false.  The only reason people believe in them, today, is because they know
> science “can’t account for qualia”.  Once we can account for all this, only
> people like “flat earthers” will be able to be justified in believing in
> all such absurdity.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:44 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 4:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >You [Ben] 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/>
>>>
>>
>> You keep saying that but I don't know what you think has been proven. As
>> long as the inversion was done consistently and included memories (so ripe
>> strawberries and leaves don't suddenly have the same color) then there
>> would be no way you could even notice subjectively that a change of some
>> sort had been made. And there is no way I could see any change in your
>> objective behavior either. So if whatever you're talking about produces no
>> subjective change, and no objective change in behavior, then whatever
>> change you're talking about is not important to either.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200205/dccd9c5b/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list