[ExI] Mental Phenomena

Wed Feb 5 21:46:01 UTC 2020

The trouble I’m having with this conversation is how one sided it seems.  I
make an effort to re-iterate your positions, even asking for feedback and
then fixing where I’m making mistakes in my understanding of your
positions, till I get what you guys agree is correct.  Ben said:

“I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record.”

So, if I’m still failing to acknowledge something, I’ll be happy to listen
to whatever that is again, and repeat it back till I get it right.

I see critical issues in what I re-iterate back to you, but when I try to
point these out, it seems like nobody even acknowledges that I have any
issue, let alone anyone trying to understand what those issues might be.
I’m not seeing efforts to re-iterate back many of the problems I see.  All
I hear is the same old failure to acknowledge the issues I see with what
Ben refers to as a “broken record” re-iterations of the same old same old:

“I'll be damned if I understand how you've reached that conclusion!”

followed immediately with re-assertions of your positions (which I've
already repeated back) like:

“you couldn’t notice a change if the physical change was compensated for
with another physical change”

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:55 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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/20200205/72c2a868/attachment-0001.htm>