[ExI] Mental Phenomena

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Feb 11 23:59:00 UTC 2020

Hi John,

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:24 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > *For example, the retina, is the mechanical dictionary transducing
>> system which interprets the red information in the light, to the red
>> information in the physically different red signal in the optic nerve.
>> Ultimately, you need to interpret this abstract word like ‘red’, *
> And we can. The human retina has 3 different types of light sensors, #1
> responds to red light #2 responds to green light and #3 responds to blue.
> If the number in the first column that the brain receives from the eye is
> larger than zero but the other 2 columns are zero then we interpret that
> abstract notion with another abstract notion, you see pure red, a dim pure
> red if the number is small and a intense pure red if the number is large.
> And if the numbers in the first two columns are of equal size but the third
> column remains zero then we see yellow, and if the numbers in all 3 columns
> are equal we see white.
> Suppose there was a parallel Everettian reality that was exactly like our
> own except that the English language had developed slightly differently so
> that we called the color of the sky "red" and the color of a strawberry
> "blue", it wouldn't make any difference because the words chosen were
> arbitrary, the important thing is that the words be used consistently.
> And the same thing is true not only for words but for the red and blue
> qualia themselves. And that's why your color inversion experiment would
> result in precisely zero objective change in behavior and zero change in
> subjective feeling, you're experimental subject would have no way of even
> knowing you had done anything to him at all.

This is all obviously true, and I've never disagreed with any of this.  The
important part isn't the fact that abstract words are arbitrary, what we
are talking about is how do you define these arbitrary words.  What are the
different definition of redness and grenness, which we may both call
"red"?  Do you use the same as me or are you engineered to have physically
different knowledge?

> My axiom is that intelligent behavior implies consciousness,

If that were true, then all 3 of these robots which are equally intelligent
in their ability to pick strawberries
would be consciousness.  That is inconsistent with the fact that two of
those robots have knowledge that is not physically arbitrary, for which
there is something it is like to be them.  While the 3rd is, by design, is
abstracted away from anything physically like anything in an arbitrary
way.  And therefor isn't conscious.

> *> “Computational binding” is what is done in a CPU.  *
> And what particular qualia a external stimulus is bound to may result is
> differences in brain chemistry but those different chemistries result in no
> subjective change whatsoever and no change in behavior either.

Having troubles parsing this.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200211/ce16dcce/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list