[ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Mental Phenomena

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 19:10:17 UTC 2020

Hi Stathis,

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific.

That is why I used the term qualiastrate or colorstrate, because I knew you
would object to "substrate".  The fact of the matter is our knowledge has
qualities or colors, and elemental redness in one brain is going to be like
elemental redness in another brain, even if that other brain uses redness
to represent green things in that other brain.  I know a synasthist who's
letters of the alphabet have elemental redness and grenness qualities,
these would be the same color qualities of knowledge.  I'm just assuming
you guys will be OK with the idea that whatever these colors are, will
eventually could be objectively observable and perfectly predictable (i.e.
able to discover when someone is red/green qualia inverted).  That is what
I'm referring to when I talk about colorstrate or qualiastrate.

You, John, and everyone on this list continue to claim there is no way we
could know what qualia were like in another brain.
But using this type of neural ponytail, where you provide something like
the 300 million neurons, computationally binding 4 hemispheres the way the
corpus callosum computationally bind 2 hemispheres.  You would know what
elemental subjective qualia could be like in another's brain, as sure as
you know that "I think therefore I am" since you would be directly aware of
the physics in another's brain (does not require interpretation) not just
objectively observing them (requires interpretation).  That's what it means
to say you would experience all of the experience (or at least as much of
the experience as your partner wanted to share), not just half, when you
hugged your partner.

So why do you you or John or anyone continue to think that we can't know,
given this #3 strongest form of effing the ineffable, along with the #1,
week, and #2 stronger forms of effing the ineffable.?


On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:24 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 02:44, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> Hi Stathis,
>> Yes, exactly.  And the inverter filter for half the knowledge could be
>> anywhere in the chain of events between the target of perception and our
>> knowledge of such.
>> And you would know, as surely as you know "I think therefore I am" what
>> redness was like and how it was inverted for both hemispheres of knowledge,
>> right?
>> Objective observation, since it requires interpretation, can be
>> mistaken.  After all, we could be a brain in a vat, or it could only be a
>> 'seeming'
>> But, experiencing half of your visual knowledge being red green inverted,
>> could not be mistaken.
> But this does not imply that qualia are substrate specific.
> ----------
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:08, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Would you agree with the overwhelming evidence that our knowledge of
>>>>> our left field of vision is represented with physics in the right
>>>>> hemisphere of our brain, and visa versa for the the knowledge of our right
>>>>> field of vision being represented by physics in our left brain hemisphere?
>>>> Yes. We know this because of what happens when the brain is damaged.
>>> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200218/62240383/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list