[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found
brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 22:54:08 UTC 2020
How about the color of knowledge. For example the color of your knowledge
of the strawberry could be the same color as my knowledge of the leaves.
The bottom line, everyone, including all neural researchers of color
perception, have a very sloppy epistemology of what color is. They all use
one word 'red' for all things red, which can't tell you anything about
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 06:23, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>> It all has to do with the color of things. What is it hat has a redness
>> quality? It can't be the strawberry that has the redness quality, because
>> you could invert the red/green signal anywhere in the chain of events that
>> is perception as illustrated here
>> Using one word for all things 'red' tells you nothing of what color
>> anything is. If you only use one word for all things red, that is qualia
>> blind. In order to account for the color of things, you need two words:
>> red, for anything that reflects or emits red light, and a different word
>> redNESS, to account for the quality of you knowledge of such. If you can't
>> model simple concepts in your thinking and in your language like: "My
>> redness is like your grenness, both of which we refer to as red". That
>> language/thinking is qualia blind.
> I think you could simplify your language. “Red qualia” or “red experience”
> is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also understood that
> it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the observer.
> Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge becomes
> confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if you mean
> that “redness quality” is something in the strawberry or in my mind, and if
> “redness knowledge” is the same or different.
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:35 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here
>>> (and let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say "ah,
>>> yes, I see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like "You
>>> represent red things with knowledge that has your redness quality", and
>>> "What is robot number 3’s knowledge qualitatively like?", but (I think I'm
>>> right in saying) *nobody has a clue what these phrases actually mean*.
>>> I certainly don't (your language reminds me of things produced by the
>>> Post-Modernist Essay Generator), and you show no willingness to try to
>>> explain, which is why I've given up on participating in these pointless
>>> discussions. It's not even amusing anymore.
>>> Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the
>>> point, or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You seem to
>>> be persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know what that leads
>>> to: 'getting what you always got'. Blank incomprehension, in this case. I
>>> still don't know, after literally years of reading your posts, on and off,
>>> if that's completely justified, and the correct response, or not.
>>> Ben Zaiboc
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Stathis Papaioannou
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat