[ExI] [Qualia Blindness] Was re: Molecular Materialism

[Mike Dougherty]

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 5:04 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> Calling people "qualia-blind" because they don't faithfully say your words
> back to you is impolite if not abusive.
>
>
>
> Thanks for this feedback.  This is good to know that some people think
> this way.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike, let me ask you.  Do you think anyone know what it is, in this world,
> that is physically responsible for or has a redness quality?
>

I am "colorblind"  i know my ability to detect red is different from
others.   I'm acutely aware of this.  I don't know that there IS a physical
reason for red[ness]

I also know that I can't make a point that isn't already in one or more
camps in your canonizer.   I'm having a difficult time even explaining
why.  Imagine explaining how Rational numbers do/don't "fit" in the set of
Integers... sure, you can eventually get to fractions... and with enough
discipline the Integerist might be able to relate to the Rationalist.
Maybe the experience will have prepared the Rationalist to meet a
Realist... with "irrational" numbers being a difficult construction to
overcome - effectively forcing each to upgrade/ expand their concept of
what exists.

If you're still with me,  thank you.

I think color and number are useful words even without rigorous proof that
you and I are using them in exactly the same nuances.  I don't use examples
of 3 and 3ness to badger you over the distinction between the properties of
3ness that makes us able to recognize the essence of 3.  We don't need to
ensure that you recognize 3 because of the font family you're using (or
require that both of our email clients use the same fonts, screen size,
aspect ratio, and dots per inch) i can write "three" and you know it
contains sufficient 3ness to generate proper reference to actual 3.

To insist there is something that is physically responsible for
representing 3ness in the brain feels wrong to me. I can't make further
assertion because being wrong on a minor point causes the major point to be
lost.

How neurons work to run the machine seems to me to have nothing to do with
the software that we are discussing for what something "means"

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200101/e9820756/attachment.htm>