[ExI] i am software: wasRE: utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary

Tue Jan 7 02:38:20 UTC 2020

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for jumping in.

And I often get sucked into missing when people are just yanking my chain.

So, just to get that out of the way, this entire response seems like
someone is just yanking my chain, it seems to me to be so obviously wrong
and twisted in so many ways.

“fails to refute the concept that image qualia can be represented in other
forms.

Along with most everything else in this reply that is so mistaken, are you
really implying that I think that rainbow picture can’t be represented by
an array of values including RGB(FF0000), as it appears here?  Are you
saying that RGB(FF,00,00). or any other such abstract software is
physically red?

Software = qualia people are so infuriating to me.  The best I can
understand from what qualia arise from software say is redness arises from
software via <magic happens here>.  They certainly never provide anything
better than that, that I can see.  I wonder what a person believing qualia
arise from software will do if experimentalists discover that the only
thing anyone can find in this universe that has a physical redness quality
is glutamate.  Would they continue to try to find some way to make
something like RGB(FF,00,00) produce a redness experience for someone, and
continue to claim you can’t disprove a negative as the theists always do
about the existence of their God?  After all, you never know, if you add
enough RGB(FFFFFFFFFFFFFF….,00,00) it could finally result in a physical
redness quality, right?

If you are not yanking my chain, again, still, thanks for jumping in.  I
still must not be adequately communicating what I’m trying to describe.  Or
maybe I'm just failing to understand what you are trying to say.  I
appreciate everyone’s patience on this.  It is always helpful when a new
person joins in.  I’ve improved a lot in the way I say things (having much
more success than I once had), but I evidently still have a LONG way to
go.  Unless you are yanking my chain? ;)

Brent

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:37 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> I see orange and cyan there, too.  Also, a rainbow is a gradient, which
> your list of words fails to note.  There is also no mention of the sky,
> clouds, or arc of the rainbow, nor of the transparency toward one end.
>
> It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  Exacttness of that
> measure aside, trying to equate a picture to a very few words is a strawman
> argument, and as such fails to refute the concept that image qualia can be
> represented in other forms.
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:44 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Your wrong, unless you see no difference between this
>> [image: image.png]
>> and the abstract words "red, yellow, green, purple and blue".
>>
>> Notice how I can redefine the words purple and blue.
>> You can't redefine your purpleness, and blueness, it just is, and you
>> know that more absolutely than you know anything.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>… *In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically
>>> red.  You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a
>>> physical definition to those abstract terms. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>…If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of
>>> the most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness,
>>> you've got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads
>>> to circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe
>>> tomato and say "That is  (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". … John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *…*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
>>> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color
>>> scientist Mary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >…I think it's only circular if there is only one example.  bill w
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The entire discussion has helped me accept what I have long suspected: I
>>> am a digital avatar.  I “think” only in terms of numbers and equations.
>>> You perhaps have heard of that creepy movie where the boy saw dead people,
>>> everywhere, walking around.  They didn’t even know they are dead.  Well, I
>>> am his digital counterpart: I see simulated people walking around
>>> everywhere.  They don’t even know they are software.  I didn’t know I was
>>> one until the recent qualia discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Be that as it may, I am a really cool avatar.  Self-aware I am!  (Or
>>> should it be “it am?”  (It are?  (It be?)))  Of course it be only digitally
>>> simulated self-awareness, but that’s better than none at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> spike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200106/4d855de2/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 128065 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200106/4d855de2/attachment-0001.png>