[ExI] Microsoft wants to reincarnate people as chatbots

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Adrian,

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:29 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> And if the evidence went the other way - that the chemical & pattern
> representation of "red" in one human brain was pretty much the same as in
> other human brains they tested - would you accept that?
>
> Because that would seem to be the null/default hypothesis here.
>

Normally, I would just point out that you are saying things in a qualia
blind way, but evidently people completely miss understanding me, thinking
all I'm doing is saying I disagree with the way you are talking, which is
not the case.  So, instead, I will point out the specific problems, or why
and how I can't understand what you are talking about, when you only use
one word for all things 'red' like this.

When you say: "the chemical & pattern representation of 'red'" you could
mean any of the following definitions for the word red:
1. The intrinsic quality of something like a strawberry, or anything that
reflects red (650mn) light.
2. You mean red, in the abstract, something that is a label for the
intrinsic properties of the strawberry, the light, the "red" detectors in
the retina, the word red, and all the other things representing the
abstract notion of red in any animal or system.
3. the intrinsic quality of our knowledge of red things, if you are not
being qualia blind, you use a different word for this, like redness, and
make it obvious that you mean something different, when you say redness,
than when you say red.

So, when you say:  "the chemical & pattern representation of 'red'"  do you
mean any of these 3 very different things, or maybe something different,
entirely?

It is a fact of reality that your knowledge of red things could be the same
as my greenness quality, which I represent the green things with.  It helps
if, when you talk about these things, you make it very clear what you are
talking/thinking about.  You can't talk about things like that, when you
are talking the way you are talking, using one word for all things red.

It is a fact of reality that my redness could be like your greenness, both
of which we call red.  You need to use language that includes
different words, for different intrinsic qualities, or facts about reality.
Otherwise, you are not communicating clearly, you can't model or describe
things like effing the ineffable.  And if you don't want me to include all
of the above, just know that the above is what I'm talking about, when I
say someone is talking in ways that are qualia blind, or at best, not
communicating very well.

So, given all that, maybe you could re-state what you are trying to
say,above, in a way which I can understand what you mean, or are trying to
say?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210107/bda05980/attachment.htm>