[ExI] The most precious essence

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Wed Feb 9 18:41:11 UTC 2022

Hi Stathis,

Yes, that is true, but what does that have to do with the facts I’m
referring to?  Surely you are not arguing that the current abstract
systems, like a tesla automobile, which, if it does know its own color, is
representing that knowledge of its own color with a world like ‘red’
(doesn’t matter what is representing those ones and zeros, anywhere in the
set of tesla parts, but you must have a different transducing dictionary
for each different part that is representing it), and that there is no
redness or greenness qualities anywhere in any such current abstract system?

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 9:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 03:17, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:28 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2022 01:46, BillK wrote:
>>> > If a mind can be run on hardware -
>>> Well, it's the hardware we have now that has made minds possible. What
>>> is the brain, if not hardware? Ok, it's squishy, but that's not what we
>>> mean when we distinguish between hardware and software. You could say
>>> "non-organic hardware", but who's to say that we have to use non-organic
>>> hardware to construct future mind substrates? Polymer brains might well
>>> be possible. It could be that going down a silicon and electrons route
>>> wouldn't be such a good idea, given how vulnerable that would be to
>>> cosmic rays and such.
>> It is a fact of the matter that all information in our current
>> "non-organic" systems is abstract, like the word "red", composed of strings
>> of ones and zeros.  These are purposely abstracted away from any physical
>> properties (i.e. wavelengths of light or the verry different colorness
>> qualities like redness) representing them.  You can't know what any of
>> those abstract words like red represent without a dictionary.  We on the
>> other hand, representing information, like knowledge of red things,
>> directly on phenomenal qualities of "squishy" stuff like redness and
>> greenness.  The redness quality your squishy stuff uses to represent red
>> knowledge with is your definition of red.  It is a fact that my brain could
>> be engineered such that my redness would be like your greenness, both of
>> which we call red, as illustrated here:
>> [image: 3_robots_tiny.png]
>> The only difference in the first two is a red green signal inverter in
>> the optic nerve, and a redness/greenness inverted dictionary.
>> My question is, do you currently disagree with any of these demonstrably
>> true facts?  And if not why do you continue to completely ignore facts like
>> this, when you talk about "squishy stuff"?
> You don’t know that what you call abstract qualities and physical
> qualities do not both give phenomenal consciousness.
>> --
> 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/20220209/7e7a0d72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3_robots_tiny.png
Type: image/png
Size: 26214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220209/7e7a0d72/attachment.png>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list