[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?
gsantostasi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 08:28:25 UTC 2023
I cannot imagine anybody reading this paper thinking that a qualia is a
fundamental property of experience. There is not such a thing, lol. Even
the perception of color is a pretty damn complicated thing involved several
brain layers and area and complex processing, as I said before nothing
fundamental, simple or direct about it.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:22 AM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
> Ok here is a paper that should clarify a lot on this topic of color
> Let's read it and see what we get from it. It seems to me that again they
> simply used fMRI (so basically brain pattern) to deduce all what there is
> to deduce about redness and the similar.
> Neural representations of perceptual color experience in the human ventral
> visual pathwayhttps://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911041117
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 4:48 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023, 7:08 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:11 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 5:20 PM Giovanni Santostasi via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>> If this doesn't destroy completely anybody illusion that the a brain
>>>>> made of meat (and particular stuff like glutamate) I don't know what else
>>>>> it could. These people will always believe that meat brains are necessary
>>>>> because God made them so. No amound of science would convince them.
>>>> 2) You can train an AI to recognize activation patterns in the brain
>>>>> and associate them with particular stimuli. This has been tried with words
>>>>> and even images both in wake and dreaming state. Here an example that
>>>>> should blow everybody minds:
>>>>> Again, from this study we can see that it doesn't matter how the
>>>>> pattern is generated, but that there is a pattern of activation. These
>>>>> patterns are unique for each individual but statistically they are similar
>>>>> enough that after training over many subjects you can give a statistical
>>>>> estimate that the person is seeing or even thinking about something in
>>>>> particular. Again, IT WORKS people !
>>>> I consider this a knock-down argument against the functional role of
>>>> glutamate (or other molecules) in the sensation of red. These tests use
>>>> only blood flow data, which is a proxy for neural activity. They are not
>>>> measuring ratios of specific neurotransmitters or molecules, or
>>>> introspecting the activity within the cell, the fMRI looks only at which
>>>> neurons are more vs. less active. And yet, from this data we can extract
>>>> images and colors. This proves that neural activity embodies this
>>> I guess I've failed to communicate something important about why we use
>>> glutamate. The primary reason we use glutamate is precisely because of
>>> its ease of falsifiability. I fully expect redness to be falsified
>>> (someone will experience redness with no glutamate present) and something
>>> different from glutamate will then be tried, and eventually something will
>>> be found to be experimentally proven to be redness. Easy and obvious
>>> falsifiability is what everyone is missing, so THAT is what I'm most
>>> attempting to communicate with the glutamate example.
>>> If you guys think there are knock down arguments for why a redness
>>> quality is simply due to recursive network configurations (I am not yet
>>> convinced, and am still predicting otherwise (see below), and it's much
>>> easier to say glutamate than whatever stuff you guys are talking about,
>>> which nobody is concisely stating, and I have problems understanding), then
>>> please, every time I say 'glutamate', do a substitution for anything you
>>> like such as 'Recursive network model A', or any other yet to be falsified
>>> theory. And let's leave it up to the experimentalists to prove who is
>>> right, like good, humble, theoretical scientists should.
>>> At least that paper
>>> <https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.18.517004v2.full.pdf> you
>>> referenced has pictures (composed of real qualities), not just abstract
>>> text (tells you nothing about qualities), as text only would be completely
>>> meaningless, right?
>>> But why don't you guys ask the publishers of that paper, how they came
>>> up with the qualities displayed on the images depicting what they are
>>> Here is a link to Jack Galant's work
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E&t=1s>, done over a decade
>>> ago, to which all these modern examples are just derivative works, easily
>>> done with modern AI tools.
>>> When I saw Jack Galant's work
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E&t=1s> back then, I knew he
>>> had a problem determining what qualities to display on his screens,
>>> depicting what he was detecting. The fMRI only providing abstract
>>> qualityless data which is meaningless without a quality grounded dictionary.
>>> So I called him and asked him how he knew what qualities to display. He
>>> immediately admitted they "false-colored" them (Jack Gallant's words).
>>> They used the original color codes in the digital images they were showing
>>> to their subjects, to determine what color to display. In other words,
>>> they were grounding their colors to physical light, which is nothing like
>>> either the properties of a strawberry, which the light merely represents,
>>> or the very different properties of conscious knowledge they are detecting
>>> and describing with qualityless abstract text. As Giovanni admits, they
>>> are correcting for any changes in physical properties or qualities they are
>>> detecting so they can falsely map all those diverse sets of properties they
>>> are detecting back to the same false colored light, blinding them to any
>>> possible inverted qualities they may be detecting in all that diversity.
>>> By the way, I added this Japanese paper
>>> <https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.18.517004v2.full.pdf> to
>>> the list of yet another example of quality blind papers, including Jack
>>> Galant's work that only uses one falsely grounded abstract word for all
>>> things representing 'red' here
>>> If anyone finds a peer reviewed paper that is not quality blind. (other
>>> than mine
>>> which is about to be published) will you please let me know about one? As
>>> I will trust someone that believes and understands that qualities are
>>> necessarily real properties of real hallucinations in our brain. I predict
>>> they are just the physical properties they are detecting but only
>>> abstractly describing and then false coloring.
>> I appreciate that added detail and correction. If the colors in the
>> reconstructed images are false colors or inferred by the AI from the
>> reconstructed image then I retract my statement of it being a knockdown
>> argument against the molecular basis of color qualia. I still suspect color
>> information is encoded in the patterns of neural activity, but it may be at
>> a low enough level that the fMRI lacks the spatial resolution to detect it.
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat