[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 13:18:33 UTC 2023

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 3:21 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023, 12:05 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> Other parts of the brain decode the meaning of the signals they receive.
>> They decode it to WHAT?  Decoding from one code, to another code, none of
>> which is like anything
> You are now theorizing that there is nothing it is like to be the process
> that decodes a signal and reaches some state of having determined which
> from a broad array of possibilities, that signal represents. That is what
> qualia are: discriminations within a high dimensionality space.
> nor are they grounded is not yet grounding anything.  It is still just a
>> code with no grounded referent so you can't truly decode them in any
>> meaningful way.
> What does it mean to ground something? Explain how you see grounding
> achieved (in detail)?

It is all about what is required (experimentally) to get someone to
experience stand alone, no grounding dictionary required, "old guys
redness".  (the requirement for grounding as in: "oh THAT is what old guys
redness is like.")

Here is what I mean by "old guys redness" , let's say some guy is
engineered to gradually swap his yellowness and redness properties, as he
When he is young, he grounds the code word red with old
guy's yellowness(glycine).  In middle age, he grounds the code word red
with old guys orangeness(ascorbate).
And of course, when he is old, he grounds the code word red with the true
old guys redness(glutamate).

I can see how thinking of things in substrate independent ways is very
powerful, for certain tasks.  (the only kinds of tasks some of you care
about?) The reason we think about things digitally (as 1s, and 0s), is so
we don't need to care about whether those 1s and 0s are represented with
redness and greenness properties, vs holes and absences of holes in paper
properties, vs any other distinguishable properties we'd care to
represent 1s and 0s with.  (you guys just ignore the additional cost and
inefficiencies required to maintain all those extra dictionaries, so things
can be simpler at the higher substrate independent level. You'd prefer to
compute on virtual machines, than directly on naked hardware)

I guess some of us care about the difference between these 3 (and we want
to know the true colors of things), and others just worry about being able
to tell us the strawberry is red, and don't care about the nature of true
elemental properties, and what is required to experimentally
demonstrate them to others.  (as required to unambiguously eff the
ineffable natures of properties.)
[image: 3_functionally_equal_machines_tiny.png]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230411/ea1e068f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3_functionally_equal_machines_tiny.png
Type: image/png
Size: 26214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230411/ea1e068f/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list