[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?
gsantostasi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 14:13:24 UTC 2023
*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).*
This is not how physiology even works.
Physiology often uses 2-3 (sometimes more) ways to achieve the same things.
For example, a particular salt can be used to change the polarization of a
neuron. What it matters is that the ions has the right polarization. There
are different types of enzymes that have similar results. Different
pathways that achieve similar scope. This way you can certain compounds
work as medicine, even if not identical to the chemicals in our body
certain compounds generate certain effects because they share similar
properties with the natural endogenous occurring ones. There are hundreds
of examples. Again, functions is more important than the particular
physical makeup of the system. Also, the brain repurposes different areas,
new connections are made all the time, and nothing is fixed. New synapses,
new spines. You insist on something concrete and analog in the brain that
creates the sensation of red but there is no such a thing. Physiology
doesn't change just with age (and it does in particular with the brain) but
having had enough sleep, what you ate, if you have enough nutrients in your
body if you ingested a drug or some mind-altering substance. Not sure how
this has to be repeated so many times. This why again we care about
function and information because even if doesn't seem concrete it is
actually what really matters.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:20 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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]
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 26214 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the extropy-chat