[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?

[efc at swisscows.email]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> qualia being that way, or conceive of them being that way, but I don't think it is necessary to. I think qualia are real, humans have
> them, and an appropriately programmed computer could have them too.
>

...

> Qualia are incommunicable for several reasons (incomparability, complexity, limitations of language, limits of introspection, the

If qualia are real, but something which can never be communicated, don't
you think you open a can of worms?

There are plenty of concepts that can be argued, are real, but can never
be experienced by others or communicated, and I think this is fertile
breeding ground for misconceptions and endless debates.

I think I misunderstand you.

I come to think about Wittgenstein and his language games, and that
qualia would have meaning in the 1 player game (by design) of yourself. ;) 
But would break down when extended, because due to our very nature and
the limits of current technology, it will always be a 1 player game.

> There are rational definitions of God. Some religions define God as all of reality (e.g. Brahman), which exists by definition. Other

Yes, I quite like Spinozas idea. If I would be a believer, I think it is
quite an attractive view in a way.

> Likewise, as my other post showed, purely rationalistic theories of consciousness, (such as computationalism), imply that

I read a long post on your blog and I quite liked it. Maybe you could
even expand on it by writing a book? =)

> In the end, the goals of the theist and the scientist are the same, to find the truth, and better understand our place and in
> reality.

Are you sure? I would say that the scientist wants to find the truth and 
increase his understanding, but the theist would want to experience the
truth, but has no requirements when it comes to understanding and the
way or methodology of finding it.

I think this would be an excellent topic for a separate thread.

> "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.
> Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
> -- Max Planck in “Interviews with Great Scientists” (1931)

Do we start from the world, or from our consciousness of it? I read
somewhere, can't remember where, that theology starts from god and tries
to derive the world, and philosophy (the quote I think was before the
strict separation of philosophy from science) starts with the world and
tries to drive god.

Best regards, 
Daniel