[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?

[Giovanni Santostasi]

*I just wish people with these kinds of "qualities arise from <whatever>"
theories would explicitly acknowledge (instead of ignoring), what everyone
knows absolutely, that color qualities are real, and then provide some
example of some kind of "function" or some configuration of parts, the sum
total of which could be pointed to and say: "THAT  is redness."  at least
in a way that would pass the laugh test?*We have done this multiple times.
We have shown papers where "redness" or color perception of any kind is
understood as a complex interplay between several regions of the visual
cortex that involve integration, exchange, recursion, and comparison
between many areas and layers of the brain.
This is the current understanding of neuroscience about redness, it is not
the simple thing you claim it is.
Brent, given we have already shown you that is what the scientific evidence
demonstrates about redness, why do you still insist is some "quality" that
is just some vague term that means nothing? Also, can you explain once and
forever what you mean by "computationally bound"? There is such a term in
computer science but it seems that the established term is not what you
mean.

Giovanni


On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:31 PM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> *Electrons behave the way they do, because they have a quality you have
> never experienced before. (Note:  I'm a pan qualityist. a panpsychist minus
> the pan computational binding ;)*What is this quality?
> In physics, we identify particles from their behavior, an electron can be
> recognized as such by how it behaves in a magnetic field for example. From
> the behavior, we derived some properties like the mass or charge.
> But these properties are relational as mentioned so many times. They are
> not absolute they are an expression of how an electron behaves when it
> interacts with other things like fields of energy or particles. As said so
> many times it is all about relationships. There are no qualities.
> Brent, why don't you write an entire book about how the world works with
> your ideas of quality and try to explain the entire universe using that
> model?
> They make useful predictions or solve outstanding problems with how to
> merge QM with GR.
> You know the Nobel Prize is 1 M dollars. And that is just the start if you
> do you will be the most thinker in history.
>
> You know right that philosophy started that way? People were saying "The
> universe is made of this quality" (water, 4 elements, and so on) and it
> didn't help us to understand the universe a bit. This is until Galileo
> arrived and said, well I want to measure things, the language of the
> universe is mathematics.
> Your simple example of how you can use numbers to describe redness shows
> that you don't understand what math is. I tell my gf that all the time (she
> is struggling with Calculus) it is not about numbers, it is about
> relationships and patterns. Math is arithmetic, it is something deeper. And
> yes everything can be expressed as a form of math, because math focuses on
> relationships and patterns between things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:18 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Gadersd,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:35 PM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Brent, where is the glutamate quality of electrons, neutrons, and
>>> protons? Which electron has the redness quality?
>>>
>>> Electrons behave the way they do, because they have a quality you have
>> never experienced before. (Note:  I'm a pan qualityist. a panpsychist minus
>> the pan computational binding ;)
>>
>> There exists higher order structure that doesn’t exist in the component
>>> parts, hence the phrase “more than the sum of the parts."
>>>
>>
>> I guess that would be a hypothetical possibility.  I try to always point
>> out  that some day, someone will experience redness without glutamate,
>> falsifying the prediction that it is glutamate that behaves the way it
>> does, because of its redness quality.  Once glutamate is falsified, they
>> will try something else, possibly including something that is the sum of
>> some configuration of parts, or ANYTHING.  The reason we use glutamate is
>> because it is so easily falsifiable.  Falsifiability is what we are missing
>> with the qualitative nature of consciousness, and ease of falsifiability is
>> the reason we are using glutamate as an easy stand-in for whatever redness
>> turns out to be.
>>
>> I just wish people with these kinds of "qualities arise from <whatever>"
>> theories would explicitly acknowledge (instead of ignoring), what everyone
>> knows absolutely, that color qualities are real, and then provide some
>> example of some kind of "function" or some configuration of parts, the sum
>> total of which could be pointed to and say: "THAT  is redness."  at least
>> in a way that would pass the laugh test?
>>
>> i.e. predicting a function like the square root of 4 is redness and the
>> square root of 9 is greenness, or 6 flat equal sides are required to make
>> yellow, just don't pass the laugh test, do they?  If anyone can do any
>> better than that, I'll stop laughing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230413/a912f84e/attachment-0001.htm>