[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?
brent.allsop at gmail.com
Fri Apr 14 02:03:02 UTC 2023
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 5:56 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:17 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?
> You ask of functionalism more than you have achieved for your own theory:
> you have yet to name what molecule is responsible for redness which won't
> be falsified.
> The function for redness is a function that is found in the neural network
> of a normally sighted person's brain (likely within but perhaps not limited
> to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_centre). It is likely not
> anything rudimentary like a square root function, it will be a function
> able to (at a minimum) discriminate among millions of possible color
Not sure what you mean by "won't be falsified", as I have tried to say I
fully expect the prediction that it is glutamate that has the
redness quality to be falsified.
But that something else, will be reliably demonstrated to always have the
same redness quality, and when it does, just substitute glutamate for
whatever that is.
And are you saying that physical stuff doesn't have color properties? And
that functions do?
If a function can discriminate among millions of possible color values, it
would achieve that by representing them with millions of distinguishable
physical properties, right?
i.e. the function would arise from, or be implemented on, the physical
properties, you seem to be saying that the physical properties would arise
from the function?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat