[ExI] Why stop at glutamate?
jasonresch at gmail.com
Fri Apr 14 13:41:06 UTC 2023
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023, 9:03 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Hay Daniel,
> Welcome to the conversation. Always fun to have a new guy join what we've
> been arguing over on this forum since the 90s. ;)
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:53 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>> > Communication is only possible where there exists common ground. We
>> have common ground in the quanta/numbers/measurements of the
>> > physical world, but we lack common ground between our own internal
>> states of mind.
>> > Which part is it that you disagree with:
>> > 1. That qualia are real
>> > 2. That qualia cannot be communicated
>> Depending on the definition, I disagree with 2. I agree that we have
>> experiences as proven by brain scans when we're exposed to various
>> experiences. So if instead of qualia, we'd say experiences, I have no
>> quarrel with experiences or states in the brain being real.
> So are you saying you can communicate what a redness property is like, to
> someone who has never experienced redness before, with only abstract text?
>> > 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
>> > breeding ground for misconceptions and endless debates.
>> > Perhaps this accounts for the endless debates around consciousness over
>> the past few hundred years.
>> I absolutely think that language is to blame here.
> Yes, you must have language that uses more than one abstract word 'red' to
> represent different properties which can represent red. Otherwise it is
> quality property blind.
>> > I read a long post on your blog and I quite liked it. Maybe you
>> > even expand on it by writing a book? =)
>> > I am. :-)
>> Looking forward to it! =)
>> > 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
>> > way or methodology of finding it.
> We want to discover 12 new phenomenal primary colorness properties no
> human has ever experienced before. Then build a brain which uses all my
> current 3 primary colorness qualities, but also includes those additional
> 12. Then increase the resolution of my conscious knowledge 100 times, each
> pixel possibly having all those colors. I want the size of that high
> resolution bubble world to be not just a few kilometers, but more than 1000
> Then I want to computationally blind that brain with my own, so not only
> can I experience my small, low resolution, 3 primary color knowledge of the
> world, at the same time as I experience the new large high resolution
> knowledge with far more color depth with each pixel. I want to be able to
> have my knowledge of my spirit, have an out of body experience within this
> merged helf small low res, and half large high res world, and move across
> to the other brain. (in a much more realistic way than portrayed in
> movies, where you go down a tube)
> In other words, I want to be phenomenally uploaded into an avatar with far
> higher resolution, higher color depth and a visual perception system brain.
> AND I want to know what it is like, in the old and new brain, all at the
> same time, in one computationally bound composite conscious experience.
That experiment giving monkeys an extra primary color should provide you
with some hope for this possibility:
I believe there are shrimp that see with 16 different primary colors, and
some humans see with 4. In principle there are infinitely many possible
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat