[ExI] e: GPT-4 on its inability to solve the symbol grounding problem

[Brent Allsop]

Yea, I apologize for being so tempted to always add the word "physical".  I
know there are far more Qualia arize from Function
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/18-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function>
people and other non physicalists, than qualia are physical qualities
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/7-Qualia-are-Physical-Qualities>
people like me.
I guess what I really mean is objectively observable.  Even if redness is
some "function", it would still be a physical fact that a particular
function had a redness quality, right?  And even in that case, that
function, operating on anything, would still be objectively observable with
logic probes, and the like, right?
I have trouble understanding why you are so hostile to the possibility that
an objective description of something in our brain could be a
description of subjective redness.
Or.... Please don't tell me you're a Substance Dualist
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/48-Substance-Dualism>,
because you are definitely sounding like one, if subjective qualities
aren't physical.





On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 6:15 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023, 7:35 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> You are making the same mistake here, when you say "physical qualities"
>> don't exist, which Dennett makes when they say: "We don't have qualia, it
>> just seems like we do."
>> The seeming, or mistaken knowledge, is the qualia.  So the statement is
>> self contradictory.
>> If you know something, even if it is mistaken knowledge, that knowledge
>> must be something physically real.
>>
>
> I would say I agree 100% with what you say above, but only if you take out
> the two instances of "physically." The insertion of that word makes what
> would otherwise make sense to me, something which I can't follow.
>
> Could you describe what you mean by "physically" and why you feel it
> important to use that word here? That is, could you explain why you say
> "physical qualities" rather than "qualities", and "physically real" rather
> than "real"?
>
> Jason
>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230418/45f0f249/attachment.htm>