[ExI] Definition of Consciousness (Was Re: My guesses about GPTs consciousness)

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue Apr 18 23:46:38 UTC 2023

Hi Daniel,
Yes, currently our priority is getting Canonizer to make some income.
Once we achieve that, we will focus on significantly expanding the theories
of consciousness survey, hopefully including 10s of thousands of
philosophers representing their current views.
Right now it is Just a concise and quantitative representation of what the
70 or so participants believe.
There is evidence with what we have that functionalism is the most
popular way to think about consciousness,  And you sound like a
Except the current functionalist camps do differ from this belief:

"qualia and redness in fact are "red herrings" that will get us nowhere,
and should best be left alone."

I've been working to get someone to help us get a camp along these lines,
as a competitor to the Representational Qualia Theory camp started.  I'm
sure once a camp like that exists, there will be more people interested in
supporting a camp like that.  Probably some on this list?  Anyone?
Would you be willing to support such a camp?  I'd be willing to do all the
work.  All you'd need to do is "support' it.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:39 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Hello Brent,
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2023, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat wrote:
> > But canonizer is the solution to all the problems you are pointing
> out, and many more issues, especially polarization, and bubbles...
> Well, that's easy to test! Let's wait and see. ;)
> > It is the solution to establishment resisting needed revolutions.
> I think you overestimate the establishments willingness and capability
> to engage rationally, but... I probably underestimate it. ;)
> But any and all solutions to this problem should definitely be tested so
> I do hope that the canonizer will work out just the way you say! =)
> > It's basically the idea that redness is a quality of your subjective
> knowledge of the strawberry, a quality of something in our
> > brain, not a property of the strawberry.
> Ahh... that is easier for me to understand. I do not believe redness is
> something unique inside the brain, but the result of a process including
> the world, and the brains reaction to the signals received through the
> eyes, or the memory thereof.
> In fact, I could even assent to the statement that qualia and redness in
> fact are "red herrings" that will get us nowhere, and should best be
> left alone.
> What we should focus on is neuroscience, biology, computer science,
> simulations etc. just like we have done, which as led us to chatgpt,
> ocr, deep blue, etc.
> In a distant future (or near) we'll have a machine that will pass the
> turing test with flying colors, and then we can probably put a lot of
> philosophical questions to rest. "Philosophy is the midwife of science"
> as the saying goes. =)
> > And this article has just been published: "Physicists don't Understand
> Color"
> Ahhh... that's where all the strawberries comes from. Thank you Brent!
> Ah, so I see that the canonizer is part of a bigger program and that you
> are a professional.
> > Yes, we live in a "post truth" world, due to all the polarization.   No
> matter where you go on the internet, or even in peer
> > reviewed journals, someone will claim that is "fake news."
> Fortunately, I left the academic world before wokeness, fake news,
> identity politics etc. became a thing. I do not hold the belief that we
> live in a post truth world. I do believe that the quality of education
> has dramatically decreased the last couple of decades, and that people
> are being increasingly infantilized, and that _that_ is the reason why
> political discourse today, regardless of ones point of view, is mostly
> revolting.
> But I also find it hard to believe that polarization should have found
> its way into philosophical debate over such niche problems as qualia.
> That's just absurd. You have one opinion, and I another, and that's
> that. Should new evidence or arguments appear, I will then, in case I
> care deeply about that specific problem, revise my position. It won't
> happen over night (by design) but hopefully rigorous scientific and
> philosophical training will help to take the ego out of the equation as
> much as possible.
> > Notice that Dennett's current "Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory" is in
> a supporting sub camp position to RQT.
> Ahh... so I was mistaken. It's more than 2 decades ago since I read his
> book, so either I did not remember correctly, or he moved on, or I
> revised my position. ;)
> > And I've been trying my darndest to get camps for competing theories
> started, but people seem reluctant, for some reason.
> > What is there now is just a concise and quantitative representation of
> what the 70+ participants currently believe.
> If you want consensus in a field, I think you would need to attract far
> more people than that. If not, there will be skew. I don't think I would
> label it consensus. For me it would be more of an atlas of the field,
> the positions, and the people who hold them.
> Hmm, isn't there, or weren't there similar programs for compiling some
> kind of universal, human ethics? Don't take my word for it, I might
> misremember again. ;)
> Best regards,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a2069881/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list