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

[Giovanni Santostasi]

*RQT is predicting that as soon as experimentalists and neuroscientists
start seriously observing the brain in a non property blind way*I have no
idea what it means and again you are using randomization of words you used
before, that doesn't help with communication.

I asked precise questions, can you please answer?
1) If you had the type of description of Giovanni's redness you look for,
do you expect to see my redness yourself? Please answer yes or not and
elaborate.
2) Do you understand that current science is based on modeling, and models
are always not 1 to 1 with the phenomenon they try to model? And do you
understand that is done on purpose because that is what modeling is all
about?

I'm trying to improve communication so I would like to see if there is some
common ground to build upon. Please answer my questions because from your
answer I can then give a more meaningful reply and also it would help me
understand better your position.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 5:30 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Giovanni,
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 5:17 PM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *1) And there is subjective physics.  Our consciousness is composed of
>> phenomenal qualities like redness and greenness.*
>>
>>
>> *Anything we get from our senses is necessarily the same as text.  And
>> just as you can't communicate to someone what redness is like, via only
>> text, our senses can't tell us what anything out there is qualitatively
>> like.*
>> *2) We just need to connect our objective abstract descriptions by
>> demonstrating which of all our objective descriptions of physical stuff is
>> a description of subjective redness.  Then we will have our dictionary, and
>> know the true physical colors of things, not just the physical colors
>> things seem to be.*
>> Brent,
>> 1) All physics is subjective because in the end we are the ones observing
>> the world and interpreting it. Even when a machine makes an observation it
>> is humans that analyze the data and interpret it. This why your search for
>> an objective description of sensory information makes no sense.
>> 2) Can you explain once more the second paragraph? My understanding of
>> what you think is a good scientific description (it is never final) of what
>> Giovanni's "redness" is somehow magically Brent that reads that description
>> will see my "redness". Is this what you mean? That the description will
>> magically make you see my redness?
>> I have explained to you (and others too) that science gives us models.
>> Models are never the full description you look for, they are never 1 to 1.
>> And this is not a bug, it is a feature.
>> I will not repeat why this is the case right now because I'm waiting for
>> your acknowledgment of this before I explain once more why models are not 1
>> to 1 to what they are supposed to represent.
>>
>
> Yes, I think I understand what you are talking about with 'Models', and I
> think this is a powerful way to think about our scientific knowledge.
> Especially since it distinguishes between reality and knowledge of
> reality (knowledge being models with one to many relationships to
> abstract referents of the reality out there.)
>
>
>> If you are suggesting we need another kind of science that doesn't use
>> models then go ahead and tell us how that new science looks like.
>>
>
> While it is true that all our knowledge is subjective, color qualities,
> themselves, are special.
> When we see a strawberry, our brain false colors our knowledge of it.
> Some people may be engineered to use different qualities.
> In other words, all we know about the qualities of things is the false
> coloration our particular brain false colors reality with.
> In other words, there is a one to many relationship between something that
> reflects or emits 700 nm light, and diverse people's quality of their
> visual experience of what they see.  All current science uses one abstract
> word for all this, resulting in at best a one to one relationship between
> the qualities different brains use to represent 'red' knowledge with.  All
> observation of the brain "corrects" for any differences they detect, making
> them unable to detect any differences, even in principle.
>
> RQT is predicting that as soon as experimentalists and neuroscientists
> start seriously observing the brain in a non property blind way (use more
> than one abstract or non grounded word red to represent different
> properties), they will then find a way to demonstrate which of all our
> objective descriptions of stuff in the brain is a description of redness.
> In other words, when they objectively observe, whatever it is, in someone's
> brain, if that person is using that to represent green knowledge, this will
> inform them that that person is different, and uses greenness, to represent
> red knowledge.  And this will be very experimentally demostrable and
> reliable.
> This type of understanding will be required before we can do significant
> brain repair (such as making someone who suffers from achromatopsia,
> finally see color) and such like that.
> Once they discover and demonstrate what this is, it will falsify all but
> THE ONE sub camp to RQT, and falsify all the crap in the gap theories
> including absurd theories like substance dualism.  Our goal at Canonizer is
> to track this consensus as you, me, and everyone are forced to join the
> camp that experiments prove is THE ONE.
>
> Does that help?
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230418/cbc2929f/attachment.htm>