[ExI] Symbol Grounding

Giovanni Santostasi gsantostasi at gmail.com
Mon Apr 24 06:32:49 UTC 2023

While the brain works as a powerful processing system and receives millions
of nerve signals from the eyes, if the eyes are no longer able to
communicate with the brain, Troyk says that researchers can “intervene by
bypassing the eye and optic nerve and going directly to the area of the
brain called the visual cortex.”

Where the glutamate or anything else "physical" that makes the "redness
quality" is mentioned here? These are people that really understand how the
visual system works and nobody talks of redness quality.


On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 11:28 PM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>

> Brent,
> What you are asking about falsified or demonstrated has already been done
> several times here. We gave you equivalent examples (that you ignored) like
> my example about aerodynamics.
> It is not just an isolated example, the majority of scientific discovery
> is about finding what is essential about a phenomenon and reproducing these
> essential characteristics. Aerodynamics is essential for flight, feathers
> are not.
> But if you want specific examples:
> Artificial Visual Cortex studies:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18240
> Mimicking brain-like functionality with an electronic device is an
> essential step toward the design of future technologies including
> artificial visual and memory applications. Here, a proof-of-concept
> all-oxide-based (NiO/TiO2) highly transparent (54%) heterostructure is
> proposed and demonstrated, which mimics the primitive functions of the
> visual cortex
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201903095
> Meta’s AI researchers create artificial visual cortex for robots to
> operate by seeing
> https://siliconangle.com/2023/03/31/metas-ai-researchers-created-artificial-visual-cortex-robots-operate-seeing/
> https://www.iit.edu/news/brain-was-just-successfully-implanted-wireless-artificial-vision-system
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Artificial-vision-for-the-blind-by-connecting-a-to-Dobelle/177793b5b3f7d8610b159e7da4a85013db60acdd
> https://europe.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/device-renews-hope-artificial-vision
> There are dozens of studies like these where they show that understanding
> function is what matters and not damned glutamate or whatever you think is
> necessary for vision or color recognition. It is not all turtles down at
> all, it stops at 2-3-5-7 = red, 2-1-1-2 -4 = green (of course is more
> complicated than that but it is just patterns of activation, that is
> basically code). We told you so.
> What else do you need in terms of demonstration?
> Giovanni
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 6:27 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 4:43 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> Quoting Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>:
>>> > This is so frustrating.  I'm asking a simple, elementary school level
>>> > question.
>>> So you think that the Hard Problem of Consciousness reframed as a your
>>> so-called "Colorness Problem" is an elementary school level question?
>>> Then maybe you should quit bugging us about it and seek the advice of
>>> elementary school children.
>> I am working with those people that do get it.  Now, more than 40 of
>> them, including leaders in the field like Steven Lehar
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Mind-Experts/4-Steven-Lehar>, are
>> supporting the camp that says so.  Even Dennett's Predictive Bayesian
>> coding Theory
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/21-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory>
>> is a supporting sub camp, demonstrating the progress we are making.
>> Gordon, would you be willing to support RQT
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/6-Representational-Qualia>?
>> The elementary school kids are telling us, plug things into the brain, till
>> you find what it is that has a redness quality.  So, we are collecting the
>> signature, and once we get enough, experimentalists will finally get the
>> message and then start doing this, and eventually be able to demonstrate to
>> everyone what it is that has a  [image: red_border.png] property.  To my
>> understanding, that is how science works.
>> The reason I am bugging you functionalists is because I desperately want
>> to understand how everyone thinks about consciousness, especially the
>> leading popular consensus functionalism camps. Giovani seems to be saying
>> that in this functionalist view, there is no such thing as color qualities,
>> but to me, saying there is no color in the world is just insane.  You seem
>> to be at least saying something better than that, but as far as I can see,
>> your answers are just more interpretations of interpretations, no place is
>> there any grounding.   You did get close to a grounded answer when I asked
>> how the word 'red' can be associated with [image: green_border.png].
>> Your reply was  "at some point during the chatbot's training the English
>> word red was associated with *the picture in question*."   But "*the
>> picture in question*" could be referring to at least 4 different
>> things.  It could be associated with the LEDs emitting the 500 nm light.
>> It could be the 500 nm light, which "the picture" is emitting, or it could
>> be associated with your knowledge of   [image: green_border.png]. in
>> which case it would have the same quality as your knowledge of that, or it
>> could be associated with someone that was engineered to be your inverted
>> knowledge (has a red / green signal inverter between its retina and optic
>> nerve), in which case, it would be like your knowledge of [image:
>> red_border.png].  So, if that is indeed your answer, which one of these
>> 4 things are you referring to?  Is it something else?
>> You guys accuse me of being non scientific.  But all I want to know is
>> how would a functionalist demonstrate, or falsify functionalist claims
>> about color qualities, precisely because I want to be scientific.  Do you
>> believe you have explained how functionalism predictions about color
>> qualities could be falsified or demonstrated, within functionalist
>> doctrines?   If so, I haven't seen it yet.  So please help, as all I see is
>> you guys saying, over and over again, that you don't need to provide an
>> unambiguous way to demonstrate what it is that has this quality: [image:
>> red_border.png], or even worse functionalism is predicting that color
>> doesn't exist.  As if saying things like that, over and over again, makes
>> them true?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230423/ba1a1aa1/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: green_border.png
Type: image/png
Size: 161 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230423/ba1a1aa1/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: red_border.png
Type: image/png
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230423/ba1a1aa1/attachment-0003.png>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list