[ExI] Symbol Grounding

[Giovanni Santostasi]

*I want to know what the knowledge of wetness is phenomenally like*Brent,
do you realize that is equivalent to a child saying "but this piece of
paper you gave doesn't make me hear the music", pointing to a music sheet?
To hear the music you get a bunch of musicians that read the paper and
produce music. Science gives you the piece of paper with the notes, not the
music.
This is not what science is about.



On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 3:23 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Giovani
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 3:52 PM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> *Stop assuming that qualities arise from function.  Instead, accept the
>> obvious, that function runs on top of properties, not the other way around.*
>> Brent,
>> I tried to explain to you that there are no properties. It is true for
>> fundamental particles, it is true for more complex phenomena such as
>> consciousness and redness.
>> Do an exercise, start with something simple you know, and tell me what a
>> property of that something simple is.
>> Go ahead. Don't hide behind stuff like redness that is not fully
>> understood. Go ahead and tell me something about stuff we know better.
>> I will start. I will pretend to be Brent.
>> Brent: Giovanni what about wetness of water? Is it not a property of
>> water?
>> Giovanni: No, Brent water is not wet, let alone water has multiple states
>> (it can be a gas, or a solid) the sensation of wetness is due to the
>> interaction of water and our skin. What you feel as wetness is actually a
>> change in temperature that our body perceives when in contact with water
>> blah blah
>> Really there is no one thing that is considered by science a property.
>> I have tried to explain this to you. Do you think I'm changing the topic?
>> No, this is perfectly the topic. You are looking for properties and I tell
>> you there are no such things. It is not changing the topic.
>>
>
> In my opinion, yes you are changing the subject.  I want to talk about
> knowledge of wetness, the final result of perception.  And you keep
> changing the topic to the initial causes of perception: "What you feel as
> wetness is actually a change in temperature that our body perceives when in
> contact with water blah blah".  I want to know what the knowledge of
> wetness is phenomenally like, and not only does none of what you say shed
> any light on that, you are talking about something completely different -
> the non properties of physics our senses are detecting, or whatever you
> want to call the cause and effect stuff that initiates perception.
>
>
>
>> I even tried to tell you that this business of properties is how the
>> Greek philosophers thought about nature and it turned out that idea was
>> full of shit. It didn't work as a way to explain how the universe work.
>> Why do you want to go back to that useless idea?
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>> <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/20230501/4764ccbb/attachment.htm>