[ExI] What is "Elemental Redness"?

[Darin Sunley]

Eliminating dualistic language is utterly necessary.

Dualists are atavistic counterrevolutionary heretics who must be silenced.

Delegitimizing the language they use to describe their execrable position
is the first step.

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023, 8:55 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02/05/2023 02:42, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > I don't follow why saying that "experience is" rather than "experience
>> > is caused" escapes or answers the question of who is having the
>> > experience.
>>
>>
>> The 'who' is the neural pattern. This is the central point.
>>
>> I suppose you could say "experience is caused by the neural pattern, in
>> the neural pattern", but that might be more confusing. To me at least,
>> it's clearer to say the experience and the neural pattern are the same
>> thing.
>>
>
> Perhaps "supervenes on" is a better term that "is caused by" as it
> preserves the linkage between the two descriptions without introducing a
> separate entity, and it may be better than stating an identity (or "is")
> relationship, as supervenience leaves room for multiples realizations. What
> do you think?
>
>
>
>> The point is to eliminate the dualism implicit in the language used.
>> It's not "my experience is caused by these neural patterns" (which
>> implies the question "what am I? What is it that these patterns cause to
>> have the experience?"), it's "I am these neural patterns, having this
>> experience". And no, that doesn't mean only patterns created by
>> biological neurons will do. Anything capable of producing the same
>> patterns will produce the same result: Me.
>>
>
> Is eliminating dualistic language necessary? We've already uncovered a
> form of dualism in our brief discussion on this topic: the difference
> between the "abstract immaterial pattern" and the particular "concrete
> material instantiation." We've concluded there's not an identity between
> these two as two things, as different material instantiations may realize
> the same abstract patterns of information processing.
>
> Is it possible to escape this form of dualism which acknowledges a
> difference between pattern and material? Should we even try?
>
> Perhaps such language patterns are even useful, as a bridge of
> understanding for those who believe in an  "immaterial soul" supported by a
> "material body." It's not that far off from our idea of an immaterial
> information pattern supported by a particular physical incarnation.
>
> 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/20230502/15e80168/attachment.htm>