[ExI] Red

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 3:45 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

> *>>> I don't see any way to falsify your claims,*
>>>
>>
>> *>> I see a pattern of on and off switches that I think will cause the AI
>> to make a noise through its speaker that sounds like "I am experiencing the
>> redness qualia" but instead the noise sounds like "I am not experiencing
>> the redness qualia". So I am wrong and it's back to the drawing board for
>> me, I'll need to look for a different pattern of switches. *
>>
>
> > *OK, Then, can we both agree that we are both doing theoretical
> science? *
>

*I am, you're not.  *



> *> I am predicting that something objective in the brain is behaving the
> way it does, because of its redness quality. *
>

*Science demands objectivity but there is no way to objectively verify
that an intelligent entity is actually experiencing the subjective redness
quality. It's even worse than that, there is no way to obtain universal
agreement about what the subjective "redness quality" even is. *




>
>
>> > *If you're not doing navel gazing, then how is functionalism going to
>>> be falsified?*
>>>
>>
>> *>> Charles Darwin could've answered that question over 150 years ago,
>> find a way for Natural Selection to select for something that it can't see.
>> Good luck in completing that little task. *
>>
>
> *> **I believe I've addressed this assertion of yours you continue to
> make, many times, but here it goes again: **There are two types of
> computation, one is drastically more efficient than the other.  Since one
> is more efficient, that is why evolution selected for computation on top of
> phenomenal qualities, *
>

*Then it would be easier to make a conscious intelligent computer than it
would be to make a intelligent computer that was not conscious.  And if
it's more efficient then why has all of the consciousness research made
over the last thousand years produced absolutely nothing of value, while
ignoring consciousness and concentrating on nothing but research into
intelligence has produced many trillions of dollars of value in just the
last 10 years? *

*> rather than brute force discrete logic gates. *


*If you don't like discrete logic gates *then *you must be talking
about *A*nalog
*C*omputers.* *Way back in 1995 I spammed this list with a*n* advertisement
for my home study course on analog computers, this is that ad:*

"*Welcome to the exciting world of analog computing. Thanks to the new
HeathKit Home Study Course, you can build your very own analog computer in
the privacy of your own home. Make big bucks! Amaze your friends! Be a hit
at  parties! This is a true analog computer, no wimpey pseudo analog stuff
here, this baby can handle infinity*!

*Before we begin construction there are a few helpful hints I'd like to
pass along. Always keep your workplace neat and clean. Make sure your
computer is cold, as it will not operate at any finite temperature above
absolute zero. Use only analog substances and processes, never use digital
things like matter, energy, spin, or electrical charge when you build your
analog computer.*


*Now that we've got those minor points out of the way we can start to build
your very own analog computer. *
*Step One: Repeal the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.*
*Step Two: Use any infinitely accurate measuring stick you have handy and
... *"


*...*

*John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260705/6f4daaec/attachment.htm>