[ExI] Red

[Brent Allsop]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 3:34 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 3:37 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> *> There is 'red' light with a set of constant physical properties. We
>> label the constant and different physical property of the tomato as 'red'
>> because it reflects 'red' light. Shining different light on the tomato
>> doesn't change those constant physical properties.*
>>
>
> *I agree with every word in the above, but I thought your main interest
> was subjective properties like qualia, not physical properties.  *
>
> *> I have answered it, I'm just describing a different model than the
>> functionalist model.*
>
>
> *Yeah, you just gave a clear unambiguous answer to my question and I agree
> with it completely, but that's not surprising because you used the exact
> same model that I did, the functionalist model.  *
>
> *> You can't answer the many 'hard' and contradictory questions like this
>> in the functionalist model. *
>
>
> *Name one! *
>

The issue you brought up right here.  To a functionalist, the strawberry is
'red', the light is 'red' the image on the reina is 'red' - everything is
red.  But when you introduce inversion, red, blue, and black like this you
don't know what to do.
You can deal with it using dictionaries though - as is required for all
substrate independence.

And have you ever heard of the neural
<https://canonizer.com/topic/79-Neural-Substitution-Argument/1-Agreement?>substitutuion
issue
<https://canonizer.com/topic/79-Neural-Substitution-Argument/1-Agreement?>,
to name another conundrum functionalists think is not a fallacy?
Oh, and the entire 'hard problem' of conscoiusness is only a hard problem
for functionalists - functionalists have no way to eff the ineffable (so
you just give up and say you shouldn't attempt it).



> *John K Clark*
> 3vf
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 10:45 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 11:44 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> To me this question reveals why you are so confused.  The only thing
>>>> that matters is the quality of the knowledge, which is black.  Everything
>>>> else is unrelated, or at best causally upstream from the quality of this
>>>> black knowledge rendered by our perception system.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That's all very nice but you haven't answered my question, I will
>>> repeat it.  If something with the "red quality" is illuminated with blue
>>> light it will subjectively look black, does it still have the red quality
>>> or does it now have the black quality? *
>>>
>>> *> You always focus on everything but what matters.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *You are the one who introduced the idea that ripe tomatoes have a "red
>>> quality" , not me. All I want to know is, do those ripe tomatoes still have
>>> the "red quality" if they are being illuminated with blue light? The
>>> question is clear and could be answered with a simple yes or no. *
>>>
>>> * John K Clark*
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260706/458865e4/attachment.htm>