<div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div>Hi Kelly,<br><br></div><div>Communication is a two way street. So if I'm failing at communication, it is a problem with me, also. So thanks for trying, and not yet giving up!<br><br>
</div><div>Let's back up a bit, and be sure we are clear on some of the fundamentals. For example, do you agree that 'red' is an ambiguous term. It includes both the initial cause of the perception of 'red', like when the strawberry reflects something like 650 NM light. And it also includes a phenomenal quality, which is a quality of our knowledge of such. In other words, redness is a quality of the final result of the perception process. So, when we talk about 'red', you must distinguish between them, and know which one of these you are talking about!? Also, all the intermediate representations really have nothing to do with 'red' other than some intermediate physical media is being interpreted in an abstract way, as being red. Without the correct hardware interpretation layer, there is no 'red' anywhere in the light or the eye, other than the abstracted information it all is being interpreted as.<br>
<br></div><div>Brent Allsop<br><br><br></div><div><br><br><br><br><br></div><div><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Kelly Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kellycoinguy@gmail.com" target="_blank">kellycoinguy@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="h5">On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Brent Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Kelly Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kellycoinguy@gmail.com" target="_blank">kellycoinguy@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The old problem of telling whether another person is conscious in the same way you are is also an outstanding problem in my mind.<br>
</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">The emerging expert consensus is predicting, falsifiably so, exactly how we can 'eff' our way out of this. The expert consensus says that when you are looking at a strawberry patch, with a strawberry in your right field of vision, and a leaf in your left, there is something in your left hemisphere that is your knowledge of the strawberry, and something in your right hemisphere that is your knowledge of the leaf.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Your knowledge of the leaf, has a greenness quality to it, and, and your knowledge of the strawberry, has a redness quality to it. So, obviously, we simply need to find the necessary and sufficient causal properties, that are the correlate to, or causal properties of, these redness and greenness qualities. Then if you see these causal properties of knowledge, inverted in someone else, you know they have, whether designed that way or not, inverted quale from you.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">That's the 'weak' form of getting around the quale interpretation problem, or effing of the ineffable. Surely, the corpus Callosum is some how joining these two hemispheres of knowledge, together, so you can be aware of the redness, and the greenness, at the same time, and know absolutely, more than you know anything, how they are qualitatively different. The next obvious step, is to design it so our brains can be merged together, just like two hemispheres can be hooked together, so both minds can be aware of the exact same knowledge, and it's correlated experiential qualities so both minds would then be experiencing - in a way that everyone would know, as surely what they are like. and that's the strong form of effing the ineffable.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>Brent Allsop<br></font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>Brent, I've read your descriptions in this area before. I like you as a human being. I truly do. And I try REALLY hard to understand what you are saying every time. I really do. But for some reason, my brain can't translate what you say on this subject into any sort of coherence. I guess what I can say is that I don't know what the ef you are talking about. I'm sure the problem is totally in my brain, not yours.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>-Kelly</div><div><br></div></font></span></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>