<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Hi John,<br>
<br>
You've got to expand your theoretical world, at least a bit, if we
are going to communicate. In particular, your theoretical world has
no room for inverted or diverse elemental qualia. You think about
reality, and your knowledge of reality, as if they were the same
thing. The fact that you don't distinguish between the real world,
and your knowledge of such, is clear in all you say. You just
focus on the stuff that easily fits in you simplistic world, and
ignore the important stuff that doesn't fit in your world. You need
to focus on the stuff that doesn't fit, and expand your theoretical
world so it can accommodate them. As long as you insist on staying
in your simplistic world, I am not going to have much success in
talking to you.<br>
<br>
Let me show you what I'm thinking as I read this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/29/2015 10:17 PM, John Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:24 PM,
Brent Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>></span>
wrote:
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left"
align="left"><font face="times new roman, serif"
size="4"> > Would you agree that something,
detectable, is responsible for the elemental redness
quality you can experience?</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Yes, I
think that is a reasonable guess.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Whew, as usual, most people agree on the most important things.
They just quibble over and get lost in the details, while what we
agree on is ignored and lost in collator damage.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"> </font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left"
align="left"><font face="times new roman, serif"
size="4">> If so, what do you imagine it to
be? <br>
</font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oh Great! He believes the idea of a redness quality is reasonable,
and now he is going to tell me what he believes redness to be.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"><font size="4">I </font><font
size="4">believe in a theory that was historically
developed quite recently is probably true, namely that
there is a abstract thing called "650 nm light" that
turns on the REDNESS mechanism in human beings.</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Obviosly, but why is the focus about what is reasonable to believe
about REDNESS, suddenly switching to the causal, and zombie red?
Why is he talking as if these are all the same, and if they have
anything to do with what we are talking about?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"><font size="4">
But people believed in REDNESS long before they knew
that waves had anything to do with light or that
length had anything to do with red, and they were
entirely justified in having that belief. </font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly. We have always known, absolutely, that redness exists, and
how it is qualitatively different then greenness. But again, why
are you completely missing or ignoring what is important here, and
focusing on the completely unrelated causal and zombie red, and
thinking as if they have more to do with each other, than the switch
that happens to turn redness on an interpret 650 nm light as if it
had that quality? What happens if this switch is inverted, and it
turns greenness on? I guess he doesn't care about, and is trying to
ignore the fact that a person could be engineered so that red light
turns on grenness.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"><font size="4">People
should demand proof before they believe that wavelike
properties of light exist, but they don't need that
to believe that REDNESS exists because they have
something much better than proof, direct experience.</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly, as I said, above. We know that redness exists more surely
than we know 650NM light exists.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"><font size="4">
REDNESS is something that is very concrete, 650 nm
light is more abstract, and a theory with a further
layer of abstraction on top of that would be that
the 650 nm light is coming from a red tomato.</font></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Wait, now he is talking about his knowledge of the world, and
getting away from physical reality? Dang it. And he is still
making the mistake of thinking of these two drastically different
things, as if they were the same thing in his simplistic theoretical
view of the world. Your knowledge of 650 NM light is more
abstract. Real physical light is something that is very physically
real (not abstract), and has very detectable properties, possibly
qualitative, whether you are thinking of it abstractly, or
representing it's qualitative nature, or not.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Note: by
"abstract" I mean removed from direct experience, the
more removed the more abstract, I don't see what else
the word could mean. For example, the set of all Real
Numbers is abstract, the set of all subsets of the Real
Numbers is more abstract.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly. And all this "abstract" knowledge, must be represented by
something that is very physically real, detectable, and not
abstract. And a redness quality is less abstract than anything. It
is physically very literally real, and something, detectable, in
your brain, must be what has this quality. If you know something,
qualitatively, there must be something physical and detectable in
your brain that is this qualitative knowledge.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJPayv2qeGLZP-5UiB8XF5LV6aqWNsM1Arn+h2TB4SowRXHg8g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">But why
does the mind experience 650 nm light as a qualia? How
could it not, if the mind experiences a sensation then
it is a qualia by definition. I mean, how in the world
could we experience 650 nm light as 650 nm light?</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Why
does 650 nm light and 510 nm light produce different
qualia? Because Evolution found that the ability
to distinguish between red and green helped get its
genes into the next generation. </font></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly. So are you interested at all, in the fact that the switch
that turns on the qualia for 650 NM (red) light and the switch that
turns on the qualia for 700 nm (green) light can be inverted? And
that tetrachromats have a large palat of colors for their light to
turn on than the bichromats, or trichromats, and all the qualitative
natures of each is likely very different than what it is like for
you? (that is unless you are a tetrachromat) Are you interested,
at all, about what it will be like for future augmented omni
phenomenally engineered beings that instead of using 3 primary color
qualia, they use 300 drastically qualitatively very different
elemental color qualia?<br>
<br>
Brent<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>