<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/1/2015 10:22 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAc1gFgCVN0cqsd9yaqBtLCi5_fw5nME6-8A0CHnFDY-j-S9EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:18 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 class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> If you ever discover any detectable
property that produces redness, that you didn't know had a
redness quality, before, your previous theory will have been
falsified and you must then simply alter your sets of
necessary and sufficient detectable properties, to include
the new property. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">### So you say the quality of redness
is possessed by any physical object (whether glutamate or
not glutamate) that produces the perception of redness. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">How is that not a circular argument?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The prediction is that there is some set of detectable properties
responsible for us geing aware of a greness quality, and that there
is another set that can be distinguished from this, that is
responsible for greness. Which one of these sciences proves is and
isn't redness defines it, and makes it not circular. If you are a
functionalist, as Stathis is, it does seem circular. But if you can
define any theoretically possible way to reliably detect what is
"functionally" responsible (even if that is a falsifiable way, which
can just be altered, till you get it right) then you will have the
grounding real definition, which makes it no longer circular.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAc1gFgCVN0cqsd9yaqBtLCi5_fw5nME6-8A0CHnFDY-j-S9EQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">-----------------------</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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"><span
class=""><br>
</span>
No, the prediction is that as long as you have not
replaced the binding neuron, nothing you present to it,
will ever say and know something has a redness quality,
without real redness. In other words, without real
glutamate, you will not be able to throw the switch,
between the simluated glutamate, and the real thing, and
reproduce the behavior saying the simulated glutamate is
the same as the real thing. </blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>### Almost all neurons are binding neurons. The neurons
that construct the perception of redness are in the V4
area, and respond the same both to physiological
(reflectance) and certain non-physiological
(monochromator) stimuli. Redness does not exist as a
property below the V4 area. Most cortical neurons have
glutamatergic synapses but only V4 neurons use
glutamatergic transmission to construct the quale of
redness. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Glutamate is a transparent, easily crystallizable
substance, and produces a pleasant taste when applied to
umami receptors in the mouth. It has no "redness" quality.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is great that you know so much about glutamate, neurons, and
all this stuff. It's fun to talk to smart people like this. But
you need to read the paper, and understand the "quale interpretation
problem" which explains exactly this. In it's crystal form,
glutamate reflects white light. But if we represent this with
something that is not glutamate, and has a whiteness quality, this
will simply be miss interpreting the qualitative nature of redness.
If you interperet glutamate, as not having any quale, as our
knowledge of transparent glutamate might make it seem, again,
thinking there is not qualitative property there, simply because of
the qualitative nature (or lack there of) of our knowledge, is
exactly the quale interpretation problem.<br>
<br>
Here is the link to the working draft of the paper for anyone that
does not have it yet:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vxfbgfm8XIqkmC5Vus7wBb982JMOA8XMrTZQ4smkiyI/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vxfbgfm8XIqkmC5Vus7wBb982JMOA8XMrTZQ4smkiyI/edit</a><br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>