<div dir="ltr">Hi Brent<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></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"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<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">>> And I still don't think you answered
my question about consciousness being fundamental. </blockquote></div></div></span></div></blockquote><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class=""><br></span>> I guess I just don't understand what you are asking, then. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm saying that eventually you will get to "consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed", and after that it would be pointless to ask how data actually does it because "consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed" is the end of that chain of "how" questions, that chain is not infinitely long but eventually reaches a brute fact and terminates, eventually it reaches something fundamental.</div><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">> Because
the prediction is that the brute fact will be proven that something
in our brain has a fundamental redness quality.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would agree with that except I'd substitute "mind" for "brain" because mind is what a brain does, and I know with a certainty far beyond any need of proof that mind, or at least one mind, can produce redness. </div><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"><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"><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="">>>> Everything behaves the same, at least until you ask them:
"What is red like for you". </span></blockquote><span class=""> <br></span><span class="">>> And one of them would say "red is what gives black
contrast, without it vision would be useless", and the
other one would say "I understand completely, in my
language we call that white". </span></blockquote></blockquote><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"><br></blockquote><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>> I guess if you can't see all the obvious mistakes and confusion in
these kinds of statements, and how "calling" something white (White
is a piece of zombie information), has nothing to do with the
quality being called "white",</div></div></div></div></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not confused, I understand exactly what you're saying, I'm just saying you're wrong. In another post you talked about putting on red and green inverting glasses and you said and I agreed, that things would look very strange when I first put them on because they contradicted previous memories. Then you said, and I agreed, that after a period of time my mind would reassign all those huge number of memory associations and nested links so that they were no longer contradictory and things would look normal again. </div><div><br></div><div>However you then said "but you will know that your knowledge is very qualitatively different than before you put on those glasses". If all the links have been rearranged where was that knowledge stored? If I followed the nerves in your tongue that make it create the noise "things looked different in the past" where did they originate? It can't be anyplace in the brain as all those links have been changed, so your only option is to invoke the soul. As for me I don't believe the tongue would make that noise because I don't believe in the soul, although I do believe that information is as close as you can get to the traditional idea of the soul and still stay within the scientific method. </div><div><br></div><div>Well... actually to tell the truth I am a bit confused, I'm still not clear what "zombie red" is. And if I receive a sequence of binary digits how can I determine if it's zombie information or non-zombie information? </div><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">> we are not talking about
smoething being tagged, but the qualitative nature of the tag,</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I understand that also, you're interested in the tag itself and I am too, it's a very interesting tag. And I'm saying that every single objective property of that tag and, much more important, every single SUBJECTIVE property of that tag comes ONLY from it's association with previous memories and links. Redness IS the memories and links.</div><br><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">> Isn't all that matters is the following? The prediction is that we
will be able to develop the ability to throw a switch turning on a
new hack in your brain, and when we do this, you will for the first
time, experience a new blue you have never experienced before. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Humans can see about 10 million colors, beyond that 2 colors are too similar for us to tell apart. If a transhuman wished to have better color discrimination he would need to see more than 10 million colors, and so obviously he would subjectively experience more colors than we do. </div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><div><br></div><br></div></div></div>