<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Oh
great.<span> </span>Thanks, James, for this
reply.<span> </span>I realized after I sent my post, that
I left a few important things out, and you are clearly pointing these omissions
out.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">The difference
is that computer functional logic is all implemented above and abstracted away
from the quality of the physical hardware level.<span> </span>All representations have a translation or transduction
system that physically translates between all the different physical
representations, so they can all be thought of or function as 1s and 0s.<span> </span>But we are different.<span> </span>The physical quality of our representations
is all important, and included in all of the comparison and intelligent
processing systems.<span> </span>With us, we can be
aware of and reflect on what they are like, but with a computer, all that is abstracted
away by all the hardware translators.<span>
</span>So, true Chalmers admitted that the fading / dancing qualia is a possibility,
and this is exactly what this theory predicts will happen.<span> </span>If the comparison system can detect a
phenomenal quality of positive voltages and zero voltages, then there will be
dancing qualia, as you make the substitution.<span>
</span>If there is no qualia at all, it will be fading qualia.<span> </span>Except that qualitatively, you will be able
to tell with the first comparator substitution.<span> The prediction is that you will never be able to construct any of the comparitors to say glutamate is the same as +5 volts. </span><span></span>So you will not be able to “flip the switch”
between the first comparator substitution, and not see a difference between
them.<span> </span>True, you will be able to replace
everything, and eventually it will start functioning entirely identically.<span> </span>But,
as the wave of conversion progresses
partially along, this theory is predicting there will clearly be dancing
/ fading qualia, until everything is replaced and the quality of the
representations becomes entirely irrelevant - abstracted away from the quality of the physical layer - everyone admitting that there is clearly a big difference due to the dancing / fading qualia as you progressed to the eventually completely identical behavior.<br></p>
<br><div class="gmail_extra">Brent Allsop<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:52 PM, James Carroll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jlcarroll@gmail.com" target="_blank">jlcarroll@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 class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Brent Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
With that, you should be able to see the flaw in this neural
substitution logic. </div></blockquote><div><br><br></div></span><div>Why? <br><br></div><div>I don't yew see how your discussion of translation leads to a flaw in the logic. You may have a point, but I am failing to grasp it given what you have written above.<br><br></div><div>First, it appears that your comparator neuron fires when the inputs are the same... so that is implementing a -XOR, rather than an XOR (which fires if they are different), but that is trivial. I will just assume you meant not XOR. <br></div><div><br></div><div>So, if I understand you correctly, we have two neuro-transmitters, g and a, with you so far. We then have a comparator neuron C... with you so far... and two input neurons A and B... with you so far... C fires if A and B both dump the same neurotransmitter, and don't fire if they dump different neurotransmitters. Is that correct? <br><br>Now I replace one of those input neurons, A, (and potentially other neurons on the upstream side of A) with a mechanical copy A_m... then I put a translator on the output of neuron A_m at the input to comparator C. The translator dumps chemical g if the output of A_m is a 1, and chemical a if the output of A_m is a 0. This is necessary for A_m to properly talk to C in the same way that A did before. Ok... good so far. Now C fires if it gets chemical g from both inputs A_m (translated) and B, or chemical a from both inputs A_m(translated) and B. Now C's behavior is identical both before and after A was replaced with A_m. <br><br></div><div>Now we can continue down the chain... I can now replace C with C_m.. now no translation between A_m and C_m is needed, but a new translation step is needed between B and C_m, as well as between C_m, and whatever it's output is hooked to... let's call that D. Now I must translate between C_m and D. So... as I expand the number of neurons that are replaced with mechanical versions (_m neurons), there is a translation step needed between each neuron that is mechanical, and each that isn't. You can think of this as an expanding wave of mechanical neurons, with a translation step at the edge of the wave. As this wave moves across the brain, the brain's behavior remains unchanged. But IF consciousness is tied to the substrate, the consciousness of the brain is changing, while it's behavior is not changed. This is the concept of fading and "dancing" qualia that Chalmers described in his paper. <br><br>And if you believe in fading and dancing qualia, then you believe in a form of qualia that is essentially epiphenomenal! But my qualia are NOT epiphenominal. They impact my behavior... For example, I say "red is beautiful" because my qualia of red affects my decision to say that. If you substitute a few neurons in my brain, and I STILL say "red is beautiful"... then I still have the qualia of red, and it hasn't faded. <br><br></div><div>I fail to see how your discussion of the comparator neuron changes this in any significant manner... it's just an example of exactly what we have been describing all along. <br></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>James<br></div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="m_-5687582813161951869HOEnZb"></span><br></div></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br><div class="m_-5687582813161951869gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Web: <a href="http://james.jlcarroll.net" target="_blank">http://james.jlcarroll.net</a></div>
</font></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>