<div dir="ltr">Brent,<div><br></div><div>Thank you, the video cleared it up for me then. So do you have no objection to multiple-realizability (the idea that different physical materials could in theory be used to construct minds that have identical mental states)?</div><div><br></div><div>Jason<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:53 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"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><br></div>Hi Jason,<br><br></div>I'm just talking in simplified qualitative terms to make communication easier to model what is and isn't important. that is the only reason I used the term grue to represent all the 99 million or whatever new colors that any particular tetrachromat can experience (surely they are not all the same).<br><br></div>Also, when i say that glutamate has the redness quality and glycene has the grenness quality, this too, is just simplified. I am describing what it would be like in a hypothetical world that only has 3 colors - red (glutamate), green(glycene), and white(aspartate). (see: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=AHuqZKxtOf4&t=30s</a>) I simply describe in that video that if there was such a world, how could the people in that world correctly see that in their simplified world that glutamate was the neural correlate of red (and not think it was white since glutamate reflects white light).<br><br></div>Then once a person can understand how this general correct qualitative interpretation theory works in the simplified world, they can use the same proper qualitative interpretation of abstracted data, in the real world - to finally not be qualia blind and finally discover what really has all the redness qualities any one of us can experience.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Brent<br><div><div><br><br><br><div><br></div></div></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jason Resch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jasonresch@gmail.com" target="_blank">jasonresch@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"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:15 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"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">I, like most
people, am a mere tetra chromate – I experience the world with 3 primary
colors.<span> </span>But some people are
tetrachromats, and do it with 4 primary colors.<span>
</span>Let’s call this 4<sup>th</sup> color “grue”.<span> </span>Obviously, all us tri chromats can hear the
person say things like: “No that is Grue, not one of the primary colors, as you
claim” and we can observe what is causing the 4<sup>th</sup> primary color,
including it’s neural correlate in their brains.<span> </span>In other words, like Frank Jackson’s
brilliant color scientist raised in a black and what room, us trichromats can
learn everything about grue, and see that it is not in our heads, but we can
see when the neurarl correlate of grue is in the head of a tetrachromat.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">In other
words, all of us normal trichromatic people are grue zombies.<span> </span>We can know and communicate everything about
them.<span> </span>In fact, we might even be able to
be trained to call the right things grue, just like the tetrachromat does, and
lie about it, and convince everyone else that we might be a
tetrachromat.<span> </span>(until you observe my
brain)<span> </span>So, until we enhance our primary
visual cortext and give it what has the grue color, we will never know how the
tetrachromat qualitatively interprets the word “grue”.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Now, some
people think of a “p-zombie” as something that is atomically identical to us,
but just doesn’t have the qualitative experience of consciousness – which of
course is very absurd, and very different than the grue type of zombie, I am,
who simply isn’t yet capable of producing the grue neural correlate in my brain.<span> </span>But I can represent grue with anything else
that is in my brain, and talk about it as if it was grue, in a grue zombie way.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>But no new neurotransmitters are required to experience grue.</div><div><br></div><div>Moreover, tretrachromats don't just see 1 new type of color, they can see 99 million new colors that us trichromats cannot see. This is because we can sense about 100 independent relative brightnesses for red green and blue colors, which allows 100x100x100 possible resulting colors (1 million colors). Tetrachromats get to see 100x100x100x100 or 100 million colors.</div><div><br></div><div>How can so many new colors come about if the neurocorolates are somehow dependent on specific chemicals in the brain? Tetrachromats don't have 100 times as many chemicals in their brain as trichromats have, yet they get to perceive 100 times as many qualia.</div><div><div class="m_-502044300747996808h5"><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
</div><div class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442HOEnZb"><div class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jason Resch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jasonresch@gmail.com" target="_blank">jasonresch@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">Reminds me a bit of "An Unfortunate Dualist":<div><br></div><div><a href="http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate-dualist.html" target="_blank">http://themindi.blogspot.com/2<wbr>007/02/chapter-23-unfortunate-<wbr>dualist.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>As to your puzzle, if Fred is unable to detect any effects from conscious people (including their reflections), then he should not be able to see his own reflection, but then he also shouldn't be able to hear his own thoughts either. Which might be your definition of a zombie, making him visible, etc. "Russell's reflection". However, Fred's own voice might still be heard if Fred's consciousness is an epiphenomenon, but I think practically speaking I think epiphenomenalism can be ruled out, together with the notion of p-zombies.</div><div><br></div><div>See Daniel Dennett's "The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies": <a href="https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm" target="_blank">https://ase.tufts.ed<wbr>u/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzom<wbr>bie.htm</a></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own definition".</span><sup id="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-cite_ref-Dennett1991_3-1" class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-reference" style="line-height:1;unicode-bidi:isolate;white-space:nowrap;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-Dennett1991-3" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:initial" target="_blank">[3]</a></sup><sup id="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-cite_ref-Dennett1995_4-1" class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-reference" style="line-height:1;unicode-bidi:isolate;white-space:nowrap;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-Dennett1995-4" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:initial" target="_blank">[4]</a></sup><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> He coined the term "zimboes" – p-zombies that have </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic" title="Second-order logic" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px" target="_blank">second-order beliefs</a><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> – to argue that the idea of a p-zombie is incoherent;</span><sup id="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-cite_ref-12" class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-reference" style="line-height:1;unicode-bidi:isolate;white-space:nowrap;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:initial" target="_blank">[12]</a></sup><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> "Zimboes think</span><sup style="line-height:1;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif">Z</sup><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> they are conscious, think</span><sup style="line-height:1;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif">Z</sup><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> they have qualia, think</span><sup style="line-height:1;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif">Z</sup><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> they suffer pains – they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!".</span><sup id="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-cite_ref-Dennett1995_4-2" class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215m_1977091709976841212gmail-reference" style="line-height:1;unicode-bidi:isolate;white-space:nowrap;font-size:11.2px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#cite_note-Dennett1995-4" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:initial" target="_blank">[4]</a></sup><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> </span><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure, however, whether your thought experiment sheds any new light on the concepts of consciousness or zombies. It seems like it may be only a reformulation of the "Barber Paradox", where the self reflexivity is a "power to detect only non-consciousness things", aimed at one's own consciousness.</div><span class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Jason</div></font></span></div><div class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215HOEnZb"><div class="m_-502044300747996808m_-7144455735653961442m_-3864089206699251215h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stuart LaForge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<Therefore, if the brain is a machine, and is finite, then an<br>
appropriately programmed computer can perfectly emulate any of its<br>
behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into one os three camps, on the<br>
question of consciousness and the computational theory of mind:<br>
Non-computable physicists [. . .]Weak AI proponents [. . .]<br>
Computationalists.<br>
<br>
Which camp do you consider yourself in?><br>
------------------------------<wbr>-------------<br>
<br>
As a general rule, I prefer not to go camping with philosophers as I<br>
prefer the rigor of science and mathematics. But if I must camp in that<br>
neck of the woods, I would set up my own camp. I would call it the<br>
Godelian camp after Kurt Godel. Since I am a scientist and not a<br>
philosopher, I will explain my views with a thought experiment instead of<br>
an argument.<br>
<br>
Imagine if you will a solipsist. Let's call him Fred. Fred is solopsist<br>
because he has every reason to believe he lives alone in a world of<br>
P-zombies.<br>
<br>
For the uninitiated, P-zombies are philosophical zombies. Horrid beings<br>
that talk, move, and act like normal folks but lack any real consciousness<br>
or self-awareness. They just go through the motions of being conscious but<br>
are not really so.<br>
<br>
So ever since Fred could remember, wherever he looked, all he could see<br>
were those pesky P-zombies. They were everywhere. He could talk to them,<br>
he could interact with them, and he even married one. And because they all<br>
act perfectly conscious, they would fool most anyone but certainly not<br>
Fred.<br>
<br>
This was because Fred had, whether you would regard it as a gift or curse,<br>
an unusual ability. He could always see and otherwise sense P-zombies but<br>
never normal folk. Normal folk were always invisible to him and he never<br>
could sense a single one. So he, being a perfect P-zombie detector, came<br>
to believe that he was the only normal person on a planet populated by<br>
P-zombies.<br>
<br>
Then one day by chance he happened to glance in a mirror . . .<br>
<br>
Does he see himself?<br>
<br>
I want to hear what the list has to say about this before I give my answer<br>
and my interpretation of what this means for strong AI and the<br>
computational theory of mind.<br>
<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<wbr>chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>