<div dir="ltr">Yikes. I'm currently finding it hard to attend here... up to my armpits in my cellular automata work. I'll try and be brief and attend to the comments in a general sense. It's sat morn here downunder. Time out. <br><br><div>The big one.</div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">I can use John
Clark’s remarks as a launching place….<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">“Science is
empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter, if the behavior
of 2 things is identical then it would be impossible by definition to
distinguish between them scientifically, …”</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">OK.
Sorry John, but this is where my blood boils? Don’t take this personally. I
have been watching this issue in detail for 15 years. When is the penny gonna
drop? This very comment goes on and on and on and on in many different forms
all over the place ….and nothing ever shifts and the same mistake gets made
over and over and over. FFS.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><Deep
breaths> quasi rant-time.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">In
exactly what way does this OBSERVING happen? It happens in the subjectivity of
the ‘scientific observer’. The first person perspective (1PP) of the scientist.
In the unique context of explaining qualia…. That first person perspective is
both presupposed (the observer is being presupposed) and the explanandum!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">You
cannot have objectivity without subjectivity. Subjectivity SUPERVENES on
objectivity. What do you think you are objectifying an ‘object’ out of??
SUBJECTIVITY! (as contents of)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">That
being the brutal fact of being a scientist, you are then forced to admit that
subjectivity is actually _more_ ‘evidenced’ than anything else in the history of
science and has been evidenced in every scientific observation ever made in the
entire history of science. Furthermore the “evidence” is more certain than any
claim about the ‘objective observation’ (sorry </span><span style="font-family:"segoe ui emoji",sans-serif">😝</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">)
of the _contents_ of a 1PP.’<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Can
you (the group I mean) not see this? Isn’t it obvious?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">==============METAPHOR<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Claiming
that qualia are not evidenced is EXACTLY like claiming that movies don’t
evidence a movie projector. Do you ‘see the movie projector’ when imbued by a
movie? Would you expect to? Of course not!!! Yet that projector is evidenced
nonetheless! <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">At
the same time, the broken stupidity of the arguments say that the only thing
that is real is the _contents_ of the picture (say X) on the movie screen! How
stupid is this? The ‘scientific evidence’ of X provided in a movie about X is
less certain than the evidence that there is a movie projector. In the case of
qualia we are required to explain the existence and nature of the movie
projector … by observing the movie? Crazy crap. Why is simply realising there
is a movie not evidence of a movie? And that when that projector is shut down,
all evidence of X goes with it!! 100% every time. Is this really that hard to
get your brain around?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The
projector is qualia physics and the movie is the represented contents of the
qualia. ….. the scientific evidence and
the ‘contents of scientific observation’ part company! That’s all that happens.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">At
the very heart of this is utter bullshit: That somewhere engraved on a cultural
rock from on high, that no one is ever trained in, is not written down,
examined or reviewed – EVER – we identify ‘evidence’ with ‘contents of the 1PP’.
This is nothing but a blindly followed “</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Science is
empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter…” unquestioned acculturation. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Can
you now see this? The group I mean. Is it really that hard? <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">END OF METAPHOR ======================<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">We go on and on and on about the
‘lack of observation of qualia’ while demanding it be used on the pain of the
science being thrown out (because OBJECTIVITY didn’t happen) when the _evidence_
of an observer (and therefore qualia) is completely missed … is the existence
of the possibility of objectivity in and of itself.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">What does it take to out this
bizarre blockage?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">In the case of X = qualia there
is an almost breathtaking confusion between the existence of “scientific
evidence of X” and the “existence of X as contents of consciousness objectified
out of consciousness”.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">What would be the “evidence” of a
scientific observer? That’s what the evidence of qualia is. Of course the
qualia are not observable as “contents of the subjectivity of the assumed
observer”. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">But that does not mean they are
not evidenced. SCIENTISTS are the scientific evidence of qulia. Brutally
reinforced with every observation ever made. Not only that, it’s scientifically
testable! The evidence is ‘laws of the appearances of nature by a presupposed
observer utterly dependent on subjectivity for observation’. Take the
subjectivity away? NO SCIENCE.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Scientists have to be evidence of
something? Don’t we? FFS why are we NOT evidence of qualia? Do we operate by
magic? Must we have a sacred line drawn around ourselves?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">So infuriating! Do I really have
to say this again? Isn’t it bloody obvious? Is there something wrong with me?
Why do I even have to say this?<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The explanandum we seek is NOT
OBSERVABLE but it is DEFINITELY
EVIDENCED. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">OK. Repeating repeating over and
over. Enough. <span style="font-family:"segoe ui emoji",sans-serif">😊</span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The real problem is the total
lack of the self-governance of scientific behaviour.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span> </span></p><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><br>=====================<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com" target="_blank">stathisp@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail-"><div>On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 8:34 am, Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div>Hi Stathis,<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><span class="gmail-">You said: "You talk about a 'detectably different behaviour awareness' but you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same." But I only said it would be the same for external behavior that can be qualia blind, like, picking strawberries. If you include the internal behavior or the qualitative behavior of the knowledge itself that is required when asking questions like: "Does your knowledge of red behave like my redness, or like my greenness?" the behavior will be opposite for the invert.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're contradicting yourself here because you previously agreed that the *observable behaviour* will be the same. Speaking is *observable behaviour*. This is why I have been labouring the point and emphasising it with asterisks! So the subject will not only pick the strawberries, he will also say the strawberries look red exactly as they did before the substitution, even if all or half of his visual qualia associated with the strawberries have turned green, or disappeared altogether leaving him blind.</div><div><div class="gmail-h5"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">And since you will be able to tell the difference when half of the glutamate has been replaced with glycene, before replacing the single awareness neuron, all the glycene that has been substituted for glutamate will have to be interpreted back to glutamate to be fed to the not yet replaced binding neuron that binds all the knowledge together to make one composite experience be the same. As you said, you will not be able to replace any of the glutamate, being fed to the binding system (as you will be aware of the difference), until you replace the entire binding system with something that knows how to interpret glycerine, and behave as if it was glutamate.<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">If the binding system that enables you to experience all your diverse knowledge as one compositely experience is more complex than one neuron, describe whatever different way you will achieve the singular composite experience. With that we will be able to predict in a falsifiable way, exactly when the qualia will dance (until you correctly provide interpretation hardware that will interpret that which is not red, as if it was), and you will only be able to finally reproduce the same external behavior when the entire binding system has been substituted - resulting in a detectable (via whatever binding system you use) qualia invert.<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div>Brent<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></div><div class="gmail_extra gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></div><div class="gmail_extra gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" target="_blank">stathisp@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></div><div class="gmail_extra gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 4:25 am, Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div>Hi Stathis,<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">You said:<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">"Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I
have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution
were made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as
the neural component you think is essential for particular qualia."</div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this specific question:<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></span><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">If changing the glutamate receptors changes red qualia to green, then changing the receptors in half the brain should invert the qualia that half of the brain is responsible for. So if the subject sees a field of strawberries after the change, one half if the strawberries will look red and the other half will look green. Yet the subject will not notice a change, and will tell you that all the strawberries look red, just as before. Or to change the experiment slightly, as a result of some neural substitution all of the visual qualia disappear, but the subject doesn't notice, continues to describe red strawberries as before, and is able to pick the strawberries as before. Would you still insist that the qualia have been inverted or eliminated even though the subject can notice no internal difference and the experimenter can notice no external difference? In what sense is a change in qualia a change if there is neither a subjective nor objective difference?</div><span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></span><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">You talk about a "detectably different behaviour awareness" but you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same.</div><span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind.<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative knowledge of green."</div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></span><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">That would be difficult, if I can't even notice when my own qualia change or disappear!</div><span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></span><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">You've said you don't find it problematic that qualia might be associated with a substance but you do find it problematic that they might be associated with a process. I don't see why you would have this intuition.</div><span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095HOEnZb gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><font color="#888888" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095m_1810488617786107973gmail_msg gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div></div></div></blockquote></font></span></div></div><span class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862m_-2817513297730353095HOEnZb gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><font color="#888888" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">-- <br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</font></span><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
extropy-chat mailing list<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg"></blockquote></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
extropy-chat mailing list<br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailm<wbr>an/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br class="gmail-m_7858035995648571108m_3159009692097725862gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div></div></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></div></div></div>