<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Brent Allsop </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><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"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>You first want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate
*observable behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be
replicated." </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Yes exactly.</font></div><font size="4"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> Replicating intelligent behaviour was good enough for Evolution because unlike qualia Evolution can actually observe behavior, so it's good enough for me.</div></font></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">But even if I do agree with this, from how I see
things, it is still missing or removing some important
functionality. In the past you never want to move beyond this,</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Move</font></div><font size="4"> beyond this<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> to where? If qualia comes from intelligent behavior and if computer scientists can explain how to produce intelligent behavior then I don't see what more needs to be said on the scientific subject of qualia. I don't see what more could be said even in theory. </div></font></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"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The problem is, I can't
point out the required functionality being removed, until you first
understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative
theory. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">I don't know what that means. I know you want an answer but I don't even know the question. </font></div></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"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I can't yet accept this functionalist way of doing neuro
substitution.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">And yet I'll bet you </font></div><font size="4">accept <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the</div> functionalist way of doing <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">atomic</div> substitution<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> because otherwise you'd have to conclude that you are quite literally not the man you were last year and you are in fact last year's mashed potatoes. Neurons are made of atoms so if you accept atomic substitution why not neuro substitution?</div></font></div><div><font size="4"> </font></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"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Let's start on the subjective side of things,</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">That is a <b>TERRIBLE</b> place to start because you've only got one example of subjectivity and science is based on repeatability, so no viable scientific theory can result if you start from just one example. On the other hand you've got billions of examples of intelligent behavior right now, and if you look at the Evolutionary record you've got many trillions of examples, so that is the obvious place to start. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><div><br></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">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>So, given that we subjectively know that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> [...]</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">We? The only subjective knowledge of subjectivity that exists in the universe is </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">stuff that I, John K Clark have personally discovered. That's it, no exceptions.</font></div></div><div><br></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"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div> would you agree with the
following? There must be something that is performing the
functionality of the redness experience,</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Yes one of the many functions the human brain has is the ability to distinguish red from green, and the important thing about red and green is not their absolute value but simply the fact that they are different. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></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">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first
focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable
behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">I said it before I'll say it again, Evolution produced me and I am conscious and yet Evolution can't directly detect qualia in others any better than I can, therefore I conclude the logical place to start this investigation is by figuring out how observable intelligent behavior works. I don't know if you're conscious too but if you are then you should find this argument as compelling as I do. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></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">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you
replace the glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert
that the comparison neuron will behave the same, you are removing
the important comparison functionality,</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">I agree, but the brain is more than just one neuron. If you swapped the way a neuron responds to new red and green signals coming from your eyes without also changing how your memories are associated with red and green then you'd stop your car at green lights and drive through red ones.</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">John K Clark </div> </font></div><div><br></div><div><br></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"><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>