<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 5:58 PM, 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><br></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">
<p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The single binding neuron, like glutamate, is just a simplified
theoretical (i.e. testable) theory that will surely can be easily
proven wrong. <p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">How? Explain how a theory that glutamate produces a subjective state at all in somebody other than me can ever be proven or disproven; let alone that it is identical to a specific qualia like mine, such as greenness. </font></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"><p> </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>It simply represents a required functional part of
consciousness,<p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="4">If it's not a functional </font></font><font size="4">part of consciousness then it's not a part of consciousness, and if it is not a part of intelligent behavior then Evolution could not have produced it. And yet I have that part because I am unquestionably conscious, and perhaps you are too. Therefore you must either conclude that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligent behavior or explain how this consciousness producing but not intelligent behaving part came into existence, because I know for fact it did at least once and probably did so trillions of times.</font></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"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>When people do
a traditional neural substitution, they end up removing this
required critical functionality, causing all the hard problems. <p></p></div></blockquote><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">If at the end of the day the neuron ends up functioning identically in the way it treats other neurons then what on earth was so "critical" about the "functionality" that was removed? </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">What function did it have and why should other neurons or anybody else miss it? And I still want to know why you remain the same person you were last year even though all the atoms in your neurons have been substituted. </div></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"><p> </p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>everyone will
know, via subjective and objective observation what is going on at
every step of the neuro substitution.</div></blockquote><div> </div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">The only subjective observation I have ever done or will ever do is on myself, and if you are conscious then the </font></div><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">only subjective observation </font><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">you </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">have ever done or will <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">ever</div> do is on</font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">yourself; if you are not conscious then you have never even done that, you have never observed subjectivity in anything. Other than your word I have no evidence that you are conscious even if I somehow knew you were not trying to deceive me. Maybe you sincerely believe you are conscious but what you think of as "consciousness" has little relationship to the grand and glorious consciousness of John K Clark. Or maybe it's the other way around, your consciousness is like a supernova while mine is like a pale firefly. Maybe maybe maybe.... nobody knows and nobody will ever know so let's move on to something that, with a lot of effort, we actually can know, like how intelligent behavior works. </font></div></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"> John K Clark</font></div></div><font size="4"><br></font></div><br></div></div>