<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:20 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><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"> <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 dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div> It is true,
that we are “computers”, but there is a qualitative difference between the way
we do computations (and more specifically, the way we represent knowledge) and
abstracted computers do it.<span> </span></div></blockquote><div> </div><font size="4">I don't know about "we" but I represent the red qualia with the <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">ASCII sequence</div> "red qualia" in the same way I represent the Pythagoras theorem<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> with the ASCII sequence "</div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Pythagoras theorem<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">". And they both involve memory and arbitrary convention.</div></font></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><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 dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Obviously,
an abstracted word like “red” does not have a redness quality we can
experience.<span> </span><p></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">When discussing qualia like "redness" the personal pronoun "we" should never be used unless the working assumption is made that if something, human or otherwise, behaves as if it is experiencing redness then it really is. </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 dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>All the information
represented in abstracted computers is made up of the type of abstracted knowledge
that is the word red.<span> </span><p></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">How can knowledge of qualia or of anything else be encoded into a brain, human or otherwise, if that knowledge is not abstracted?</font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"> John K Clark</font></div><br></div><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail-m_-948995877564253576HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_-948995877564253576h5"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div>