<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:02 AM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@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 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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p></p><div 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 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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p> </p><div 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><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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div 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 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 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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p> </p><div 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 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 style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">you </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">have ever done or will <div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">ever</div> do is on</font><div 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 style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div 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>
<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 class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">..... and once again .... here we go ....</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">"ever know so let's move on to something that, with a lot of effort, we actually can know, like how intelligent behavior works."</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">.... in the eyes of a presupposed observer utterly dependent on subjective experience to be an observer, while assuming that a 100% grip on 'intelligent behaviour' can occur without dealing with subjectivity while using it to sort out how intelligent behaviour works! ... while subjectivity is clearly and obviously deeply involved in any ability to be intelligent at all and to observe anything at all and the whole of science is critically dependent on it in a verifiable way.</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">And around we go......</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Until we move and discuss our ideas on what science is, and start to systematise the difference between "observing something with subjectivity (scientific observation)" and "having scientific evidence of subjectivity", </span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">this discussion will still be going in another 70 years.</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Something has to change! That something is SCIENCE. Science has to realise the difference between (a) characterising what the universe is made of and (b) characterising how that universe appears to work when you are made of that something (a scientific observer inside it). If the solution to the problem of consciousness is in (a) and all you ever do is (b) "...like how intelligent behaviour works" you are royally screwed forever!</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">We have to deal with subjectivity. It's real. It's central to everything in science and arguably presupposed while being an explanandum .... and thereby runs rings around a science that presuppposes it. </font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">The time for this endless bullshit to stop is now.</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">colin</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"> </span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div></div>