<div dir="ltr"><p style="font-size:12.8px">Brent Allsop wrote:</p><p style="font-size:12.8px">>> You, and john are completely missing the point, and making obvious mistakes (as it seems to me) by doing so, and not modeling things with anything in your theory that is redness, such that it is distinguishable from greenness. Can you not see that everything you are talking about is removing the ability to distinguish between anything that is redness and greenness. Remember, for Stathis, every time I use the word "glutamate" you should think of a pattern of neurons firing in a particular "functional" way, that is a redness experience. And you have a binding neuron that can detect the function that is redness, and tell when it is different than the a different set of neurons, functioning as a greenness experience. Remember, that nothing but this particular set of neurons, firing in exactly the right functional way, outputting the correct neurotransmitter at the right time will convince the binding neuron/system that it is redness, which is different than greenness. So, when you are representing redness with a 0 (anything that does not have redness), you must interpret this zero, back into the correct set of neurotransmitters being fed to the detecting neuron, in the right functional pattern. And all ones, anything that is not greeness, must be translated back to the identical functional set of synapses neurotransmitter firings, before the not yet replaced binding neuron will say: "Yes that is still redness". In other words, when you replace all the redness functions with ones, and all the greenness functions with zeros, they all must be translated back to the right set of functional synapses firing, and fed to the binding neuron, for it to say: That compost experience is made up of redness and greenness.</p><p style="font-size:12.8px"><br></p><p style="font-size:12.8px">>> The mistake in Stathis logic is revealed when he says things like: " It cannot possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything like its neighbouring redness glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech will all be firing in exactly the same way as before." Can you not see how this is removing any necessary functionality required to distinguish between redness and greenness? The binding system, whatever you theorize it might be, must be able to detect the difference between whatever it is that is doing the greenness function, and whatever is doing the gredness function, and whatever is doing a oneness function, and whatever it is that is doing the zeroness function. If you present anything to the binding system, without the proper interpretation mechanism, converting back to the real redness it can detect, it must be able to fire differently, saying that is not real redness. Otherwise you are removing the ability to distinguish between redness and greenness, whatever it is.</p><p style="font-size:12.8px"><br></p><p style="font-size:12.8px">>> Once you replace simple glutamate and glycene, with very complected things like sets of functioning neurons firing in a particular functional way, things become so complicated, you can't see the theoretical qualitative mistakes you are making. You must remember that your continued arguments against glutamate not being redness do not apply. As they only are redness and greenness in the idealized simplified theoretical world. As I've said many times, this has nothing to do with the obviously much more complex real world. It is just meant as a simplistic model, so you can think about the fact that there must be something that is doing the redness function and there must be something that is doing the greenness function. And there must be womething that can bind these two together into a composit qualitative experience that can say: "Yes, those are qualitatively different" - not fire in the same way, when they are substituted out and replaced with something else.</p><p style="font-size:12.8px"><br></p><p style="font-size:12.8px">>> Earlier, Stathis claimed: "But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the substituted part is behaviourally identical" In other words, you are saying that there is a way to distinguish between redness and greenness, as long as it is behaviorally identical. But you can't see the mistake you are making with this. If you swap anything being presented to the binding system, with anything that is not redness, especially a 1, it must say: "that is not redness" it cannot say it is redness, or behave in the same way. It must behave differently, otherwise it is not functioning correctly and not able to distinguish qualitative differences.</p><p style="font-size:12.8px"><br></p><p style="font-size:12.8px">Brent, you are ignoring the actual observable behaviour of glutamate in the neuron. In simplified summary, it is released from the presynaptic neuron, diffuses across the synapse, binds to glutamate receptors on the postsynaptic neuron, which causes the postsynaptic neuron to fire. That's it! That's all that a scientist will see if he examines it! The postsynaptic neuron and presynaptic neuron may be part of a binding system detecting red and green but the scientist is ignorant of any of this - all he is interested in is the observable behaviour of glutamate! Once he figures this out he can replace the glutamate with another substance that behaves the same way - diffuses across the synapse, binds to glutamate receptors and causes the postsynaptic neuron to fire. He tries glutamate analogue G1 but it's no good: it binds to the receptor but it is a larger molecule that diffuses too slowly across the synapse, changing the timing of the neural firing and hence the behaviour of the system. He tries another molecule, G2, which diffuses across the synapse at the right rate but doesn't bind to the receptor as well, again changing the timing of neural firing and the behaviour of the system. He tries yet another molecule, G3, which is just right - it diffuses across the synapse at the right rate and has the right affinity for the glutamate receptor. So he swaps glutamate for G3 and now all the glutaminergic neurons, and hence all the other neurons in the brain, fire in the same sequence as before. Our scientist is happy and he goes home to play computer games!</p><p style="font-size:12.8px">Given the above scenario, do you agree that all the neurons will fire in the same sequence? If you disagree, what is triggering them to fire differently that the scientist has failed to observe? Don't say "redness" or "the binding system" - what specific thing was the glutamate molecule doing that G3 is not doing, which the scientist missed?</p><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 March 2017 at 04:10, Brent Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Hi Stathis,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You, and john are completely missing the point, and making
obvious mistakes (as it seems to me) by doing so, and not modeling
things with anything in your theory that is redness, such that it
is distinguishable from greenness. Can you not see that
everything you are talking about is removing the ability to
distinguish between anything that is redness and greenness.
Remember, for Stathis, every time I use the word "glutamate" you
should think of a pattern of neurons firing in a particular
"functional" way, that is a redness experience. And you have a
binding neuron that can detect the function that is redness, and
tell when it is different than the a different set of neurons,
functioning as a greenness experience. Remember, that nothing but
this particular set of neurons, firing in exactly the right
functional way, outputting the correct neurotransmitter at the
right time will convince the binding neuron/system that it is
redness, which is different than greenness. So, when you are
representing redness with a 0 (anything that does not have
redness), you must interpret this zero, back into the correct set
of neurotransmitters being fed to the detecting neuron, in the
right functional pattern. And all ones, anything that is not
greeness, must be translated back to the identical functional set
of synapses neurotransmitter firings, before the not yet replaced
binding neuron will say: "Yes that is still redness". In other
words, when you replace all the redness functions with ones, and
all the greenness functions with zeros, they all must be
translated back to the right set of functional synapses firing,
and fed to the binding neuron, for it to say: That compost
experience is made up of redness and greenness.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The mistake in Stathis logic is revealed when he says things
like: " It cannot possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't
anything like its neighbouring redness glutamate", because the
neurons controlling speech will all be firing in exactly the same
way as before." Can you not see how this is removing any
necessary functionality required to distinguish between redness
and greenness? The binding system, whatever you theorize it might
be, must be able to detect the difference between whatever it is
that is doing the greenness function, and whatever is doing the
gredness function, and whatever is doing a oneness function, and
whatever it is that is doing the zeroness function. If you
present anything to the binding system, without the proper
interpretation mechanism, converting back to the real redness it
can detect, it must be able to fire differently, saying that is
not real redness. Otherwise you are removing the ability to
distinguish between redness and greenness, whatever it is.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Once you replace simple glutamate and glycene, with very
complected things like sets of functioning neurons firing in a
particular functional way, things become so complicated, you can't
see the theoretical qualitative mistakes you are making. You must
remember that your continued arguments against glutamate not being
redness do not apply. As they only are redness and greenness in
the idealized simplified theoretical world. As I've said many
times, this has nothing to do with the obviously much more complex
real world. It is just meant as a simplistic model, so you can
think about the fact that there must be something that is doing
the redness function and there must be something that is doing the
greenness function. And there must be womething that can bind
these two together into a composit qualitative experience that can
say: "Yes, those are qualitatively different" - not fire in the
same way, when they are substituted out and replaced with
something else.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Earlier, Stathis claimed: "But the comparison of redness and
greenness, or anything else whatsoever that the system does, will
necessarily occur provided only that the substituted part is
behaviourally identical" In other words, you are saying that
there is a way to distinguish between redness and greenness, as
long as it is behaviorally identical. But you can't see the
mistake you are making with this. If you swap anything being
presented to the binding system, with anything that is not
redness, especially a 1, it must say: "that is not redness" it
cannot say it is redness, or behave in the same way. It must
behave differently, otherwise it is not functioning correctly and
not able to distinguish qualitative differences.<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></p><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Brent<br>
</p></font></span><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731moz-cite-prefix">On 3/24/2017 8:36 PM, Stathis
Papaioannou wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Sat., 25 Mar. 2017 at 9:07 am, Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<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_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<p class="MsoNormal gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Hi Status,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<div class="gmail_extra gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">On Fri, Mar 24,
2017 at 2:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <span class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com" class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" target="_blank">stathisp@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><span class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882m_-3859957978643031897gmail- gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
</div>
</span>
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">I
think you imagine that if glutamate is
changed and glutamate is responsible for red
qualia, then distal parts of the system
(such as those reporting red qualia) will
change even if all the physical interactions
of the glutamate substitute are the same.
But that is impossible.</div>
<span class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882m_-3859957978643031897gmail- gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882m_-3859957978643031897gmail-m_-3454057986078481406gmail_msg gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"><br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<div class="gmail_extra gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
<p class="MsoNormal gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Ha, with
this I think I’ve caught you in another clear
example of the isolationist
mistake you are making.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">If glutamate
was redness, then the one neuron representing the
one voxel element
representing the one spot on the surface of the
strawberry, would be firing on
all of its many, maybe even tens of thousands of its
downstream synapses with
glutamate.<span class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"> </span>And
if you changed glutamate,
with glycene in any one of those synapses, the
entire system would be screaming:
“Wait, back up, that glycine isn’t anything like
it’s neighboring redness glutamate,
until you replace that incorrect glycine in that one
synapse, and interpreted
it qualitatively correctly, by interpreting it back
to real redness, um I mean
real glutamate.<span class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg"> </span>Then
you would have to
repeat this same problem, until you replace all the
glutamate, um a mean
redness detectors in the entire brain, all in one
big substitution step, and
only then replace the entire comparison system,
including all memory of
glutamate, I mean redness, with glycine.<span class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731m_-7220310328406744882gmail_msg">
</span>And only then, with that massive substitution
(it sucks how this massive
substitution requirement always gets left out of
your simplistic example),
would you finally be able to have it substituted to
be a qualia (or oneness and
zeroness) invert where greenness, and all memory of
such, has been replaced
with redness, (or oneness) and visa versa.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you replace glutamate with glycine then yes, the
whole system would be screaming that something was
terribly wrong, because glycine will have no effect on
glutamate receptors. Not only will any redness detection
function fail, but the whole brain will probably stop
working and the subject will die. That is why you have to
do a more elaborate replacement: glutamate with glycine,
glutamate receptors with glycine receptors (simplistically
- you have to also make sure that the glycine receptors
operate the same ion channels etc. as the glutamate
receptors). Once you do this, the whole brain will work in
the same way as before the substitution. It cannot
possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything
like its neighbouring redness glutamate", because the
neurons controlling speech will all be firing in exactly
the same way as before.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class="gmail-"><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-1587705144588357731moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<wbr>chat</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</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><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</div></div>