<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail-gE gmail-iv gmail-gt" style="font-size:12.8px"><table cellpadding="0" class="gmail-cf gmail-gJ"><tbody><tr class="gmail-acZ"><td class="gmail-gF gmail-gK" style="width:229px"><table cellpadding="0" class="gmail-cf gmail-ix" style="width:229px"><tbody><tr><td><h3 class="gmail-iw"></h3></td></tr></tbody></table>Brent Allsop wrote:</td><td class="gmail-gH"><br></td><td class="gmail-gH"><br></td><td class="gmail-gH gmail-acX" rowspan="2"><br></td></tr><tr class="gmail-acZ gmail-xD"><td colspan="3"></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 March 2017 at 09:37, 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"><span class="gmail-"><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 dir="ltr"><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"><div><div class="gmail-m_-6382776672831583818h5"><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">I keep
answering these same question over and over again.<span> </span>Yes, I agree, given what you describe all the
neurons will fire in the same sequence and all behavior will be the same.<span> </span>But, despite me clearly answering this
question, you always seem to assume that I disagree.<span> </span>And you say: “Don't say "redness"
or "the binding system".<span> </span>But
I’m not saying “redness” or the “binding system” in the case you are
describing, where I agree with you, that everything will fire the same.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">The problem
is, we each keep talking about something completely different.<span> </span>“redness” or the “binding system” has nothing
to do with the incomplete scenario you are describing.<span> </span>You seem to think that because I’m trying to
talk about “redness” and the “binding system” that I disagree with you that
everything will fire the same, in your case.<span>
</span>I’m not doing this.<span> </span>I’m just
saying that “redness” and the “binding system” (which we know consciousness
has) has nothing to do with the simplistic scenario you are describing.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Perhaps it
will make things easier if we just focus on an objective view of things, and
ignore “redness” all together.<span> </span>The
system we want to “neuro substitute” is a glutamate detector.<span> </span>We artificially design a special detection
system that can compare a reference item (i.e. glutamate) with a second input
item being tested.<span> </span>It is a perfect
system, in that if you present real glutamate, it will always fire with a “this
is the same as the reference” signal.<span>
</span>Anything, that is not glutamate, will prevent the system from firing,
indicating they are not the same, or that it isn’t glutamate.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Now, this
kind of detection system is what we want to neuro substitute.<span> </span>The system you describe, always fires the
same, so the system you are neurosubstituting may not be performing the
necessary reliable detection of glutamate.<span>
</span>You seem to make the claim, that your system that always fires the same,
will be able to do things like do qualitative comparisons or detect real
glutamate.<span> </span>I agree with you, that if
everything behaves the same, that it will still be able to do qualitative
comparison, or detection of real glutamate.<span>
</span>So, I’m describing a bit more detail, about the system you are talking
about, so that it can perform the detection of real glutamate.<span> </span>But, no matter how I do this, you always
insist, that the system will not detect glutamate, as it will fire the same,
indicating it is glutamate, even when it is not glutamate.<span> </span>After the neuro substitution, in order for it
to function the same, it must still be able to reliably perform its necessary
function of detect real glutamate.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">All I’m
trying to say is, I agree with you, that if what you describe is true, it will
always function the same.<span> </span>All I’m doing,
is enhancing the description of the system, so that it can reliably detect real
glutamate.<span> </span>If you do this, and if the
system can reliably detect real glutamate, both before and after the
substitutuion, you won’t have hard problems, such as an overly simplistic
substitution seeming to prove there is no such thing as reliably detectable real
material glutamate.</p></blockquote></div><br>If the system is designed to detect real glutamate, and you change it so that it is not detecting real glutamate, then of course it will fail in its job to detect real glutamate. But that is the wrong question to ask. We are discussing qualia. Your theory is that glutamate is directly and uniquely responsible for red qualia, and therefore if the glutamate goes, the red qualia will go. What I am trying to show is that the glutamate can go but the red qualia will remain. Therefore, the glutamate cannot be directly and uniquely responsible for the red qualia.<br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</div></div>