<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Hi Stuart,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Everything you say indicates you are
mapping all of the qualitative physics of perception into a simple “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism" style="color:blue">Naïve realism</a>”
model of reality. Everything you say
indicates everything you read of mine, is also being mapped into this simple “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism" style="color:blue">Naïve realism</a>”
model of reality. When I say redness, you think this has the same definition as red. You never distinguish between these two words. </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">I see no evidence in anything
that you say, that you understand anything more complex than a “</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;color:blue">Naïve realism</a><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">”
model of reality.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">So I don’t understand
how you can claim to disagree with me, when you show no indication that you
understand anything more than a simple “</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;color:blue">Naïve realism</a><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">”
model of reality.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">If you have read “<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing" style="color:blue">Objectively,
We are Blind to Physical Qualities</a>” what are the physics of “inverted
qualia” as described in that document? and Why
does Jack Galant admit that his method of deriving color for his “mind red” videos
problematic?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Brent</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stuart LaForge <<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com">avant@sollegro.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"><br>
There is no such thing as qualia blindness. We can use as many words <br>
for red as you want. We can both look at a fire truck and I might see <br>
scarlet or crimson while you might see maroon or candy-apple . . . how <br>
does that matter? Does that explain anything at all about either <br>
consciousness or intelligence? Even if my red quale was more similar <br>
to your green quale, how does it matter? What difference does it make? <br>
If it makes no difference, then it is not informative.<br>
<br>
Also you have a tendency to mistake people who disagree with you for <br>
people who don't understand you and that is a rude supposition. One <br>
that is not very enlightened and does little but alienate others.<br>
<br>
You can't detect those qualitative differences by any known science <br>
because qualitative differences are decided by minds and don't <br>
actually exist in nature. There is no natural cutoff between red and <br>
orange. You decide if something is red or orange. Early on in your <br>
development your brain decided on a "filehandle" for the color red and <br>
has been using it every since. That "filehandle" has no physical <br>
significance outside of your skull. To call someone or something <br>
"qualia blind" is like calling them "fairy blind" or "unicorn blind" <br>
in that it is absurd.<br>
<br>
And your assertion that I have not read your paper "Objectively,We are <br>
Blind to Physical Qualities” is incorrect. I have read it several <br>
times and every time I read it, it makes me doubt you understand the <br>
definition of the words "objective" and "quality". Qualities are only <br>
physical in the sense that information is physical. In any system of <br>
particles there is much more information in the relationships between <br>
particles then there are in the particles themselves. You are hung up <br>
looking for redness in particles of glutamate and greenness in <br>
particles of glycine but really qualia don't exist in particles, <br>
qualia exist in how those particles interact in the context of your <br>
nervous system.<br>
<br>
<br>
Also you have been saying the same thing for over ten years whereas my <br>
views have evolved and changed over the years. So quit acting like <br>
your oversimplified model of color perception is some brilliant <br>
philosophical insight that is too subtle for people like me to <br>
understand.<br>
<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting Brent Allsop:<br>
<br>
> Once you figure out what “qualia blindness” means, you will look <br>
> back on these conversations and, like all people that do now <br>
> comprehend qualia blindness (including some on this list), you will <br>
> wonder how you could have missed what should be obvious, for so <br>
> long. At least you are still persisting. Many people give up <br>
> before they get this far. Many people that finally get it <br>
> experience this. In order to not be qualia blind,you need to use <br>
> more than just one word “red” when talking about the perception of <br>
> color and mind reading. If you only have one word for “red” you <br>
> can’t model when someone is representing red information, with <br>
> something physically different like your greenness.<br>
> Obviously, Both Galant and Nemrodovet al, are doing mind reading. <br>
> What youare completely missing is how both of these guys and <br>
> everyone doing this kindof mind reading is doing it in a qualia <br>
> blind way. The spatiotemporal EEG information theyare getting is <br>
> just abstract information, completely devoid of any colorquality <br>
> information. In order to display mind read colors on the screen, <br>
> from the abstract data, they need some additional informationto tell <br>
> them when to display what color. If they are qualitatively <br>
> interpreting thedata at all (gallant does this - displaying colored <br>
> images, Nemrodov isn’t – he displays no color intheir resulting face <br>
> recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blindsthem to <br>
> any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting.<br>
> Jack Gallant uses the<br>
> color map in the movie he shows to know how to <br>
> qualitativelyinterpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is <br>
> effectivelyinterpreting it according to the properties of the <br>
> initial cause of perception(the physical properties of the <br>
> strawberry out there), not the physicalqualities of what they are <br>
> observing (knowledge of the strawberry, in thebrain). Their deep <br>
> learning neuralnetwork algorithms have unique models for each <br>
> person. These models “correct” for any physical differences they <br>
> detect in individual brains, so theyonly see “red”, when in realty <br>
> they may be detecting greenness, and correctingfor this difference <br>
> making their mind reading qualia blind.<br>
<br>
> You obviously haven’t yet red the “Objectively,We are Blind to <br>
> Physical Qualities” paper which describes exactly this in more detail.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stuart LaForge <<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Quoting Brent Allsop:<br>
><br>
><br>
>> There are ?week?, ?stronger? and ?strongest? forms predicting how we will<br>
>> be able to eff the ineffable nature of the physical quality of the redness<br>
>> someone can directly experience to other people in this ?Objectively, We<br>
>> are Blind to Physical Qualities<br>
>> <<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing</a>>?<br>
>> paper.<br>
><br>
> Your paper references Jack Gallant's work but what you call "effing" <br>
> technology is more popularly called "mind-reading technology" you <br>
> should see what they have accomplished with fMRI and deep-learning <br>
> algorthms these days. One of the pioneers in the field is now able to <br>
> use your EEG(!) fed into a deep learning neural network to reconstruct <br>
> the faces you are seeing during the experiment.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data</a><br>
><br>
>> You are basically making the falsifiable prediction that consciousness or<br>
>> qualia arise from mathematics or functionality. This kind of functionalism<br>
>> is currently leading in supporting sub camps to representational qualia<br>
>> theory, there being multiple functionalists? sub camps, with more<br>
>> supporters than the materialist sub camps.<br>
><br>
> So the question now becomes can an algorithm reconstruct your qualia <br>
> from your brain-wave data without itself experiencing them?<br>
><br>
>> So, let?s take a simplistic falsifiable mathematical theory as an example,<br>
>> the way we use glutamate as a simplified falsifiable materialist example.<br>
>> Say if you predict that it is the square root of 9 that has a redness<br>
>> quality and you predict that it is the square root of 16 that has a<br>
>> greenness quality. In other words, this could be verified if no<br>
>> experimentalists could produce a redness, without doing that particular<br>
>> necessary and sufficient mathematical function that was the square root of<br>
>> 9.<br>
>> But, if the prediction that it is glutamate that has the redness physical<br>
>> quality that can?t be falsified, and nobody is ever able to reproduce a<br>
>> redness experience (no matter what kind of mathematics you do) without<br>
>> physical glutamate, this would falsify functionalist and mathematical<br>
>> theories of qualia or consciousness.<br>
><br>
> If hooking EEG electrodes to your head allows a machine to show me red <br>
> whenever you are looking at red, then which does that falsify?<br>
><br>
> Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">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/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>