<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;color:rgb(0,176,80)">“Howe’s this then?</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-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,176,80);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Normal qualia: Strawberry -> Red light ->
Eye -> Brain -> Redness</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)"></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-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,176,80);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Inverted qualia: Strawberry -> Red light
-> Eye -> Brain -> Greenness”</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)"></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">Yes, that has falsified my hypothesis
that you may not be understanding this yet.
Thank You.</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">A few questions. I’m assuming that in your model, all this: <span style="color:rgb(0,176,80)">“</span></span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,176,80);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye ->”</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> are identical
in both cases. But what do you mean by
this?</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-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </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-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,176,80);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">“red + your brain = redness. Glutamate
exists </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-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,176,80);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">with or without brains, but redness does not.”</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)"></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">I’m assuming that both of these are <b>different</b>
in your model in the non inverted and inverted set: <span style="color:rgb(0,176,80)">“Brain
-> Redness”</span>?</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">You’ve indicated that
the downstream, “</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">redness</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">” does not exist without the upstream “</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">brain</span><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">
</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 there is one pixel
on the surface of the strawberry that is switching between red and green, what
is the physical change in the physics of the “</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">brain</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">” in your
model? And is the difference between “</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">Redness</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">” and “</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">Greenness</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">” physically or objectively detectable, without cheating by
observing anything upstream from your "</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">Redness</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">" and "</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)">Greenness</span><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"> </span></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:01 PM 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>
Quoting Brent Allsop:<br>
<br>
<br>
> Everything you say indicates you are mapping all of the qualitative <br>
> physics of perception into a simple “Naïve realism”model of <br>
> reality. Everything you say indicates everything you read of mine, <br>
> is also being mapped into this simple “Naïve realism”model of reality.<br>
<br>
I act like a naive realist most of the time. It is the default state <br>
of people, I think. For example, when I see a bus hurtling toward me, <br>
I never pause to question the reality of the bus, I simply get out of <br>
the way. Like theater goers tried to get out of the way of the train <br>
depicted in one of the earliest motion pictures.<br>
<br>
People who didn't instinctively act as naive realists probably got <br>
weeded out long ago. That being said, late at night when I am comfy in <br>
my bed, I ponder Bell's inequality, quantum entanglement, and so forth <br>
and I question what reality even means. Quantum phenomena like that <br>
make me question whether information or matter is more fundamental in <br>
our universe.<br>
<br>
At the smallest scales, they seem to be in a ballroom dance so close <br>
and so fast, you can't see who is leading.<br>
<br>
> When I say redness, you think this has the same definition as red. <br>
> You never distinguish between these two words. I see no evidence in <br>
> anything that you say, that you understand anything more complex <br>
> than a “Naïve realism”model of reality. So I don’t understand how <br>
> you can claim to disagree with me, when you show no indication that <br>
> you understand anything more than a simple “Naïve realism” model of <br>
> reality.<br>
<br>
No I never said redness is the same thing as red, I said that redness <br>
is a function of red. I would say that red is a contributry cause of <br>
redness. In other words red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists <br>
with or without brains, but redness does not.<br>
<br>
> If you have read “Objectively,We are Blind to Physical Qualities” <br>
> what are the physics of “inverted qualia” as described in that <br>
> document? and Why does Jack Galant admit that his method of <br>
> deriving color for his “mind red” videos problematic?<br>
<br>
Seriously? How's this then?<br>
<br>
Normal qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Redness<br>
<br>
Inverted qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Greenness<br>
<br>
As for shortcoming of Gallant's research, any attempt to directly <br>
measure qualia would require far more invasive techniques than fMRI <br>
like literally drilling holes in people's skulls, and experiments like <br>
that are illegal in most places. Your assertion that "corrections" <br>
done by computers interpreting data from the brain as being done <br>
falsely. But that requires one falsely assume that qualia inversion is <br>
not only conceivable but actually does in fact happen. And that puts <br>
the burden of proof on you and not Gallant.<br>
<br>
That being said, it doesn't matter to me what philosophical camp you <br>
put me in because I won't stay there. Because I to go where my inquiry <br>
takes me. And right now, it seems to me that red is a wavelength of <br>
light and redness is abstract information your brain is processing.<br>
<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stuart LaForge <<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><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>
><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>
<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>