<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small"></span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">We don’t perceive redness, redness is the
final result of perception, the quality of the physical knowledge we are directly
aware of.</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-size:11pt"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">This seems completely contradictory, as you have 'perceive' and 'perception' opposed, or something. bill w</font></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 4:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</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 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-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Yes, physics can explain everything about
qualia, the problem is, all these abstract labels for and descriptions of physics
that come to our senses tell us nothing about the physical quality they are describing. The only thing qualitative is subjective experience. </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Everything we get from objective observation
is abstract.</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">The physics that interacts
with our senses isn’t anything like whatever is the target of perception.</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">So, in order to know the qualitative color of
something, you need to experience it directly.</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">For example, it is a theoretical possibility that the causal properties of
redness are the causal properties of glutamate as it reacts in a synapse.</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">In other words, both the abstract words
redness and glutamate are labels for the same thing.</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">We don’t perceive redness, redness is the
final result of perception, the quality of the physical knowledge we are directly
aware of.</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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">The word red isn’t physically red. In order to know what red means, you need to
point to something physical (or in Stathis’ case, maybe point to something functional
or magic) and say THAT is red. Because physicists
and neuroscientists never do this, they are qualia blind. They can’t tell us what THAT is, as a definition
of red.</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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Frank Jackson started to far one way (physics
can’t explain qualia) and was wrong.
Then he swung the other way, and is still wrong (has no idea how to bridge
the explanatory gap) And as usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle.</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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind
(use two words color and colorness as in glutamate’s color is white, since it
reflects white light but it’s colorness is redness.) they will soon discover what
the definition of red is. They will be
able to finally tell us which of all their descriptions of physics is the
description of redness. </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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Discovering this will obviously falsify all but
<b>THE ONE</b> true theory of qualia, from amongst all the yet to be falsified
diverse sets of theories predicting the extreme diversity of possible physical
natures of qualia. You can see all the
competing theories in the sub camps of <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" style="color:blue" target="_blank">Representational
Qualia Theory</a>. </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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Hopefully it is obvious to everyone that I am
in the <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Molecular-Materialism/36" style="color:blue" target="_blank">Molecular
Materialism camp</a>.</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">Or here is the entire parent chain of my camps:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:15pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:rgb(85,85,85)"><a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1" style="color:blue" target="_blank">Agreement</a> / <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2" style="box-sizing:inherit;color:blue" target="_blank">Approachable Via Science</a> / <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" style="box-sizing:inherit;color:blue" target="_blank">Representational Qualia</a> / <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Mind-Brain-Identity/17" style="box-sizing:inherit;color:blue" target="_blank">Mind-Brain Identity</a> / <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Monism/65" style="box-sizing:inherit;color:blue" target="_blank">Monism</a> / <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-are-Material-Qualities/7" style="box-sizing:inherit;color:blue" target="_blank">Qualia are Material
Qualities</a> / <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Molecular-Materialism/36" style="box-sizing:inherit;color:blue" target="_blank">Molecular Materialism</a></span></b><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;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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Stathis, you are still a functionalist, right? But which type of functionalist are you? A <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function/18" style="color:blue" target="_blank">Monist functionalist</a>
or a <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Functional-Prprty-Dualism/8" style="color:blue" target="_blank">property
dualist functionalist</a>? Or some other camp? Or have I falsified
functionalism for you yet?</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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">How would each of you rank the best of these
theories? John, William, anyone else? Does anyone know of a theory that hasn’t yet
been canonized?</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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">And even more, would anyone care to make any
kind of bet as to which camp will be the first to achieve a 90% or better consensus,
using the peer ranked <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Mind-Experts/1" style="color:blue" target="_blank">mind
expert canonizer algorithm</a>?</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;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Also, how long do people think this will take
to get to a 90% scientific consensus? I predict it will happen within 5
years of achieving a total participation of 1000 verified people
participating in the <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1" style="color:blue" target="_blank">Theories of Consciousness</a>
topic. There are currently less than 100
total participants. So it is all up to you to help with the amplification of the wisdom of the crowd process and basically sign the petition that you believe scientists need to stop being qualia blind so they will get the message sooner.</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"><br></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"><br></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></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</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 dir="ltr">In this case, one can note that Mary can not possibly acquire "all the physical information" even in a lifetime of work.<div><br></div><div>That doesn't mean the information isn't there, just that the method proposed would obviously fail to provide enough resources to acquire it.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</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 dir="ltr">Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought experiment. As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in reality.</div>
_______________________________________________<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>
_______________________________________________<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>
_______________________________________________<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></div>