<div dir="ltr"><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 Mike,</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-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">Calling people "qualia-blind" because
they don't faithfully say your words back to you is impolite if not abusive.</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">Thanks for this feedback. This is good to know that some people think
this way.</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">For me it is a lot more than just “saying
(my) words back to me” It is a fact that
perception involves at least 2 important physical properties. The properties of the target of perception,
and the properties of our knowledge of such. These two properties can easily be inverted from each other simply by inverting the signal anywhere in between the two.</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"><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-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is also a fact that in order to know what “red” means, you need to
point to a particular set of physical properties for which you mean for “red” to
be a label for. In order to know what
physical color something is, you need more than one word (like red and redness)
as labels for these very different physical things. If you only have one word, you can’t tell which
physical property you are talking about.
It is just stupid, clueless, and sloppy at best.</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">Today, all physical science, and all
peer reviewed articles on perception of color, only use one word for “red”. In other words, it is ALL qualia blind. The ever growing number of experts joining
and supporting “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" style="color:blue">Representational
Qualia Theory</a>” are basically signing a petition telling everyone we need to
stop being qualia blind, and start using two words (like red and redness) so we
can think about colors of things, and perception of such, in a rigorous non
ambiguous way.</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">It is a fact that no physicist can
tell you which, of all their descriptions of physics is a description of a
redness quality. They don’t know the
color of anything. It is time we start
calling out people that don’t realize this, as not thinking clearly.</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 someone writes a paper about the
perception of red, and they are only using one word, and not clearly specifying
which set of physics they intend for that word to be a label of, they have a naive
and inadequate way of talking about physical qualities or colors. It’s time that everyone be given the tools to
recognize all such naive thinking and pointing out how that particular person
has no clue about what they are talking about.</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 face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">Mike, let me ask you. Do you think anyone know what it is, in this
world, that is physically responsible for or has a redness quality? It’s about time that people start realizing
this. Again, it isn’t “hard mind body”
problem. It is just a color
problem. We need to start thinking and
talking about things in a more than simplistic and naive way that is obvious to
anyone that thinks about it in any kind of rigorous way is “Qualia Blind”. I'd bet that most </span><span style="font-size:16px">people</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> here would agree they understand what "qualia blindness" is and that it is important that everyone start noticing and calling out this kind of sloppy thinking about the colors of things.</span></font></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 2:01 PM Mike Dougherty 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="auto"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 2:22 PM Brent Allsop 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"><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">No, that doesn’t seem to help. It just shows me that some people have very different
ways of thinking about qualia. </span></p></div><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"></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When everyone else is wrong, it might be time to stop trying to tell them what is right</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There was a recent post suggesting everyone stop replying to John because his unwavering position is not "conversational" for most casual interactions. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I suggested a subject prefix of [politics] so i knew which emails to ignore, but a [qualia] tag would be even more welcomed. It's not that I don't find the topic interesting, it's that the conversation has become boring. Calling people "qualia-blind" because they don't faithfully say your words back to you is impolite if not abusive.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Whatever. Words mean whatever you think they mean. That we ever believe anyone "understands" anything is some rabbit hole full of 'qualia' and 'p-zombies' and that's good or bad depending on whatever meaning has been assigned to those words - since I'm not classically trained in their "proper" use, I'm easily disregarded as an uneducated noob.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">*shrug*</div><div dir="auto"><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 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"><br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></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>