<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 Adrian,</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 jumping in.</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">And I often get sucked into missing when
people are just yanking my chain.</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">So, just to get that out of the way,
this entire response seems like someone is just yanking my chain, it seems to me
to be so obviously wrong and twisted in so many ways.</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">“</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">fails to refute the concept
that image qualia can be represented in other forms.</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>
<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">Along with most everything else in this
reply that is so mistaken, are you really implying that I think that rainbow picture
can’t be represented by an array of values including RGB(FF0000), as it appears here? Are you saying that RGB(FF,00,00). or any other
such abstract software is physically 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-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">Software = qualia </span><span style="font-size:16px">people</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> are so infuriating to me. The best I can understand from what qualia arise from software say is redness arises from software via <magic happens here>. They certainly never provide anything better
than that, that I can see. I wonder what
a person believing qualia arise from software will do if experimentalists
discover that the only thing anyone can find in this universe that has a
physical redness quality is glutamate. Would
they continue to try to find some way to make something like RGB(FF,00,00) produce
a redness experience for someone, and continue to claim you can’t disprove a
negative as the theists always do about the existence of their God? After all, you never know, if you add enough
RGB(FFFFFFFFFFFFFF….,00,00) it could finally result in a physical redness quality,
right?</span></font></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 are not yanking my chain,
again, still, thanks for jumping in. I
still must not be adequately communicating what I’m trying to describe. Or maybe I'm just failing to understand what you are trying to say. I appreciate everyone’s patience on this. It is always helpful when a new person joins
in. I’ve improved a lot in the way I say
things (having much more success than I once had), but I evidently still have a
LONG way to go. Unless you are yanking
my chain? ;)</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></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:37 PM Adrian Tymes 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">I see orange and cyan there, too. Also, a rainbow is a gradient, which your list of words fails to note. There is also no mention of the sky, clouds, or arc of the rainbow, nor of the transparency toward one end.<div><br></div><div>It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Exacttness of that measure aside, trying to equate a picture to a very few words is a strawman argument, and as such fails to refute the concept that image qualia can be represented in other forms.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:44 AM 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"><br><div>Your wrong, unless you see no difference between this</div><div><div><img src="cid:ii_k4nhwi5j0" alt="image.png" width="318" height="159"><br></div></div><div>and the abstract words "red, yellow, green, purple and blue".</div><div><br></div><div>Notice how I can redefine the words purple and blue.</div><div>You can't redefine your purpleness, and blueness, it just is, and you know that more absolutely than you know anything.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:47 AM spike jones 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 lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">>>>… </span></span><i>In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical definition to those abstract terms. </i><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">>>…If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato and say "That is (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". … John K Clark</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">John K Clark</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>…</b>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">>…<span style="color:black">I think it's only circular if there is only one example. bill w</span></span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">The entire discussion has helped me accept what I have long suspected: I am a digital avatar. I “think” only in terms of numbers and equations. You perhaps have heard of that creepy movie where the boy saw dead people, everywhere, walking around. They didn’t even know they are dead. Well, I am his digital counterpart: I see simulated people walking around everywhere. They don’t even know they are software. I didn’t know I was one until the recent qualia discussion. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Be that as it may, I am a really cool avatar. Self-aware I am! (Or should it be “it am?” (It are? (It be?))) Of course it be only digitally simulated self-awareness, but that’s better than none at all.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">spike<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></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>
_______________________________________________<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>