<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"> </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">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;color:rgb(0,176,80)">“</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">This
debate in general seems to be suffering from a remarkable level of
redefinitions on the fly and goalpost-moving.”</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">This is the problem with the entire Theory
and Philosophy of mind field. The peer
review system just makes this even worse.
Everyone describes their own ideas, in their own unique language. Nobody talks about things everyone agrees on,
giving everyone the false belief that nobody agrees on anything. Even good neural scientists that want to
understand things like “qualia”, after struggling to research the “peer
reviewed” finally just give up, since it is all just religiously biased BS. There is absolutely nothing of any
theoretical value to an experimentalist describing what experimentalists should
be looking for, or how any of the theories could be falsified.</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">That is why we created
Canonizer.com, to build and track consensus around concise descriptions of the best
language, in collaboratively agreed on terminology. For example, qualia are described as “ineffable”. We need a new word that means communicating
that which is ineffable. So we are
building consensus around the best term to use <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/102-eff/2" style="color:blue">here</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-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">There is a surprising amount of
consensus forming around what is now being called “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" style="color:blue">Representational
Qualia Theory</a>”. Even Dennett’s “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory/21" style="color:blue">Predictive Baylean
Coding Theory</a>” is now in a supporting sub camp position to “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" style="color:blue">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-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">This camp defines consciousness to
be “Computationally bound elemental physical qualities in the brain we are directly
aware of like redness and greenness.”</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">This camp also points out how most
people’s (including all known peer reviewed journals on color perception) thinking
and terminology are “qualia blind”. Most
people use a word like ‘red’ in only abstract ways which provides no physical
definition. If they tie it to physics at
all, it is only tied to wavelengths of light.
Check out <a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/" style="color:blue">this
video</a> which illustrates the problem, showing how perception can be red /
green inverted anywhere along the chain of perception, resulting in inverted
red/green knowledge of something like strawberry. This proves that a redness qualitative
experience has nothing to do with the strawberry or light.</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">So, in order to talk about physical properties,
it requires more than just one word for “red”.
Typically, the word “red” is used as a label for anything that reflects
or emits red light, as you mentioned. Red
things initiate the perception process.
We need a completely different word to describe the physical properties
of our knowledge of such. As demonstrated
by the inversion video, has nothing to do with “red” things. So, in order to not be qualia blind, you must
use a different word like “redness” as a label for a very different physical
quality.</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">We detect color properties via
objective observation. Since the physics
being detected by our senses are nothing like the physics of the target of
perception, correct interpretation is required to know what they represent. All information obtained through this kind of
objective observation is abstract and devoid of any qualitative information.</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">Colorness properties are different. These are the physical qualities of the final
result of the perception process we are directly aware of. Objectively perceived information can be
mistaken, if it is miss interpreted, for example. Something may ‘seem’ red, but that knowledge
could be mistaken. That mistaken redness
seeming, is a colorness property of physics we are directly aware of. This ‘seeming’ cannot be mistaken.</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">Notice how everything you are saying
is classically qualia blind.</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 physicists can’t tell us the
qualitative color of anything. Though
they can abstractly describe everything about physics (just as Frank Jackson’s
Mary can) they can’t tell us anything about the physical quality any of these
descriptions are describing. For
example, it could be that our descriptions of how glutamate reacts in a synapse
could be describing what we directly experience as 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-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">This is all described in more detail
in this “<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing" style="color:blue">Objectively,
We are Blind to Physical Qualities</a>” paper presented at last years “Long
Island Philosophical Society”.</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 Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:11 AM 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"><div dir="ltr">> 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?
</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>You appear to be defending the position that there is some ineffable, not-representable-by-other-means qualia in the image. Without agreeing or disagreeing with that position, I am pointing out that the specific example given is a remarkably weak defense of that position.</div><div><br></div><div>> Are you saying that RGB(FF,00,00). or any other
such abstract software is physically red?
</div><div><br></div><div>No. I say it is a representation of red, similar in nature to representations of red in the human brain.</div><div><br></div><div>"Physically red", to me, consists of reflecting and/or emitting - within the visible spectrum - primarily red photons, which are photons close to 680 nanometers in wavelength. A mathematical construct (such as "RGB(FF,00,00)", which is in turn most often represented as the number 16,711,680) is not a physical object, and thus is not "physically" anything. It can, however, serve as part of an instruction for a physical thing - say, a pixel on a monitor - to become physically red. Physical redness can be measured, just like any other physical color properties, but the number that results from the measurement is just another representation. "The map is not the territory", as it's said.</div><div><br></div><div>This debate in general seems to be suffering from a remarkable level of redefinitions on the fly and goalpost-moving. I am not saying you exclusively are doing that, I'm saying that's the discussion in general. This has been my main reason for staying out of the debate until now.</div><div><br></div><div>Most egregiously, what exactly is "qualia", other than "magic that defines the experience of redness/et cetera"? Some people seem to be insisting that qualia can not be defined in any measurable terms. Over and over, I have seen strawman examples set up - the original supposition about a "color scientist who had all the physical information, and then one day actually saw red" being an example. One reason there is dissonance is that, intuitively we know there can not be such a thing as someone with "all the physical information", thus the premise is rejected and what is actually evaluated is someone who has a lot of data but nowhere near "all". Another reason is that it confuses "information" in the intellectual sense with memories of experiences: of course someone who doesn't have a specific memory won't have that memory, but that says nothing about that person's ability to learn information.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps this debate could be settled more quickly if people simply did not use words that have been muddled so much within the conversation itself. Specifically, state the concepts without using the word "qualia" (or making up any other words).</div><div><br></div><div>For instance, going back to Mary the color scientist. Let's say she is color-blind due to a defect located entirely in her eyes, but knows how to do brain surgery, specifically on the sensorimotor cortex. Might she be able to implant something, or rewire someone's brain, so they see red? If so, would it be correct to say that she has triggered that person's perception of red?</div><div><br></div><div>Let's say she then programs a robot or instructs other people to do the same surgery to her. They do (let us assume correctly and perfectly, which is certainly possible), and she gets a perception that she has never had before - but she has a word for it: "red".</div><div><br></div><div>Everything that can be measured says Mary and this other person had the same experience. They both use the word "red" for it, but of course words can mean different things to different people. There are probably different emotional connotations and reactions, but these trigger off the representation in the brain, not actually off the physical redness itself. (In almost all real cases, physical redness is the only viable means to create this representation - but that doesn't make physical redness and the representation literally the same thing.)</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:38 PM Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.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"><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" 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">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></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></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>