<div dir="ltr"><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" 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">The
narration, and a whole lot more is forthcoming.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" 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="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" 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">It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world</span>”<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(0,176,80)"></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" 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="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" 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">In
a way, we can objectively measure the size of this so called “little world”, by
knowing who, and how many experts support “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" style="color:blue">Representational
Qualia Theory</a>” which is the definition of this so called “little world”. It includes, to lessor and greater degree of
involvement at least 40 experts including: <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Steven-Lehar/4" style="color:blue">Steven Lehar</a>, <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory/21" style="color:blue">Daniel Dennett</a>,
<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/81-John-Smythies/17" style="color:blue">John Smythies</a>, <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/81-David-Chalmers/2" style="color:blue">David Chalmers</a>, <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Stuart-Hameroff/22" style="color:blue">Stuart Sameroff</a>, and
a growing number of others. In other
words, I believe there is strong evidence that all of these experts would agree
with me, that it is your so called “world” which is qualia blind and naive,
unable to account for what we know about the physics of consciousness. Can you find ANY expert in this filed (including
any statement, or peer reviewed paper or book by any expert), that would provide
any kind of support to the contrary?</span></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:31 AM Ben Zaiboc 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>
On 03/02/2020 21:08, Brent Allsop wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div lang="x-unicode">
<div dir="ltr">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Hi Ben,</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>You
asked:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">Now
why
on earth would the experience of redness suddenly become
the experience of
greenness? </span><i style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;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">How</span></i><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;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"> could
it?</span><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;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 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 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">By
simply inverting the red green signal
anywhere in the causal chain of events that is perception
as proven can be done
<a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/" style="color:blue" target="_blank">here</a> (skip
to the “Inverted
Perception” part).</span></p>
<p 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 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">It
remains a fact that you could engineer (using
just such inversions both upstream and downstream from
physical knowledge) one
robot to represent red knowledge with your redness, and
another robot to
represent red with your greenness. See “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum" style="color:blue" target="_blank">Inverted
Qualia</a>”) They could both pick strawberries equally
well.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</p>
<p 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">You
seem to be admitting that you only use one
word for all things “red”. That is the definition
of “Qualia Blindness”. In that world
there is an “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap" style="color:blue" target="_blank">explanatory
gap</a>” because you need at least two words (red and
redness) to model simple effing of the
ineffable ideas like: “My redness is like your greenness,
both of which we call
red.” As long as we remain qualia blind, nobody can know
the true physical color of anything.</span></p>
<p 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 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">It's
not a "hard mind body problem" it's just a color problem.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think we're done here. I see no point talking to a broken record.
You keep referring to an incomprehenisble video with no explanation,
showing images that seem to be taken from a child's encyclopaedia
(that is NOT how our visual system actually works, it's just a vague
simplification that probably does more to obscure than reveal), with
some mysterious 'inversion' of what is assumed (wrongly) to be a
simple 'colour signal'. And you totally ignore any attempt to
actually progress the conversation, including very relevant
questions. Instead, you keep going back constantly to the same stock
(mostly meaningless, as far as I can see) phrases, using the same
nonsense terminology. I may as well be talking to a chatbot.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that you've just invented your own little world, with
almost no relation to reality, and are intent on repeating the same
packaged phrases over and over again, without making any attempt to
explain them or check them against what we actually know about how
our brains work.<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Ben Zaiboc</pre>
</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>