<div dir="ltr"><br><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">Right,
but what you are telling people is that all we need to do to upload and fix
something, is to put it all in a computer that only has 1s and 0s.
What you are effectively telling people is that all we need to do is to
restore the ability of the robot to pick the strawberry. Nothing else matters.</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">But,
when you go down that rat hole that ignores so many of the facts (beng like Mary, not know the color all our abstract descriptions of physics are
describing) You are telling the
experimentalists you don’t need to step out of the room, and find out what
color things are. You are telling them
it is perfectly OK to remain “qualia blind”.
You are telling them the only thing that matters is restoring the ability
to pick the strawberry.</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 face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">In
that world, as Chalmers has become famous for, there is a “hard” (as in
impossible) problem. "fading dancing absent" qualia don't make any sense. </span></font><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">There is an “explanatory
gap”. And this huge “gap” is where all
the religious and sloppy crap emerges. There
is no experimental way to falsify any of these crap theories. Nobody can know what consciousness is, nobody
can know what uploading will be like.
They think that if they can pick the strawberry, the upload will be a
success, but they have this (very justified) uncomfortable feeling that maybe
this will not be the case, because they realize that they don’t even really
know if someone else is conscious or not, or if anything else really exists or not. They can't really know if there is "</span></font><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">The Island</a><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">" or if they are </span><span style="font-size:16px">more</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> likely like Logan in "<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0">Logan's Run</a>".</span></font></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">The only reason experimentalists are still so qualia blind (like Mary) is precisely because
of functionalist using their sloppy </span><span style="font-size:16px">sleight</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> of hand, leading them away from what
is important: The real color of things.</span></font></p><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br></span></font></p><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br></span></font></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"> </span></p><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <strong class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Stathis Papaioannou</strong> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com">stathisp@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:52 PM<br>Subject: Re: [ExI] Mental Phenomena<br>To: Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>><br></div><br><br><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 09:42, 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Stathis,</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:59 PM Stathis Papaioannou <<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com" target="_blank">stathisp@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>You have attempted to point out a problem, but you have not succeeded in pointing out a problem.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. This is so frustrating. I believe I fully understand what you are saying, and the arguments you are using which you think justify your belief that it is a "LOGICAL NECESSITY" that redness can arise from ones and zeros. And I've proven this in that I've repeated it back to you all of it in a way that says you agree that I understand what you are saying. Yet you can do nothing even close to the same in return.</div><div><br></div><div>To me, It seems so obvious that there are multiple problems in what you are claiming. But no matter what words I try to use, to describe those problems, you still obviously just twist everything I say, to fit within your qualia blind model, and fail to understand anything about the model I'm trying to describe. You certainly can't describe anything about my model, and how it reveals the problems in your arguments.</div><div><br></div><div>I guess my only solace is that I KNOW (It is a LOGICAL NECESSITY ;) That some day experimentalists will objectively observe something (as in some kind of substrate) in the brain, that is redness, and that nobody will ever be able to find anything other that THAT substrate (even if it is only some kind of function, the fact that redness results from that function must be considered a physical fact, and people will refer to that a s particular substrate on which conscious redness cannot exist without. My prediction is also, that this "functionalist" view is holding back scientific understanding of the brain, and future histories will agree on the damage that you, Chalmers and everyone who so instists that this is a "logical necessity" are slowing down progress. I feel it is my life work, to overcome this falcy, to show experimentalists how not to be qualia blind, so they can discover what it is that has a redness quality, we we can finally falsify all this "crap in the gap" (functionalism is the largest load of crap to me, even worse than substance dualism and quantum views on consciousness.) And it is so frustrating to me, when I'm trying to help the world to understand how to use experimental methods in qualia, on social media, in places like Quora. Only to have people like you and James Carroll and all the other "functionalists" (By far the most popular consensu camp, still) who everyone knows is way smarter than I could ever be come in and cut me off at the knees.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I guess the reason I'm so emotional about this is it is far more than just wanting to be right, and wanting to not be wrong. It is a matter of wanting to push the science of consciousness forward. So people can better understand what it will mean, and what it will be like to be uploaded, and all that. Let me ask you this. Do you think your continued touting of this functionalism, and what Chalmers is doing, and all the rest of you functionalists, is moving the understanding of consciousness forwards or backwards? Is it helping anyone to understanding what uploading could be like? How do you think historians (after they discover what it is that has a redness quality) will judge promoters of functionalism? Will they consider "functionalists" as people that helped move the science forward, or as clueless people that lead everyone down obviously mistaken rat holes, preventing any progress in the field. Something that continues to keep everyone from understanding what it means to be qualia blind, or having a clue about what it might mean to be uploaded.</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As a philosophical theory, functionalism gives neuroscientists confidence that one day it may be possible replace damaged brain tissue with a non-biological analogue, perhaps make conscious machines, or upload a human mind. I don’t see how it could impede progress as you suggest.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</div></div>