<div dir="ltr"><br><div>How about the color of knowledge. For example the color of your knowledge of the strawberry could be the same color as my knowledge of the leaves.</div><div>The bottom line, everyone, including all neural researchers of color perception, have a very sloppy epistemology of what color is. They all use one word 'red' for all things red, which can't tell you anything about color perception.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou 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><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 06:23, 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>Hi Ben,</div><div><br></div><div>It all has to do with the color of things. What is it hat has a redness quality? It can't be the strawberry that has the redness quality, because you could invert the red/green signal anywhere in the chain of events that is perception as illustrated <a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/index.html?chapter=perception_inverted" target="_blank">here</a>.<br></div><div>Using one word for all things 'red' tells you nothing of what color anything is. If you only use one word for all things red, that is qualia blind. In order to account for the color of things, you need two words: red, for anything that reflects or emits red light, and a different word redNESS, to account for the quality of you knowledge of such. If you can't model simple concepts in your thinking and in your language like: "My redness is like your grenness, both of which we refer to as red". That language/thinking is qualia blind.</div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think you could simplify your language. “Red qualia” or “red experience” is understood by most people and is unambiguous. It is also understood that it is not the strawberry that has the red qualia, it is the observer. Talking about red, redness, redness quality, redness knowledge becomes confusing to keep track of. I would have to go back and check if you mean that “redness quality” is something in the strawberry or in my mind, and if “redness knowledge” is the same or different.</div><div dir="auto"><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></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:35 AM Ben Zaiboc 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>
Brent, I reckon the reason you're not getting through to anyone here
(and let's face it, you're not. I've yet to hear a single person say
"ah, yes, I see what you mean") is that you keep saying things like
"You represent red things with knowledge that has your redness
quality", and "What is robot number 3’s knowledge qualitatively
like?", but (I think I'm right in saying) <i>nobody has a clue what
these phrases actually mean</i>. I certainly don't (your language
reminds me of things produced by the Post-Modernist Essay
Generator), and you show no willingness to try to explain, which is
why I've given up on participating in these pointless discussions.
It's not even amusing anymore.<br>
<br>
Constantly telling people they're wrong, 'qualia-blind', beside the
point, or misinterpreting what you say, doesn't actually help. You
seem to be persisting in 'doing what you always did', and you know
what that leads to: 'getting what you always got'. Blank
incomprehension, in this case. I still don't know, after literally
years of reading your posts, on and off, if that's completely
justified, and the correct response, or not.<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>
_______________________________________________<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>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Stathis Papaioannou</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>