<div dir="ltr">All this talking about words takes things out of the ideal realm imo. Once you introduce words all bets are off.<div><br></div><div>Red is a human word that I use to refer to the quale generated (by some mystery process) when 700nm light enters the human eye and interacts with the human brain. As such is is a fairly limited description. It just just a guess as to whether you share my qualia when responding to the same signals, but I assume this because of various credible assumptions, and because the visible light spectrum seems 'well-ordered' and parsimonious to me as if there is some underlying reason to it.</div><div><br></div><div>You're the one that is mincing words about red and redness. In my opinion, referring to a strawberry as 'red' is more of a heuristic definition--it simply means that strawberries have a physical quality that leads to a redness quale being generated in my mind when I view them with my eyes. The strawberries themselves are not 'red'--just ask a blind person who cannot experience 'red'. They may tell you that strawberries are 'soft', or 'sweet', or 'fragrant', but they will never get 'red' from a strawberry, so they may as well not be red, unless they have been given this knowledge by someone else, which is a sort of Mary the Color Scientist problem.</div><div><br></div><div>Individual things cannot possess qualia, as an argument by contradiction is extremely easy to make for all cases--simply remove all entities which can sense the quale in question. If there were no eyes in the entire universe, there is no more 'red'. Even if there are still strawberries.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Brent Allsop 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"><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><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></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 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>