<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="gmail-247o"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%;color:rgb(5,5,5)">Sheesh.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="gmail-247o"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%;color:rgb(5,5,5)">Yes, Hermes, you nailed
it with “philosophers </span></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">try to explain their theories in the most
complicated way possible to obfuscate potential errors</span><span class="gmail-247o"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%;color:rgb(5,5,5)">”. It’s so frustrating to spend years, trying to
understand, and even canonize all that “popular” consensus, only to find
nothing there but ever more “hard” problems and meaningless circular
definitions. To me, there are problems
with all theories that separate qualia (using separating terms like qualia
“supervene” on something) are problematic.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="gmail-247o"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%;color:rgb(5,5,5)"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="gmail-247o"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%;color:rgb(5,5,5)">By the way, we’ve
recently put-up new versions of the first 5 chapters on our video. “</span></span><a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/" style="color:blue"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%">Consciousness:
Not a Hard Problem, Just a Color Problem.</span></a><span class="gmail-247o"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;line-height:107%;color:rgb(5,5,5)">” Hopefully, that is something people can
understand, and experimentalists can use to finally falsify all the “crap in
the gap” philosophies hiding in our ‘qualia blindness”</span></span></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:44 AM Hermes Trismegistus 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 lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="gmail-m_-8317104652570416904WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">That’s the problem with philosophers. They like making up their own terminology. It can be difficult to distinguish the gibberish from the coherent. In this case Chalmers is trying to say that something is reducible if the workings of the whole is explainable in terms of the parts.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">In my experience philosophers try to explain their theories in the most complicated way possible to obfuscate potential errors. Politicians use the same technique and seeing exactly where the error is can be difficult. I suggest you read something more intellectually honest such as a physics or mathematics book.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0in"><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:29 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:extropolis@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">extropolis@googlegroups.com</a>; <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">ExI chat list</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">William Flynn Wallace</a><br><b>Subject: </b>[ExI] Chalmers</p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black">In my constant effort to keep my brain working, I am trying The Conscious Mind.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black">"A natural phenomenon is reductively explainable in terms of some lower level properties if the property of instantiating the phenomenon is globally logically supervenient on the low level properties in question." "A phenomenon is reductively explainable simpliciter if the property of instantiating that phenomenon is globally logical supervenient on physical properties."<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black">Have I bit off more than I can chew?<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black">bill w<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></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>