<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Jason,</div><div>I believe you are interpreting everything I'm saying, into your model of consciousness. As long as you do this, you will fail to understand the different model I'm trying to describe and fail to see the answers I'm providing.</div><div><br></div><div>You asked: "<font color="#0000ff">Can you articulate how qualia transcend knowledge states?</font>"</div><div><br></div><div>This indicates you are asking how I interpret what I am saying into you model. That is the problem. I'm trying to describe a different model, so as long as you are asking how I map, what I'm saying, into your model, you will fail to understand the different model I'm trying to describe.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is +5 volts, on a line, that is simply an observable physical fact. If there is a hole in a punch card, again, that state of matter is simply a physical fact. Neither of these physical facts "transcend knowledge". If you have a dictionary, both +5 volts, or a particular hole on a punch card, both of these physical facts can be defined to represent information, like a digital "1" or the word "red". Redness is a similar physical fact about the intrinsic quality of something in physical reality. If you have a dictionary for the word 'red', which points to something that has an intrinsic redness quality and say "THAT is red" that redness quality can then represent "red" information.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, I explicitly answered the question: <font color="#0000ff">"How do you propose someone with inverted qualia would answer the question differently?
"</font><br></div><div>with this image, showing the two different answers each would provide:</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><img src="cid:ii_kohrsxxs0" alt="image.png" width="250" height="143"></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Then you proved you didn't understand how this is the answer to that exact question, by yet again, re asking the question, again, while you are looking at the answer:</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="auto"><font color="#0000ff">"How do you propose someone with inverted qualia would answer the question differently?"</font> <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Another question you asked, after I've provided the answer is: <font color="#0000ff">"I don't see that dictionaries offer anything about the experience of red."</font></div><div dir="auto"></div></div><div><br></div><div>What does the word "red" mean? Without a dictionary, it means nothing. The word 'red' isn't intrinsically red! If you described the behavior of a redness quality, similarly, would that description tell you anything about what the quality which had that behavior was like? No. Neither the word red, nor a descript of redness has an intrinsic redness quality. The only way to know what they are describing, or a label of, is with a dictionary. To know what redness means, you point to the knowledge of the person on the left of that picture and say: "That is red". Then you say: "The knowledge of the one on the right is green." these are different answers to the same question: "What is redness like for you?"<br></div><div><br></div><div>When we describe the behavior of glutamate, as it reacts in a synapse, for all we know that could be exactly the description of how redness behaves. Of all the descriptions of stuff in our brain, one of those descriptions must be a description of the behavior of redness. Something different than that must be the description of the behavior of greenness.</div><div><br></div><div>Once you can read through what I've already said, and see that all your questions have been answered then you will know you are understanding the model I'm trying to describe. Until you can do that, restating the answer's I've already provided won't help. Once you start to understand the model, you should watch <a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/">the video</a>, again, so you can finally understand it, and see how it is describing a non qualia blind model, a model which answers all your questions.</div><div><br></div><div>Brent</div><div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 10:08 PM Jason Resch 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="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 9, 2021, 6:04 PM 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"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Jason,</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 2:09 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer" 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"><div dir="ltr">I watched the series of videos you linked to, and while I thought it was well executed and explained, I did not find any account of qualia given either.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmmm, not sure how you were able to think that about the video. You certainly are the first I've seen to think anything like this. Almost every part of the video is going over what we know, infallibly, about qualia. everything from the statement in the intro: "We need to pinpoint the location of your colored qualia" in the introduction to the description of a few of the many camps which are supporting sub camp of "<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/6-Representational-Qualia" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Representational Qualia Theory</a>" each of which account for qualia in different falsifiable ways. <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/6-Representational-Qualia#statement" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">RQT</a> is basically describing how each of the sub camps can be falsified in a way all the supporters of all sub camps agree with. </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I mean I didn't see any additional explanation or resolution offered concerning the problem(s) of explaining qualia. All theories of consciousness struggle with this "hard problem". What new does RQT have to say about it? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> <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 dir="ltr"></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>My own beliefs concerning qualia and their ineffability is that qualia relate to how information is processed in the brain, while our third-person ("from afar") representations or descriptions of information can only capture a serialization of 1's and 0's. I can send words or hand gestures to you, or write squiggles on paper, to put new inputs into your senses, but I can't directly manipulate the processing of information as done by your brain. This is what differentiates book knowledge from first-person experience. It is also why Mary learns something new when she sees red for the first time: she activates new forms of processing information by her brain. She could read all the books in the world on what red is like without causing her brain to activate the appropriate areas that make her experience red.<br></div><div> </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 class="gmail_quote"><div> For example, wonder if you have two bio-brains, one engineered to be red/green qualia inverted. With questions like: "What is redness like for you, they will behave very different, but on everything else you are describing in your post, they will behave identically, even possibly better, in any way you care to define better.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it is an open question whether the behavior would be identical for a qualia-inverted being,</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, not sure how you can think this. It would simply be a fact that if two brains had inverted red/green qualia, and you asked them both: "What is your redness like." It is simply a logical fact that they must give different answers, since they each represent red with different qualities. This pictures basically shows each of the different answers each of these people would give to the question: "What is redness like for you?"</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How do you propose someone with inverted qualia would answer the question differently? What would they say when asked to explain "What is your redness like?" And how would there answer be different from someone without inverted qualia?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><img src="cid:ii_kohrsxxs0" alt="image.png" width="250" height="143"><br></div><div> <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 class="gmail_quote"><div> especially if you include introspection of brain processes in the scope of externally visible ("from afar") behaviors. As you say, to get inverted qualia requires a differently-engineered brain, and that would be a third-person observable difference. For there to be no observable difference in behavior with inverted qualia or not is also to suggest that if we had a switch that could invert or revert the qualia at will, that the observer could not notice or report on the flipping the switch back and forth. If they could not notice the flipping, then I think it is a difference that makes no difference, and thus is not a difference at all. </div></div></div></blockquote><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> </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 class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>For that matter, Stathis is also always completely qualia blind, and any functionalists I have ever seen, the same. They never fully account for qualia in anything they talk about or argue, and always completely avoid any reference to what qualia are, or how they would fit in any of the beliefs, or how redness might fit in their 'neuro substitution'.... To me, this is very strong evidence that any functionalists has no grasp at all on the qualitative nature of consciousness, and the assumptions they are making. They just ignore it all, thinking it doesn't need to be accounted for.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Visual perception is the most complex, and likely most contentious of qualia to discuss. I think it is easier to consider the quale of the most simplistic of senses, such as stimulation of a single tactile nerve. For example, lightly touch the back of your hand with the top of a pen so you can just barely feel it. What does it feel like? All we can really say about this quale is that it is nothing more than the knowledge of being touched in that particular location. <b>Qualia are just certain forms of knowledge</b>. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, not sure how anyone could get any utility in thinking of qualia this way.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Can you articulate how qualia transcend knowledge states?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> Qualia are simply a factual physical quality, or if we assume functionalism, a factual functional quality which can represent knowledge. </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Knowledge requires a knower. A punch card or hard drive can't know anything. Knowledge requires (information+a system to be informed).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> As we've been pointing out, your redness could represent knowledge of red, your redness could represent knowledge of green, or for that matter, a bat could use redness to represent knowledge of prey it receives from echolocation while hunting.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Given dreaming, we know conscious states can also be entirely cut off from an external world. The brain alone has everything it needs to create the experience of redness, even in total darkness and an absence of any light with a wavelength of ~700nm. Redness is a property of the structures and relationships embodied by the brain, and nothing else.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> <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 class="gmail_quote"><div>The dictionary definition of consciousness is awareness of information. Awareness is having knowledge of. So consciousness is merely having knowledge of information. There are infinite forms of information, and interrelations, and ways of processing information, and so I think there are also infinite varieties of possible qualia.</div><div> </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 class="gmail_quote"><div> </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="auto"><div></div><div dir="auto">The person with a compu-brain will still cry when in pain, still say there's an incommunicable difference between red and green, still describe their dull back ache in full (and identical) detail to the person with the bio-brain. If based on the brain of Chalmers or Dennett, the compu-brain will even still write books in the mysteries of consciousness and qualia.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In short, there's would be no objective or scientific test you could do to rule out the consciousness of the compu-brain, as all objective behaviors are identical.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Although you could reason that "if philosphical zombies are logically impossible" then "identically functioning compu-brains must be conscious, in the same ways as bio-brains are conscious."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I see no rational basis for an assumption that the compu-brain is not consciousness or is differently conscious. But there are rational bases for assuming they must be the same (e.g. dancing/fading qualia, self-reports, non-dualism, non-epiphenomenalism, successes of neural prosthesis, the anti-zombie principle).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div>3. There must be something that is responsible for each of the intrinsic qualities of each elemental piece of conscious knowledge, and you must be able to observe these computational differences.<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Are you speaking from a first person or third person viewpoint when you say you must be able to observer computational differences?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Two answer this, let's assume our description of glutamate, reacting in a synapse, is a description of your redness quality.</div><div>If not, then substitute all instances of glutamate, with whichever description of stuff in our brain, is a description of redness.</div><div>Given that, here is the answer:</div><div><br></div><div>We "Directly apprehend" glutamate reacting in a synapse as a redness quality of subjective experience (first person)</div><div>We observe glutamate, from afar, possibly using scientific instruments, and we end up with a description of glutamate, and how it behaves. (third person)</div><div>Notice any description of how glutamate behaves tells you nothing of the colorness quality of that behavior. You need a dictionary to know that.</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>I think we can rule out "glutamate" or any particular neural transmitter or molecule as having any immediate role in our perception, on the basis of the pigeonhole principle. There are far more possible perceptions (even just considering possible perceived colors) than there are chemicals/proteins in the brain. Color-blind individuals can perceive around 10,000 colors. Normally sighted individuals with trichromatic vision enables humans to distinguish around 1,000,000 different colors. A few rare humans are tetrachromats, and can perceive 100,000,000 distinct colors. This number is far greater than the number of genes in the human genome, so it is more than the number of unique proteins our cells can manufacture. So it's not possible for base molecules to represent qualia -- only higher level structures have room for enough unique complexity to explain the variety of our perception.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Of course. but that IS the point. That fact that you can so easily falsify the prediction that glutamate = redness, is the point. Once you falsify glutamate, you just keep substituting another description of something in the brain, till it can no longer be falsified. Then you will have an objective definition of redness, having connected the subjective with the objective.</div><div><br></div><div>The second point is for simplicity's sake. everyone always get's lost and distracted in all the complexity, and they completely miss the important principle. So, imagine you were a researcher in a simple 2 color world, The only two colors were red and green, no other shades of color or anything. Emagine that in this world a description of glutamate is a description of what you'd directly apprehend as redness, and a description of glycine is a description of greenness. So, given you were in such a simple world, and didn't know these two facts, how might you connect the subjective and the objective descriptions? Then, once you can understand how once you can make the connection that glutamate = redness and glycine = greenness, you can then eff the ineffable, answer questions like: "What is redness like for you?" (answer being glutamate, for one person and glycine for the other) and so on.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Even in a world with simple conscious states I think we could find reasons to doubt mind-brain identity theories. If we encountered space aliens or robots with different neurochemistry that behaved or claimed to be conscious, for instance. This is in my view, the main appeal of functionalism.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Then once you understand the important principle of how the objective and subjective can be connect, then you can start thinking about more complex theories much more capable of not being falsified in our more complex world.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Could you explain your view of how the subjective and objective are connected?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><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 class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div></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 class="gmail_quote"><div>For more info on this, see the "<a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/?chapter=differentiate_reality_knowledge" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Distinguishing between reality and knowledge of reality</a>" chapter of our video.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If functionalism fails at the neural-simulation level, would your theory say it succeeds if we simulate everything physical down to the quark-lepton level, which includes all the electric fields, particles, glutamate particles, etc.? Or would this simulation result in a zombie world, with non-conscious patterns nonetheless writing books about qualia and the mysterious nature of the redness of red?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Your terminology is all so vague. There are thousands of different ways all of it could be interpreted to mean, so having troubles knowing which of these thousands I should be thinking you mean. </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What I mean to ask is: imagine a vast computer simulation that simulated the entire observable universes down to the detail if the smallest fundamental particles and field theories. Would the simulated humans in the simulated Earth in the simulated Milly Way be conscious?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> Redness can be represented and simulated by most anything. It can be represented by greenness, or it can be represented by +5 volts on a line (as we indicated in the video) or anything else. The only important thing to realize is that anything that is NOT redness, which is representing redness, needs a dictionary to know what that thing is representing. </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't see that dictionaries offer anything about the experience of red.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> While redness, itself, is simply a physical fact about the quality of you knowledge of red things, no dictionary required. The prediction is that no functionalist will ever be able to produce a redness quality experience with ANY function, no matter what it is, or no matter what is running it.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What is your rational for reaching this conclusion?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I always like to ask functionalists to offer a similarly falsifiable function, comparable to my Molecular Materialism glutamate falsifiable example. Like, maybe the function x squared is redness and x cubed is greenness? But of course, functionalists just always seem to give you that blank stare proving they have no idea what you are even asking of them, they don't seem to realize how absurd any functionalist prediction that any particular function could in any way result in a physical redness quality really is.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A function whose information content is less than the information content of the conscious experience could be falsified.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Whatever function is responsible for red experience is probably not simple. Multiple layers of processing by various brain regions, involving a total of some 30% of our cortex is involved in creating our visual experience. I would think the function is vastly complex and also may involve relationships with other non visual areas of the brain. It's not clear to me you could have a red experience without considering the whole brain.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> <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 class="gmail_quote"><div>While there are many reasons to doubt functionalism/computationalism, there is strong indirect observational evidence supporting it, which is that if we assume computationalism is true, we can directly explain many of the observed properties of our physical world. I have written about this here:<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Predictions_of_the_Theory" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Predictions_of_the_Theory</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We clearly think of qualia and consciousness in very different ways, and I'm having a real hard time getting a clear picture of your way.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ask away if anything I have said us unclear.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> It'd sure be great if we could get your way 'canonized" in a camp in the "<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1-Agreement" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Theories of Cons consciousness</a>" topic. Could we get you to come up with a camp name, and a concise statement describing your view on all this, so we could get it canonized with the other theories we've collected to date?</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't know that my view is any different from standard digital mechanism / computationalism. It's just functionalism with an assumption of finiteness and computability, which I understand is the standard computational theory of mind.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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 class="gmail_quote"><div> FYI, as you can see, Stathis' camp is <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/8-Functional-Prprty-Dualism#statement" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Functional Property Dualism</a>, and mine is "<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/36-Molecular-Materialism#statement" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Molecular Materialism</a>". It sounds like your version of functionalism has more to it than just <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/8-Functional-Prprty-Dualism#statement" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Functional Property Dualism</a>?</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'll check out these definitions and let you know. Thanks! This site is a noble effort serving and important purpose.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason</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></div></div>