<div dir="ltr"><b>This is the heart of the problem. The idea that 'a code' has to refer to 'something'. Some concrete, non-code, non-signal 'thing'. That is a misconception. There is no 'like anything'. Really.<br></b><br>No matter how many examples, applications, reasoning, logical proof, and evidence from experiments we give to Brent and Gordon they cling to their nonscientific view. I still engage in this conversation for a few reasons.<div> <br>1) It is kind of fun even if something is frustrating 2) It makes me think deeper about certain issues that I give for granted because the functionalist, relational way of thinking is pretty natural to me and it is difficult to see how somebody thinks in a different way. But I see how misguided that way of thinking is. That is simply not how the universe works. 3) Maybe people on the fence or casual observers of this list can read these debates and think more deeply about these issues too. They are very important in terms of the consequences in particular for what concerns the general topic of AI consciousness and if the AIs are minds that should be respected and given rights like ours. It is a very important topic to me and humanity in general. <br><br>I want to make a correction to Ben's statement that is Turtles all the way down. The Turtles go deep but not all the way down. It stops in a place similar to the way we derive set theory from the null set. All that you need is nothing, that splits in 0 and non-0, and so on and you get everything. <br>In physics, we have plenty of evidence everything came from nothing. Creation is just a re-arrangement of nothingness. You have nothing you dig a hole somewhere in the nothing and now you have -1 and 1 (the stuff you dug from nothing), the total is still zero but you have 2 things instead of nothing. In our universe, we also got some very small asymmetry to preserve a little more 1s than -1s but that is another story. But basically yes, everything is just signals, and codes, and there are no referents. The information is all in the relations. <br><br>This is not just a worldview is really what everything we know about physics, math, biology, and neuroscience so far. I'm not sure why it is stated there are camps. There are no camps in fundamental physics about this, maybe some isolated thinkers that have some pre-conceived ideas about reality and their positions are more like politics than a real scientific view and understanding. <br>There are few topics that are still bastions of this pre-scientific way of thinking mostly because the subject is complex, in particular neuroscience. <br>It used to be that the topic of the origin of life had a lot of weirdos like that with their ideas of esprit vital that turns out to be bs. <br><br>Now consciousness attracts a lot of these bad thinkers, mostly "philosophers" of mind that have the equivalent of vital spirit garbage as their explanation of why human minds are so different from artificial minds. <br>It is the last bastion, the last corner of reality where they can hide, but not for long. <br>Soon there will be the equivalent of the flood of evidence we have right now about the origin of life that their positions would be considered a footnote of history and something to ridicule. <br><br>Giovanni <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 6:24 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"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:49 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">On 12/04/2023 16:01, Jason Resch wrote:<br>> Just when I thought I understood your theory this last paragraph above<br>> completely undermines that understanding.<br><br>Have you considered that it might just be, literally, nonsense?</blockquote><div><br></div><div> At this point in time, there are over 40 people, explicitly supporting <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/6-Representational-Qualia" target="_blank">RQT</a>, the petition saying they agree with what we are all saying, concisely and quantitatively.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you think there is any chance an argument like "It's just Turtles, all the way down." could achieve anything close to that amount of support?</div></div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 1:58 PM 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>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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 dir="auto">Other parts of the brain decode the meaning of
the signals they receive.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They decode it to WHAT? Decoding from one code, to another
code, none of which is like anything</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the heart of the problem. The idea that 'a code' has to
refer to 'something'. Some concrete, non-code, non-signal 'thing'.
That is a misconception. There is no 'like anything'. Really.<br>
<br>
"Decoding the meaning" just means mapping a set of signals to
another set of signals. That's all. Associating signals together.
All there is are signals, the brain doesn't (can't) deal with
anything else. The signals ultimately come from the sense organs,
which detect patterns in the environment. (more signals, really).
It's just Turtles, all the way down.<br>
<br>
This insistence that the brain has to contain 'real things' that are
not neural signals is pathological, really. It goes against all the
evidence and logic, and just leads to endless pointless arguing.
This concept belongs with phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. We
know better now. <br>
<br>
I think we should stop at glutamate, and give it a decent burial.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We predict experimentalists will soon prove which camp is THE ONE, forcing everyone into it.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></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>