<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">I just wish people with these kinds of "qualities arise from <whatever>" theories would explicitly acknowledge (instead of ignoring), what everyone knows absolutely, that color qualities are real, and then provide some example of some kind of "function" or some configuration of parts, the sum total of which could be pointed to and say: "THAT is redness." at least in a way that would pass the laugh test?</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>The particle interactions that occur in the brain can be represented as a graph and analyzed within the language of graph theory. Take a brain over some time interval and build a computation graph of all the particle interactions that occur within the brain over that time period. According to my theory there is a subgraph within that graph that corresponds to that person’s experience of redness. Whenever the person experiences redness that subgraph is present. Build a computation graph of a different person. Whenever the new person experiences the same color qualia the same subgraph is present within the total interaction graph. Commonality of experience is simply the set of subgraphs that are common. Which subgraphs correspond to particular experiences must be experimentally determined.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Particle interaction graphs are not arbitrary like codes. They are physically grounded, objectively determined, and do not necessarily depend on the specific types of particles involved, which implies a form of substrate independence.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Many of us have provided numerous examples and explanations. I am perplexed at your disregard.<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 13, 2023, at 5:14 PM, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" class="">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="">Hi Gadersd,</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:35 PM Gadersd via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" class="">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Brent, where is the glutamate quality of electrons, neutrons, and protons? Which electron has the redness quality?<br class=""></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div class="">Electrons behave the way they do, because they have a quality you have never experienced before. (Note: I'm a pan qualityist. a panpsychist minus the pan computational binding ;)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div></blockquote><div class="">There exists higher order structure that doesn’t exist in the component parts, hence the phrase “more than the sum of the parts."<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I guess that would be a hypothetical possibility. I try to always point out that some day, someone will experience redness without glutamate, falsifying the prediction that it is glutamate that behaves the way it does, because of its redness quality. Once glutamate is falsified, they will try something else, possibly including something that is the sum of some configuration of parts, or ANYTHING. The reason we use glutamate is because it is so easily falsifiable. Falsifiability is what we are missing with the qualitative nature of consciousness, and ease of falsifiability is the reason we are using glutamate as an easy stand-in for whatever redness turns out to be.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I just wish people with these kinds of "qualities arise from <whatever>" theories would explicitly acknowledge (instead of ignoring), what everyone knows absolutely, that color qualities are real, and then provide some example of some kind of "function" or some configuration of parts, the sum total of which could be pointed to and say: "THAT is redness." at least in a way that would pass the laugh test?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">i.e. predicting a function like the square root of 4 is redness and the square root of 9 is greenness, or 6 flat equal sides are required to make yellow, just don't pass the laugh test, do they? If anyone can do any better than that, I'll stop laughing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">extropy-chat mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" class="">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br class="">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>