<div dir="ltr"><b>what is different between a red experience and a green experience, because information patterns don't have a color, but experiences do.<br></b>Just philosophers can say the most obvious things and then pretend that they are so profound and meaningful. <br>OF COURSE!<div>But that is the same with the blueprint of a house or the technical drawings of an engine, or a music sheet, or a computer program. <br>ALL THESE THINGS ARE NOT THE THING THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT !!!<br>This thing really drives me crazy. <br>Why it is different for consciousness or damn colors? If I give you a detailed explanation of all the processes involved that are responsible for consciousness is obvious that the explanation doesn't re-create consciousness. It is a damn explanation, EXACTLY like a blueprint is not a house, you cannot live inside a blueprint. <br>Why do we give this special treatment to consciousness that we require a scientific explanation to give us a direct experience of what the explanation tries to explain?<br>Can somebody make me understand?<br>The only thing I can imagine is that consciousness is a special case because it happens inside us. Ok, so what I don't need to tell you how it feels to see red, you already see red (most of us), who cares if it is not the same red I see? Not 2 houses are the same even if built from the same blueprint. <br>Nobody says, well I just read the blueprint but you know what it doesn't tell me anything about how it feels to live in a house. <br>But to me, people that say a perfectly hypothetical scientific explanation of redness are saying the same type of completely ridiculous nonsense. <br>Giovanni <br><br> <br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:04 PM Darin Sunley <<a href="mailto:dsunley@gmail.com">dsunley@gmail.com</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">The analogy to Mary's Room is quite direct.<div><br></div><div>Mary most certainly learns something new when she sees color for the first time.</div><div><br></div><div>Analogously, when you experience a color, something similarly new is happening, something other than patterns of neural firings correlated to the experience of color. [Mary, of course, understands the neural firing patterns perfectly, but still learned something new - what it was like to experience them.] This something is correlated to neural firings, but neural firings (which do not have a color) are insufficient to generate color.</div><div><br></div><div>Put another way, when you look out at a green field, there is nothing in your brain that is the same color as either blue or green. The blue and green photons all landed in your retinal cells and slightly increased their temperature. Something is causing the blue and green experiences, but the neuron spike trains in your optic nerves cannot be - they don't have that property so they can't possibly be causally transmitting that property from your eyes into your brain. </div><div><br></div><div>The modelling/imagination capability of the frontal cortex is instructive. When you imagine that green field, your visual field is caused to have the same neural firing patterns /as if/ a train of neural firing spikes encoding green and blue photons arriving in your eyes had just arrived in your visual cortex. But this still doesn't explain why a particular neural firing pattern is experienced with a certain experience we call green, and another is experienced with a certain experience we call blue. The differences in information content in the neural firing patterns cannot be causing the difference in experiences, because as far as we can tell, experience isn't made of information at all.</div><div><br></div><div>As to what experience is made of? That's the big question. The temptation is to say "information", because information is the only other immaterial thing we have a half-decent understanding of. Another temptation is to say "quantum effects", because nobody understands those either. But there are serious, fundamental differences between information, quantum effects, and visual experiences. There is no particular reason, except that they're all weird and we don't know how they work, to think they're even remotely related.</div></div><div style="outline:none;padding:10px 0px;width:22px;margin:2px 0px 0px"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:31 PM Giovanni Santostasi <<a href="mailto:gsantostasi@gmail.com" target="_blank">gsantostasi@gmail.com</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">I still don't get why we talk about qualia being elemental or fundamental. Because they seem to be vivid and direct? Doesn't the color illusion experiment I showed demonstrate there is nothing fundamental or direct about colors? They seem to me complex artifacts of several brain regions. What is elemental about given what we know about how the brain works? I don't mean from a silly philosophical point of view but from a scientific one. <br>Giovanni </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:09 PM Darin Sunley 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">"Systematically bridg[ing] between [material] physical and [immaterial] mental characteristics" is the literal expression of Chalmers' "Hard Problem" of consciousness.<div><br></div><div>If you wanna be a famous philosopher, all you have to do is make even infinitesimal progress along those lines. Because no one has yet.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:34 PM Gadersd 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><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">it's a very odd sort of causation where the physical properties of the presumptive proximate cause have nothing to do with the characteristics of the caused phenomena.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>It would be better to say “seem to have nothing…” Not being aware of a connection does not imply that there isn’t a way to systematically bridge between physical and mental characteristics.<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 1, 2023, at 1:26 PM, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="auto">Qualia certainly correlate to physical reality, but declaring causation there seems like a bit of a stretch - at least a begging of the question of materialism.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">it's a very odd sort of causation where the physical properties of the presumptive proximate cause have nothing to do with the characteristics of the caused phenomena.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 1, 2023, 10:46 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"><br>
On 01/05/2023 17:05, Will Steinberg answered:<br>
> It means, I think, "the conformation of physical reality that produces <br>
> the red quale, on the layer of physical reality that is responsible <br>
> for qualia"<br>
<br>
<br>
So, a brain?<br>
<br>
A brain is 'Elemental Redness'??<br>
<br>
I'm reading "conformation of physical reality" as meaning "arrangement <br>
of stuff", and "the layer of physical reality that is responsible for <br>
qualia" as "the organisational level of matter that gives rise to <br>
subjective experiences", i.e. (as far as we know) neural circuits, in a <br>
brain.<br>
<br>
I see no reason to use the word 'elemental' for that. In fact it's <br>
wrong. This is far from elemental.<br>
<br>
If I'm on the wrong track (which seems likely), well, I did ask for <br>
"simple terms".<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer 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" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></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>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>