[ExI] Digital Consciousness .
brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Apr 27 19:32:43 UTC 2013
Hi Bryan, Haven't heard from you in a while.
I have a question for you. Are you saying a redness quality is a
quality of the strawberry? Or, worse, that a redness quality doesn't
exist? You seem to be saying that there is no evidence that things like
a redness quality exist?
We know that we have things like a redness quale, a greenness quale that
we experience, and we know, more surely than we know anything, the
qualitative difference between them. The expert consensus nearly
unanimously (Notice that even Dennett's new camp now supports this
prediction: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/21) agrees that these
qualities are qualities of something in our brain or qualities of the
final result of the perception process, not the initial cause. These
qualities suffer from the quale interpretation problem, which is why
they are blind to any non grounded, abstracting or cause and effect
based observation. (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/19 ).
The only remaining significant disagreement seems to be about the nature
of the relationship between qualities like redness and greenness we can
experience, and the underlying neural correlates. Some people predict
it is a functional relationship, other say it is a particular material
(i.e. without the right stuff, no redness quale), others predict it is
quantum based, and so on. Obviously, all these are very testable, so it
is only a matter of time till science forces everyone into the same
camp, where everyone can use the resulting maps to correctly predict the
relationship between all elemental qualia our brain 'paints' our
conscious knowledge with, and the underlying causal properties of such.
When someone that represents 'red' with a quale you've never experienced
before in your life, effs to you, for the first time, what that quale is
like, and you say: "Oh wow, what a wonderful quality. I've never
experienced anything like that before." as is being predicted by the
leading theories, It'll obviously be quite convincing, or falsifying, of
many naive working hypotheses, right?
On 4/27/2013 1:11 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>> You know, the theory that consciousness is caused by little green gnomes is
>> also testable and falsifiable, and neuroscience has not yet found any
>> evidence contradicting it.
> Has neuroscience found any evidence whatsoever of consciousness? Until
> then, I prefer to not believe in it.
> - Bryan
> 1 512 203 0507
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat