[ExI] Fwd: Paper on "Detecting Qualia" presentation at 2015 MTA conference

[Brent Allsop]

BillK and Dan,

No, you guys are not thinking clearly about many very different things.

At least John is getting close, and asking better questions, but he still
isn't quite thinking clearly about this.

You must be smart enough to realize that there are at least 3 different
things you must keep straight if you are going to understand the perception
process and the qualitative nature of the physical world:

1: Causal Red
2: Zombie Red
3: Redness Quality of conscious knowledge.

As long as you guys think of all of these as the same thing, you'll never
understand the qualitative nature of consciousness.

The only relationship any of these have to each other, is there is some
hardware, somewhere, that is interpreting particular ones as the other.

BillK, and Dan are only talking about, and pointing to "color" articles,
which are all talking about causal red and zombie red.  Both of these have
nothing to do with detecting a redness quale, as is pointed out in the
paper.

Please go back and read the paper again (it's only about 10 pages, after
all), and be sure you understand the difference between these three
different parts of perception, then come back and ask some intelligent
questions, instead of making more stupid noisy comments about completely
unrelated topics.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vxfbgfm8XIqkmC5Vus7wBb982JMOA8XMrTZQ4smkiyI/edit?usp=sharing

Brent Allsop







On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:01 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 January 2015 at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
> > To a atom or molecule it means that light with a wavelength of 650 NM
> will
> > knock an electron into a higher orbital shell, but light with a
> wavelength
> > of 510 NM will not. This is probably not what you mean by the REDNESS
> > property or the GREENNESS property, but I'm not sure what you do mean.
> > Forgetting physics, is your experience of seeing red (qualia) the same as
> > mine? Absolutely not, we're 2 different people so we're having 2
> different
> > experiences. So can John Clark ever know what it's like for Brent Allsop
> to
> > experience red?  No. Nanotechnology could change my brain so it was
> > identical to yours but then John Clark would still not know because I'd
> no
> > longer be John Clark, I'd be Brent Allsop.
> >
>
>
> More detailed explanation of how colour works.
> <http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/01/28/4123767.htm>
> Quote:
> Organic molecules absorb light when a photon of light interacts with
> the electrons holding the molecule together, temporarily bumping one
> out of place. This takes energy, and because the energy content of a
> photon depends on its colour, different electrons can be knocked out
> by different colours of light, depending on how tightly those
> electrons are bound into the molecule.
>
> Red photons have the least energy, followed by green, then blue, and
> finally violet photons, which have the most energy in the visible
> light range. Ultraviolet photons have even more energy. X-rays are
> photons with so much energy that we don't even call them light
> anymore.
> ---------------
>
> However, as John says, everybody sees colours differently, from
> colour-blindness to extra colours. When Brent sees red, John might see
> dark pink. Brent's REDNESS exists only in his brain as an artefact of
> his brain processing. Like all other senses. Brent's bitter taste is
> unique to his brain, and so on.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150129/44ab6787/attachment.html>