[ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary

Mon Dec 23 01:11:39 UTC 2019

Right, everyone has this misconception that everything in the brain is like
it is in a computer.  Just abstract interpretations of interpretations of
perceptions of perceptions, forever.  This is a big part of qualia
blindness.  There is no qualia or physical quality of any kind in such a
system, nor is there there any qualitative information in any of our
knowledge of the universe.  The only way to get qualitative knowledge of
physics is to be directly aware of it, so you can know the quality of what
the abstract physics information is describing.

In a computer the closest you get to “computational binding” in the CPU is
where you load two registers to mathematically “bind” them.  If you want to
know if a strawberry is ripe enough to pick, you need to analyze each pixel
one at a time in a register, comparing each one to a reference value to see
if it is ripe enough via a difference operation.

These registers are computationally bound with “discreet logic” gates.  The
above image is the very complex discrete logic required to do a subtraction
operation on only 4 bits of two registers.  Each bit you add increases the
complexity exponentially.  All you get from that difference operation is
just another integer value representing how close it is to being ripe
enough.  You need to do further computation from there, including the
differences of all the other pixels of the strawberry, one at a time, then
do yet more complex machinery on all those difference numbers and so on.
Each pixel in a CPU register is represented by an RGB number like
(255,0,0).  Each pixel in our CPU is represented by physics that has an
actuall redness value which can be computationally bound to all the other
pixels and knowledge included in what is a composite qualitative experience.

Each of the pixels of redness knowledge for us is computationally bound
into our massive biological CPU that is just aware of every single pixel,
and you are just aware of each one, all at the same time.  There is lots of
necessary computation going on to achieve that kind of aware of it all at
the same time composite qualitative experience.

With computers, you have “Field programmable gate arrays” to do custom
programming.  Consciousness is what it is like for a massive sleep
programmed gate array CPU to operate.  Redness is only part of what qualia
are.  Most of it is the way each pixel of redness knowledge can be
computationally bound to all the other pixels, your memories and
everything else,
all at once.  Integration Information Theory
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory> predicts how
you can quantitatively measure the conscious power of any brain CPU by how
“integrated” it is.  They have rigorous methods to measure and calculate
the amount of integration able to do computational and come up with a
quantitative value they refer to as phi.*Ф*

That gives you a quantity of all your computational binding.  To get the
quality of consciousness, you need Representational Qualia Theory
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6#statement>, and
qualitative definitions to words like "redness".

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:57 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>   We don’t perceive redness, redness is the final result of perception,
> the quality of the physical knowledge we are directly aware of.
>
> This seems completely contradictory, as you have 'perceive' and
> 'perception' opposed, or something.  bill w
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 4:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, physics can explain everything about qualia, the problem is, all
>> these abstract labels for and descriptions of physics that come to our
>> senses tell us nothing about the physical quality they are describing.  The
>> only thing qualitative is subjective experience.  Everything we get from
>> objective observation is abstract.  The physics that interacts with our
>> senses isn’t anything like whatever is the target of perception.  So, in
>> order to know the qualitative color of something, you need to experience it
>> directly.  For example, it is a theoretical possibility that the causal
>> properties of redness are the causal properties of glutamate as it reacts
>> in a synapse.  In other words, both the abstract words redness and
>> glutamate are labels for the same thing.  We don’t perceive redness,
>> redness is the final result of perception, the quality of the physical
>> knowledge we are directly aware of.
>>
>>
>>
>> The word red isn’t physically red.  In order to know what red means, you
>> need to point to something physical (or in Stathis’ case, maybe point to
>> something functional or magic) and say THAT is red.  Because physicists and
>> neuroscientists never do this, they are qualia blind.  They can’t tell us
>> what THAT is, as a definition of red.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank Jackson started to far one way (physics can’t explain qualia) and
>> was wrong.  Then he swung the other way, and is still wrong (has no idea
>> how to bridge the explanatory gap) And as usual, the answer is somewhere in
>> the middle.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind (use two words color and
>> colorness as in glutamate’s color is white, since it reflects white light
>> but it’s colorness is redness.) they will soon discover what the definition
>> of red is.  They will be able to finally tell us which of all their
>> descriptions of physics is the description of redness.
>>
>>
>>
>> Discovering this will obviously falsify all but *THE ONE* true theory of
>> qualia, from amongst all the yet to be falsified diverse sets of theories
>> predicting the extreme diversity of possible physical natures of qualia.
>> You can see all the competing theories in the sub camps of Representational
>> Qualia Theory <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully it is obvious to everyone that I am in the Molecular
>> Materialism camp
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Molecular-Materialism/36>.
>>
>> Or here is the entire parent chain of my camps:
>>
>> *Agreement
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1> / Approachable
>> Via Science
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2> / Representational
>> Qualia
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6> / Mind-Brain
>> Identity <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Mind-Brain-Identity/17> / Monism
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Monism/65> / Qualia are Material Qualities
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-are-Material-Qualities/7> / Molecular
>> Materialism <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Molecular-Materialism/36>*
>>
>>
>>
>> Stathis, you are still a functionalist, right?  But which type of
>> functionalist are you?  A Monist functionalist
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function/18> or a property
>> dualist functionalist
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Functional-Prprty-Dualism/8>?  Or some
>> other camp?  Or have I falsified functionalism for you yet?
>>
>>
>>
>> How would each of you rank the best of these theories?  John, William,
>> anyone else?  Does anyone know of a theory that hasn’t yet been canonized?
>>
>>
>>
>> And even more, would anyone care to make any kind of bet as to which camp
>> will be the first to achieve a 90% or better consensus, using the peer
>> ranked mind expert canonizer algorithm
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Mind-Experts/1>?
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, how long do people think this will take to get to a 90% scientific
>> consensus?  I predict it will happen within 5 years of achieving a
>> total participation of 1000 verified people participating in the Theories
>> of Consciousness
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1> topic.
>> There are currently less than 100 total participants.  So it is all up to
>> you to help with the amplification of the wisdom of the crowd process and
>> basically sign the petition that you believe scientists need to stop being
>> qualia blind so they will get the message sooner.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In this case, one can note that Mary can not possibly acquire "all the
>>> physical information" even in a lifetime of work.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean the information isn't there, just that the method
>>> proposed would obviously fail to provide enough resources to acquire it.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually
>>>> more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought
>>>> experiment.  As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in
>>>> reality.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191222/e17ed797/attachment.htm>