[ExI] ai emotions

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Sat Jul 6 01:29:35 UTC 2019

Quoting Brent Allsop:

> Everything you say indicates you are mapping all of the qualitative  
> physics of perception into a simple “Naïve realism”model of  
> reality.  Everything you say indicates everything you read of mine,  
> is also being mapped into this simple “Naïve realism”model of reality.

I act like a naive realist most of the time. It is the default state  
of people, I think. For example, when I see a bus hurtling toward me,  
I never pause to question the reality of the bus, I simply get out of  
the way. Like theater goers tried to get out of the way of the train  
depicted in one of the earliest motion pictures.

People who didn't instinctively act as naive realists probably got  
weeded out long ago. That being said, late at night when I am comfy in  
my bed, I ponder Bell's inequality, quantum entanglement, and so forth  
and I question what reality even means. Quantum phenomena like that  
make me question whether information or matter is more fundamental in  
our universe.

At the smallest scales, they seem to be in a ballroom dance so close  
and so fast, you can't see who is leading.

> When I say redness, you think this has the same definition as red.   
> You never distinguish between these two words.  I see no evidence in  
> anything that you say, that you understand anything more complex  
> than a “Naïve realism”model of reality.  So I don’t understand how  
> you can claim to disagree with me, when you show no indication that  
> you understand anything more than a simple “Naïve realism” model of  
> reality.

No I never said redness is the same thing as red, I said that redness  
is a function of red. I would say that red is a contributry cause of  
redness. In other words red + your brain = redness. Glutamate exists  
with or without brains, but redness does not.

> If you have read “Objectively,We are Blind to Physical Qualities”  
> what are the physics of “inverted qualia” as described in that  
> document?  and Why does Jack Galant admit that his method of  
> deriving color for his “mind red” videos problematic?

Seriously? How's this then?

Normal qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Redness

Inverted qualia: Strawberry -> Red light -> Eye -> Brain -> Greenness

As for shortcoming of Gallant's research, any attempt to directly  
measure qualia would require far more invasive techniques than fMRI  
like literally drilling holes in people's skulls, and experiments like  
that are illegal in most places. Your assertion that  "corrections"  
done by computers interpreting data from the brain as being done  
falsely. But that requires one falsely assume that qualia inversion is  
not only conceivable but actually does in fact happen. And that puts  
the burden of proof on you and not Gallant.

That being said, it doesn't matter to me what philosophical camp you  
put me in because I won't stay there. Because I to go where my inquiry  
takes me. And right now, it seems to me that red is a wavelength of  
light and redness is abstract information your brain is processing.

Stuart LaForge

> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> There is no such thing as qualia blindness. We can use as many words 
> for red as you want. We can both look at a fire truck and I might see 
> scarlet or crimson while you might see maroon or candy-apple . . . how 
> does that matter? Does that explain anything at all about either 
> consciousness or intelligence? Even if my red quale was more similar 
> to your green quale, how does it matter? What difference does it make? 
> If it makes no difference, then it is not informative.
> Also you have a tendency to mistake people who disagree with you for 
> people who don't understand you and that is a rude supposition. One 
> that is not very enlightened and does little but alienate others.
> You can't detect those qualitative differences by any known science 
> because qualitative differences are decided by minds and don't 
> actually exist in nature. There is no natural cutoff between red and 
> orange. You decide if something is red or orange. Early on in your 
> development your brain decided on a "filehandle" for the color red and 
> has been using it every since. That "filehandle" has no physical 
> significance outside of your skull. To call someone or something 
> "qualia blind" is like calling them "fairy blind" or "unicorn blind" 
> in that it is absurd.
> And your assertion that I have not read your paper "Objectively,We are 
> Blind to Physical Qualities” is incorrect. I have read it several 
> times and every time I read it, it makes me doubt you understand the 
> definition of the words "objective" and "quality". Qualities are only 
> physical in the sense that information is physical. In any system of 
> particles there is much more information in the relationships between 
> particles then there are in the particles themselves. You are hung up 
> looking for redness in particles of glutamate and greenness in 
> particles of glycine but really qualia don't exist in particles, 
> qualia exist in how those particles interact in the context of your 
> nervous system.
> Also you have been saying the same thing for over ten years whereas my 
> views have evolved and changed over the years. So quit acting like 
> your oversimplified model of color perception is some brilliant 
> philosophical insight that is too subtle for people like me to 
> understand.
> Stuart LaForge
> Quoting Brent Allsop:
>> Once you figure out what “qualia blindness” means, you will look 
>> back on these conversations and, like all people that do now 
>> comprehend qualia blindness (including some on this list), you will 
>> wonder how you could have missed what should be obvious, for so 
>> long.  At least you are still persisting.  Many people give up 
>> before they get this far.  Many people that finally get it 
>> experience this.  In order to not be qualia blind,you need to use 
>> more than just one word “red” when talking about the perception of 
>> color and mind reading.  If you only have one word for “red” you 
>> can’t model when someone is representing red information, with 
>> something physically different like your greenness.
>> Obviously, Both Galant and Nemrodovet al, are doing mind reading.  
>> What youare completely missing is how both of these guys and 
>> everyone doing this kindof mind reading is doing it in a qualia 
>> blind way.  The spatiotemporal EEG information theyare getting is 
>> just abstract information, completely devoid of any colorquality 
>> information.  In order to display mind read colors on the screen, 
>> from the abstract data, they need some additional informationto tell 
>> them when to display what color.  If they are qualitatively 
>> interpreting thedata at all (gallant does this - displaying colored 
>> images, Nemrodov isn’t – he displays no color intheir resulting face 
>> recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blindsthem to 
>> any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting.
>> Jack Gallant uses the
>> color map in the movie he shows to know how to 
>> qualitativelyinterpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is 
>> effectivelyinterpreting it according to the properties of the 
>> initial cause of perception(the physical properties of the 
>> strawberry out there), not the physicalqualities of what they are 
>> observing (knowledge of the strawberry, in thebrain).  Their deep 
>> learning neuralnetwork algorithms have unique models for each 
>> person.  These models “correct” for any physical differences they 
>> detect in individual brains, so theyonly see “red”, when in realty 
>> they may be detecting greenness, and correctingfor this difference 
>> making their mind reading qualia blind.
>> You obviously haven’t yet red the “Objectively,We are Blind to 
>> Physical Qualities” paper which describes exactly this in more detail.
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:57 PM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Brent Allsop:
>>> There are ?week?, ?stronger? and ?strongest? forms predicting how we will
>>> be able to eff the ineffable nature of the physical quality of the redness
>>> someone can directly experience to other people in this ?Objectively, We
>>> are Blind to Physical Qualities
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing>?
>>> paper.
>> Your paper references Jack Gallant's work but what you call "effing" 
>> technology is more popularly called "mind-reading technology" you 
>> should see what they have accomplished with fMRI and deep-learning 
>> algorthms these days. One of the pioneers in the field is now able to 
>> use your EEG(!) fed into a deep learning neural network to reconstruct 
>> the faces you are seeing during the experiment.
>> http://www.eneuro.org/content/5/1/ENEURO.0358-17.2018/tab-figures-data
>>> You are basically making the falsifiable prediction that consciousness or
>>> qualia arise from mathematics or functionality.  This kind of functionalism
>>> is currently leading in supporting sub camps to representational qualia
>>> theory, there being multiple functionalists? sub camps, with more
>>> supporters than the materialist sub camps.
>> So the question now becomes can an algorithm reconstruct your qualia 
>> from your brain-wave data without itself experiencing them?
>>> So, let?s take a simplistic falsifiable mathematical theory as an example,
>>> the way we use glutamate as a simplified falsifiable materialist example.
>>> Say if you predict that it is the square root of 9 that has a redness
>>> quality and you predict that it is the square root of 16 that has a
>>> greenness quality.   In other words, this could be verified if no
>>> experimentalists could produce a redness, without doing that particular
>>> necessary and sufficient mathematical function that was the square root of
>>> 9.
>>> But, if the prediction that it is glutamate that has the redness physical
>>> quality that can?t be falsified, and nobody is ever able to reproduce a
>>> redness experience (no matter what kind of mathematics you do) without
>>> physical glutamate, this would falsify functionalist and mathematical
>>> theories of qualia or consciousness.
>> If hooking EEG electrodes to your head allows a machine to show me red 
>> whenever you are looking at red, then which does that falsify?
>> Stuart LaForge
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list