[ExI] ai emotions

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Sun Jun 30 22:21:33 UTC 2019

Hi Stuart,

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 Nemrodov et al, are doing mind reading.  What
you are completely missing is how both of these guys and everyone doing
this kind of mind reading is doing it in a qualia blind way.  The
spatiotemporal EEG information they are getting is just abstract
information, completely devoid of any color quality information.  In order
to display mind read colors on the screen, from the abstract data, they
need some additional information to tell them when to display what color.
If they are qualitatively interpreting the data at all (gallant does this -
displaying colored images, Nemrodov isn’t – he displays no color in their
resulting face recognition images) they are doing it in a way that blinds
them to any physical qualitative differences they may be detecting.  Jack
Gallant uses the color map in the movie he shows to know how to
qualitatively interpret his spatiotemporal EEG information, which is
effectively interpreting it according to the properties of the initial
cause of perception (the physical properties of the strawberry out there),
not the physical qualities of what they are observing (knowledge of the
strawberry, in the brain).  Their deep learning neural network algorithms
have unique models for each person.  These models “correct” for any
physical differences they detect in individual brains, so they only see
“red”, when in realty they may be detecting greenness, and correcting for
this difference making their mind reading qualia blind.

You obviously haven’t yet red the “Objectively, We are Blind to Physical
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190630/4481709e/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list