[ExI] Can philosophers produce scientific knowledge?
stathisp at gmail.com
Tue May 11 01:16:43 UTC 2021
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 11:10, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Yes, but again, let's throw out the irrelevant complexity about what the
> person is reporting, whether he is reporting it mistakenly, being forced or
> whatever. Let's just focus on the facts of the matter of the quality of
> the experience. it is ether a fact that the experience is redness, or the
> experiences is greenness. The facts of the matter are dependent on the
> quality of the substrate which the subject is experiencing, as knowledge of
> the strawberry. Everything we care about is simply the quality of the
> experience, which must remain factually consistent, over space and time.
> If the quality of the substrate of the experience changes, this must be
> notice. If not, not noticed, either of which the subject must be aware.
Yes, that’s consistent with everything I have ever said, except for the
part about “the quality of the substrate which the subject is
experiencing”, because I think it is possible for the substrate to change
but the experience to remain the same.
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:01 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 10:52, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 10:13, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>> I didn't say anything about glutamate, just the quality of their
>>>>> knowledge. I recall asking if you agreed with the following statement from
>>>>> our video, and you said you did agree:
>>>>> There is no interpretation of a quale, the quality of our
>>>>> conscious knowledge is just a fact.
>>>>> It might be a physical fact, or spiritual fact, or functional
>>>>> fact, depending on our preferred yet to be falsified theory. But in all
>>>>> cases the quality of our knowledge remains a fact about reality.
>>>>> If that is a fact, over space and time, as you agreed. Then what each
>>>>> person's consciousness knowledge of the strawberry is qualitatively like is
>>>>> important, and we must be able to recognize when at least one pixel
>>>>> factually changes from one quality to the other. And we must be able to
>>>>> say the two are qualitatively different, as they are reporting.
>>>> Yes, I agree that it is a fact that one person experiences (is
>>>> conscious of, has the quale of) redness and another experiences greenness.
>>>> If the qualia invert due to some change in the brain, then the subject may
>>>> report that they have inverted, or at least that something looks a bit
>>>> different. Even if the subject does not report a difference, we might be
>>>> able to observe a difference by subjection him to colour testing. But if
>>>> the subject notices no difference despite going through extensive testing,
>>>> and we can observe no difference with the testing either, then it dies not
>>>> make sense to say that the qualia have changed. Do you agree with that?
>>> Yes, and let's get rid of this "looks a *BIT* different" stuff. Let's
>>> just keep things simple so we don't get distracted with things that don't
>>> matter. The pixel either has a redness quality, ,or a greenness quality.
>>> If it is a fact that the quality of the knowledge changes, or if the
>>> quality doesn't change, over space and time, the person both must be aware
>>> of those facts, and they must be able to report those facts of the matter.
>>> In other words, the quality of the person's experience of that pixel is
>>> dependent on it's particular colourness facts, consistently over space and
>>> time, and they will know if they do or don't change, over space and time.
>> Yes, so if we make some physical change in the brain and the subject does
>> not notice any difference at all, then that physical change in the brain
>> has not altered the qualia. The other possibility is that it has altered
>> the qualia, the subject notices, but is somehow forced to say that there is
>> no difference; but that seems absurd. Even more absurd is to say that the
>> qualia have changed but the subject does not notice, because that would
>> render the idea of qualia meaningless.
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat