[ExI] Can philosophers produce scientific knowledge?

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Tue May 18 00:13:42 UTC 2021


Stathis Said:
"If qualia were substrate dependent, it would be possible to change the
qualia without the system noticing and reporting the change in qualia"

No, I've pointed out the multiple errors with this, over and over again,
and  you just continue to ignore these blatant fallacies.

First off, this is only true, if you are using a discrete neuron model,
which Steven Lahar points out "is false".

Second, if what you say is true, then it is not just true in the substrate
dependent case.  It is true in all cases.  Even if you can describe some
function, (a completely absurd idea in and of itself) qualia can't be
dependent on that EITHER.  It can't be dependent on anything.  No
matter what you propose, I can use the same absurd argument to say it can't
be dependent on that..


There must be something (functional, physical, quantum, spiritual or
anything else) in the system, that is responsible for a particular redness,
which must have a detectable change to something else, when the redness
changes to something else.  Your argument simply proves nothing, whatsoever
will work, obviously proving that your assumptions are just bonkers,
leading to blatant absurdities.

IF you can give me an example of any objectively detectable function,
quantum weirdness, or anything which enables one to objectively detect
redness, and also objectively detect when that changes to greenness, for
which you can't use the same neuro substitution argument to prove it can't
be that, then I will abandon the materialist camp, and start supporting and
fighting for functionalism with the same resolve you do.  but you CANT do
that.  Because the argument, itself, simply proves redness can't be
dependent on anything, at all.

If you have a different model, which Steven Lehar describes, which he says
is possible, then there is something, objectively detectable, which can
correspond to redness, which will change in an objectively observable way,
when it becomes greenness.

















On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:07 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 08:30, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Stathis,
>> This is the problem, you are focusing on everything unrelated to the
>> quality of the experience, like what the brain is reporting, and a
>> gazillion other external behavioral possibilities, causing you to
>> completely miss what I'm trying to talk abou8t.  I'm not talking about any
>> of that stuff.
>> We are just talking about the fact of the matter of the quality of the
>> experience.  Either it is the same redness, throughout space and time, or
>> it is different, like greenness.  A simple fact about reality.
>> We could wire up whether the user lies about what he is experiencing, or
>> not, none of which is relevant to the redness quality of the knowledge, you
>> only focus on all that stuff which doesn't matter.
>> This quality can be considered a substrate quality of
>> conscious knowledge.  And if that quality changes, it is simply a fact
>> about reality that the redness quality of that knowledge, of which
>> consciousness is composed, has changed.
>> The system must be able to be aware of these qualities, and it must be
>> able to report if they change, and it is these qualities that I'm talking
>> about, and calling a  qualitative substrate.
>> I'm guessing to you, the redness quality could be produced in any
>> physical substrate independent way, but the fact of the matter still
>> remains, even in that case, that redness will always be the same redness
>> quality, through out space and time.  AND the system must be able to detect
>> any change in the quality of this conscious knowledge substrate.  If
>> redness changes to anything else, the system must be aware of this change
>> (and if you insist, it must be able to report such changes, but ;this fact
>> is just destructing from what is important, the quality of the substrate
>> representing conscious knowledge)
>>
>
> “The system must be able to be aware of these qualities, and it must be
> able to report if they change, and it is these qualities that I'm talking
> about, and calling a  qualitative substrate.”
>
> Yes, this is what I am saying: if there really is a change in qualia, the
> system must be able to notice it and report it, which is a behavioural
> change. If the system cannot notice and report any change, then there
> hasn’t been any change. If qualia were substrate dependent, it would be
> possible to change the qualia without the system noticing and reporting the
> the change in qualia, which is absurd. I think you know it is absurd; you
> just can’t see how substrate dependence would lead to this absurdity.
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 4:15 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 07:22, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:18 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, No.  Your miss interpreting my words, into you incorrect
>>>> interpretation of what I'm trying to say.  I'm refiring to the quality of
>>>> the knowledge, that must not change, this quality is the substrate,
>>>> representing our knowledge, or it is the quality of the substrate, out of
>>>> which our conscious experience is composed.  Redness quality of experience
>>>> must always be the same redness, throughout space and time, and greenness
>>>> must be different, again throughout space and time.  The fact that you
>>>> represent red things with knowledge that has a redness quality is a fact
>>>> about reality.  It is the quality of this knowledge that is the substrate
>>>> to which I am referring.  What you consciousness is like,  is dependent on
>>>> the quality of that substrate, representing your knowledge.  If it was
>>>> red/green inverted, you could still behave the same, but it remains a fact
>>>> that since the quality of the substrate of your knowledge change, you
>>>> consciousness would be different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the quality of your experience changed through red-green inversion,
>>> then your behaviour would change: you would say “colours look different to
>>> me”, which is a change in behaviour. If your behaviour did not change, you
>>> would say “colours look the same to me”. So, assuming you are alert and
>>> cooperative, if the quality of your experience changed but your behaviour
>>> did not change, that would mean that you did not notice the change in the
>>> quality of your experience, because either the change was too small to
>>> notice or there was no change. So the rule is: no change in behaviour, no
>>> change in the quality of the experience. And THIS is why qualia cannot be
>>> substrate dependent!
>>>
>>>> --
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210517/6ed391b0/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list