[ExI] communication

[Darin Sunley]

I would quibble that "qualia" is vague.

Qualia are these vivid intense experiences of color and sound and pain and
pleasure and sensation I am having every second of every day, that for some
reason are completely impossible to linguistically communicate anything
about to anyone who doesn't also have them already, and that don't seem to
share anything in common, even on an ontological level, with the physical
properties of the external stimuli that seem to create them.

The most bizarre thing about them is that they don't appear to have
anything "objective" about them at all. But I know /I'm/ experiencing them.
Your mileage may vary,

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 9:21 AM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> In classical conditionings, when a bell rings, the dog salivates.  Is this
> communication?  Or symbolic grounding or some such?
>
>
> I am growing increasingly weary of all these hazy word games. One can
> define language and communication in many different nonequivalent ways. The
> reality is in the physics, yet some of us are completely ignoring physics
> and instead engaging in philosophical semantic masturbation.
>
> I wish we would purge vague terms such as “understanding”, “qualia”, and
> so on in favor of objective language.
>
> On Apr 25, 2023, at 10:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> I just want simple answers, not a  bunch of new terms.
>
> In classical conditionings, when a bell rings, the dog salivates.  Is this
> communication?  Or symbolic grounding or some such?
>
> Psychology is the worst at inventing new terms.  Some new sciences are
> doing it too, making relating to old terms difficult.
>
> IMO, if a stimulus provokes a response, communication has occurred.
> Sender; medium; reception and response.  Information has occurred,
> transferred, and caused actions.  Why can't a bell ringing be called a
> language?  If instead you used saying the word 'bell' as a CS, would that
> qualify?
>
> Definitions are very difficult:  you have to say what something is and
> what it isn't, and how it is similar to but different from other terms.  If
> we stuck to operational definitions it would greatly simplify things.
>
> bill w
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230425/24b30c33/attachment.htm>