[ExI] What is Consciousness?

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Brent,
Science has abandoned since Galileo the concept of QUALITY. It is a stupid
idea because it is incredibly vague. This is what kept Ancient Greek
natural philosophy behind. They would say this type of movement has a
"violent" quality, that is meaningless and vague. Galileo insisted on using
the language of nature, that is mathematics, to describe how the world
works and today after only a few hundred years we are talking about
intelligent machines we created using Galileo's program for understanding
reality.
Qualia (that is in a sense of a small chunk of a qualitative experience
according to philosophers) is a silly idea as it was the idea of Water,
Air, Fire and Earth qualities of matter making up the world.
Giovanni



On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 5:43 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 8:13 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 4:34 AM Giovanni Santostasi via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The entire idea of qualia is ridiculous
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, then.  Answer me this,  What is it that has the redness quality in
>>> your brain, when you look at this?
>>> [image: red.png]
>>> Nobody knows that yet.
>>>
>>
>> ### But Brent, neuroscientists have known that for decades. The color
>> rosettes in the fusiform gyrus code for this quality, they are the neural
>> implementation of basic color recognition, with additional higher level
>> processing in the angular gyrus and other areas.
>>
>> We know color.
>>
>
> You don't see any problems in what you are saying here?
>
> For example, what, exactly, do you mean by "code for this quality"?
>
> This is just a circular definition that never actually gets to any
> definition.
>
> I see no evidence that anyone on this list understands what a quality is.
> Only saying something circular like anything can "code for this quality"
> to me, proves you don't know what a quality is.
> Can anyone give a better (non circular) definition of a quality?
>
> A "code" for a quality, is something different than that quality.
>
> A physical greenness quality, or a physical +5 volts, or a physical pit on
> a paper tape, or a word 'red' can all "code" for a redness quality, but
> only if you have a dictionary, which tells you that something that is not a
> redness quality represents redness.
>
> Redness is a physical fact.   A "code" representing that physical fact, is
> not the physical fact.  You need a dictionary to 'decode' the 'code' back
> to the physical redness quality.
>
> But, again, nobody here seems to understand what that redness quality is,
> other than a circular definition (not a definition) like:  "a code for
> redness"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230325/338ba83a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: red.png
Type: image/png
Size: 342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230325/338ba83a/attachment.png>