So? What’s the point?
You asked me for a conventional yes/no answer, thats what I gave you.
But the interpretation is not direct experience - its a description of a labelled extract/pattern, not of the whole.
So? What’s the point?
The point is that you should have "drawn a line" in your experiences but you didn't.
The ability to distinguish difference between things is a property called "sensitivity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivi ... pecificity
Yes, very true.
Happy to "help", but after reading through the text available on Canonizer I am not sure if what I would have to say would actually support your cause - e.g. build a better theory which can be applied to "do things like build conscious machines"...
Exactly They just "look the same" to you. You don't draw a distinction, but somebody else might.AlexW wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:38 pm Yes, very true.
As I see it, your red-experiment is also interesting when extrapolating it to how we generally recognise things (not just color).
For example: You look at a dripping kitchen tap - the drop forms, it falls, makes a plop - this process happens again and again ... every few seconds.
Now, besides going mad from the noise, most people would agree that it is not the same drop that is falling now to the one that has been falling a few seconds ago. The experience is definitely different, not the same - yet, when isolating the drop (e.g. making a photo of two different drops) you wont be able to tell the difference - you can do the same with the plop-sound etc etc...
With color, interestingly, we would conventionally say (as I did): these are the same colours (they "look the same")
With the drop on the other hand: we would conventionally say: this drop is not the same as the one before (even they actually "look the same")
It's the way how we interpret an experience (and not so much the experience in and of itself) that creates differences and similarities, that draws borders or erases them.
Thanks for the willingness to help. Unlike Peer reviewed journals, which assume things are perfected, before it goes to publication, wiki systems are eternally progressing. I don’t yet fully understand these types of beliefs. Others that have also contributed, also, either don’t understand, or haven’t yet taken the time to help fix things.
Shouldn't we define "definition" before we can progress?
The common understanding of "red" and "redness" isn't good enough for you, right?
Since you seemed to have dodged my other questions, I am still unclear if you really get "qualia".
If English is not homoiconic, then how is it that I can ask you to help us redefine "define", or ask AlexW to give as an alternative definition for 'consciousness' that works better in his model, while a different definition may work better in my model? I thought that is what I was doing, in a homoiconic way, and we are using English, are we not?
You can ask me. It doesn't help me understand whether you mean the same thing by "define" and "redefinition", any more than you can know that my green is your red.
You missed the point is that when you say "redefine X", you expect a new English sentence and I expect an algorithm.Brent.Allsop wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 7:41 pm or ask AlexW to give as an alternative definition for 'consciousness' that works better in his model, while a different definition may work better in my model? I thought that is what I was doing, in a homoiconic way, and we are using English, are we not?