Qualia Blindness

[Skepdick]

This is not true (ie falsified), if you splice a red/green inverted into your optic nerve.

That's not a falsification! You have fooled yourself - the experiment is not even valid.

In the experiment above there is no 622 to 780 nm light reaching my eyeball!
You "inverter" replaces 622 to 780 nm light with 495–570 nm light!

So you are no longer testing my "redness", you are now testing my "greenness". Which is PRECISELY as per the prediction I would make.
Which is the prediction that 495–570 nm light is what's causing my "greenness".

Are you familiar with Shannon's model of communication?
Your filter is a noise source - you are violating the "ceteris paribus" principle by adding one to your experiment.

In information security industry we call this problem man in the middle attack.

In that case the strawberry (on the inverted screen of the phone) and the light is green, when you experience redness.

Brent, you sound really confused. Here is a screenshot from your very own video.

It shows that the mind experiences whatever the inverter is showing. OBVIOUSLY!!!
How could you possible be baffled by such pseudoscience?

Canonizer 2020-05-28 08-13-49.jpg (22.32 KiB) Viewed 2607 times

Um, what about when people are dreaming of girls in red dresses, or a brain in a vat, with a “matrix” (Or TanK providing it) causing them to have knowledge of girls in red dresses, while in both cases, there is no light, in the "system" or anywhere?

Then they are recalling the experience of "redness" from their memories.

That's how computers work. We recall our lived experiences.

Redness is not in the 'matrix', redness can't be a property of light. Redness is in the brain, in the vat. And if you have an inverter, between the two, redness changes to grenness - your theory falsified.

Q.E.D

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool --Richard Feynman

Consciousness is information. More than that I cannot say.

[Skepdick]

Um, what about when people are dreaming of girls in red dresses with there eyes shut, or a brain in a vat, with a “matrix” (Or TanK providing it) causing them to have knowledge of girls in red dresses, while in both cases, there is no light, in the "system" or anywhere? Redness is not in the 'matrix', redness can't be a property of light. Redness is in the brain, in the vat. And if you have an inverter, between the two, redness changes to grenness - your theory falsified.

Let me give you the counter example.

How is it that the word "redness" triggers the experience of redness if there is no source of light?

REDNESS

REDNESS.

REDNESS.

[Brent.Allsop]

Hi Skepdick,

You’re just yanking my chain, now, right? You can easily comprehend tons of stuff that I really need to struggle with, before I can catch up to you. Yet on this pre-school level simple concept, you aren’t yet letting on that you get it.

OK, say we make an identical twin of you, in the womb. Except for a slight alteration. You engineer your twin, so he uses your redness to represent green with, and visa versa. Or let’s just assume at least one of us on this forum is red/green inverted from someone else, similarly from birth.
The result being, when both of you go to preschool, your teacher points to a ‘red’ crayon, giving you each a definition of red. (In case you hadn’t noticed, your invert is going to define your greenness, to be the definition of ‘red’.

Which one is the real ‘redness’? Or Which one is suffering from this so called “man in the middle’ extra ‘noise’? And why are you so ‘your redness’ racists? Remember, it is a theoretical possibility that you are the only one on this list that is red/green inverted from the rest of us.

[Skepdick]

You’re just yanking my chain, now, right? You can easily comprehend tons of stuff that I really need to struggle with, before I can catch up to you. Yet on this pre-school level simple concept, you aren’t yet letting on that you get it.

I DO get it. In what language do you want me to say it so you can understand?

You can't see what I see because YOU are qualia blind.

I can't explain it to you language BECAUSE it is ineffable.

All I have is words - you have to reason your way up the mountain.

OK, say we make an identical twin of you, in the womb. Except for a slight alteration. You engineer your twin, so he uses your redness to represent green with, and visa versa.

Brent. For somebody who gets is you sure don't get it.

What do the WORDS "redness" and "green" represent to you?

You see it, like I see it which is like this, right?

GREENNESS

REDNESS

Or let’s just assume at least one of us on this forum is red/green inverted from someone else, similarly from birth.

Fine. Lets do that.

You call "redness" red.
Your twin calls "redness" green.

What do you mean by "red" and "green" ?!?!

The result being, when both of you go to preschool, your teacher points to a ‘red’ crayon, giving you each a definition of red. (In case you hadn’t noticed, your invert is going to define your greenness, to be the definition of ‘red’.

Brent. Listen carefully. I am saying this as loud as possible, not to offend you, but so you can hear me through your qualia blindness.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS - I CARE ABOUT EMPIRICISM.

What is the wavelength of this "red" crayon ?

Which one is the real ‘redness’? Or Which one is suffering from this so called “man in the middle’ extra ‘noise’? And why are you so ‘your redness’ racists?

NEITHER.

You are experiencing "greenness" when you see the strawberry.
I am experiencing "redness" when I see the strawberry.

Whose experience is more real?

[Brent.Allsop]

[People in a matrix] are recalling the experience of "redness" from their memories.

and

How is it that the word "redness" triggers the experience of redness if there is no source of light?

A bit of a tangent, but your consciousness must be way different than mine. Because the best I can reproduce from either a memory, or the word 'red' or when my eyes are closed, is nothing like, what I can experience when I see RED.

OK, back to what matters. Again, who's redness are you remember when you see the word red? Remember, your redness is theoretically inverted from the rest of us on this list.

For me, at least, the quale of memory of red, is very different than actual redness.
Q.E.D. Your theory falsified.

[Skepdick]

[People in a matrix] are recalling the experience of "redness" from their memories.

and

How is it that the word "redness" triggers the experience of redness if there is no source of light?

A bit of a tangent, but your consciousness must be way different than mine. Because the best I can reproduce from either a memory, or the word 'red' or when my eyes are closed, is nothing like, what I can experience when I see RED.

OK, back to what matters. Again, who's redness are you remember when you see the word red? Remember, your redness is theoretically inverted from the rest of us on this list.

For me, at least, the quale of memory of red, is very different than actual redness.
Q.E.D. Your theory falsified.

That is not red!!!

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF RED

Do you understand what my "redness" is like now?

[Skepdick]

A bit of a tangent, but your consciousness must be way different than mine.

My consciousness is different! I told you that.

I am a monist. My monism is like Atla's non-dualism.

You are not a monist/non-dualist. Yet.

OK, back to what matters. Again, who's redness are you remember when you see the word red? Remember, your redness is theoretically inverted from the rest of us on this list.

Mine! Obviously.

Whose else's "redness" could I possibly remember. I can't read other people's minds.

For me, at least, the quale of memory of red, is very different than actual redness.
Q.E.D. Your theory falsified.

How is your inability to remember the redness of your memories a falsification of my theory?

[Brent.Allsop]

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS

OK, that's fine. Subsistence farmers don't need to care about more complex heliocentric model of the soar system. All they need is to know is that the sun comes up in the morning, goes arround them, and sets in the evening. But some of us want to dance in the heavens, discover colornesses nobody has every experienced before and would like to be able to 'empirically' discovered things like: "What is it like to be a bat?" or "What did Frank Jackson's Mary learn?".

If you don't have empirically verifiable definitions, you can't answer such justified questions, and as long as we continue to fail to know what it is in our brain, that has a redness quality, we will never be able to falsify all the "crap in the gap" theories of consciousness, we will continue giving them a free ride to believe anything they want about qualia, all because of your lack of interest in finding an intrinsic definition, which would immediately falsify all those crap in the gap theories.

[Skepdick]

some of us want to dance in the heavens, discover colornesses nobody has every experienced before and would like to be able to 'empirically' discovered things like: "What is it like to be a bat?" or "What did Frank Jackson's Mary learn?".

How are you going to get there when you can't even remember what "redness" is like ?!?

If you don't have empirically verifiable definitions, you can't answer such justified questions

Do you have an empirically verifiable definition of "empiricism"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

, and as long as we continue to fail to know what it is in our brain, that has a redness quality, we will never be able to falsify all the "crap in the gap" theories of consciousness, we will continue giving them a free ride to believe anything they want about qualia, all because of your lack of interest in finding an intrinsic definition, which would immediately falsify all those crap in the gap theories.

Well. Clearly you don't lack the interest - go find what you are looking for

[Brent.Allsop]

You can't see what I see because YOU are qualia blind.

The proof to me, that you are just yanking my chain, is in the fact that you will refuse to “canonize” any of your claims, to see if anyone other than you, agrees with you. My first prediction is that you will not do this (strong evidence in my eyes that you are just yanking my chain) and that even if you do, my second prediction is that nobody will support your camp. While Steven Lehar, Daniel Dennett, John Smythies, Stuart Hameoroff, and almost 40 others have joined RQT theory.

So can I request that you put up or shut up, with your nonsense (crap in the gap) that nobody will agree with?

[Skepdick]

You can't see what I see because YOU are qualia blind.

The proof to me, that you are just yanking my chain, is in the fact that you will refuse to “canonize” any of your claims, to see if anyone other than you, agrees with you. My first prediction is that you will not do this (strong evidence in my eyes that you are just yanking my chain) and that even if you do, my second prediction is that nobody will support your camp. While Steven Lehar, Daniel Dennett, John Smythies, Stuart Hameoroff, and almost 40 others have joined RQT theory.

The proof to me that you don't understand what's going on is that you refuse to "canonize" an empirically verifiable definition of "empiricism", to see if you can even agree with yourself on how to test/falsify your own definition.

My first prediction is that you will not do this (strong evidence in my eyes that you don't understand what's going on) and the even if you do, my second prediction is that empiricists would not support your camp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ductionism

Analyticity would be acceptable if we allowed for the verification theory of meaning: an analytic statement would be one synonymous with a logical truth, which would be an extreme case of meaning where empirical verification is not needed, because it is "confirmed no matter what". "So, if the verification theory can be accepted as an adequate account of statement synonymy, the notion of analyticity is saved after all."

The problem that naturally follows is how statements are to be verified.

So can I request that you put up or shut up, with your nonsense (crap in the gap) that nobody will agree with?

That's absolutely great advice! I agree 100%. Do you think you can put it to practice?

Could you give us an empirically verifiable definition of "empiricism" that we can all agree with?

When you eventually figure it out (and I know you will), remember this conversation, have a beer and laugh about it

[Skepdick]

So can I request that you put up or shut up, with your nonsense (crap in the gap) that nobody will agree with?

Mean while. Here is the exact problem you are observing (nobody can agree on anything) in the language of Computer Science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

And the description of what's taking place when we establish that "your redness is like my greenness" is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

"Your up-spin is like my down-spin!", said the Qubit.
Your bra is my ket. That's why you feel (N.B not think) like I am "yanking you chain" - I am making you feel it.

Of course I am doing it. It's intentional. It's how language works - it's how you "get in other people's minds", which is exactly what you want. Right?

If you want to experience what other people experience you are going to have to learn to communicate with them