"Qualia are personal and incommunicable *by definition,*..." I tend to disagree with the assertion how qualia are "incommunicable". Shall we we revisit the definition for absolute proof?
Qualia are communicable. I have proven that using a scientific method. I'm referring to qualia here in the context of "tacit knowledge". No matter if the subject does not know what it knows, or even that it knows. If explicit, verifiable evidence of subjective experience could be expressed in a valid and reliable manner, as objective fact in context of the holistic experience, it should pass as science. However, the problem to science is; once subjectivity has been made objective, how could it be returned to a pure state of subjectivity for the experiment to be reliably replicated by others? That thought encapsulates many of the ambiguous problems bio-information science are seemingly struggling with, e.g., NP-Hard, ambiguity as well as quantum-spin observations. As such, I propose a new research methodology, which pertains to one-off valid and reliable experimentation when dealing with the "unseen". The "public" and repeat" tests for vetting it as science could be replaced by a suitably-representative body of reviewing scientists who are accredited in the limitations of subjective, scientific observation. ________________________________ From: WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2019 00:49 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: ConscioIntelligent Thinkings "You don’t know my qualia on red ... We may never know that your green is my red." Great, seems like we've reached agreement on something. When we communicate with words like "red," we're really communicating about the frequency of light. I would argue that we are not communicating our qualia to each other. If we could communicate qualia, we would not have this issue of being unable to know whether your green is my red. Qualia are personal and incommunicable *by definition,* and it's good to have that specific word and not pollute it with broader meanings. In the mouse example, I was assuming that I had fully modeled the electro-mechanical phenomena in *this specific* mouse. I still don't think that would give me its qualia. I would be happy to refer to a machine with an incommunicable first-person subjective experience stream as "conscious." But you've admitted that you're not trying to talk about incommunicable first-person subjective experiences, you're trying to talk about communication. I'm not concerned with whether the "consciousness" is mechanical or biological, natural or artificial; I'm concerned with whether it's actually "consciousness." Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M123187415d84d17b03b08bf7> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M6c0065d6583e018c990255af Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
