I'm not going to read your articles or your book or watch your videos because you've given me no reason to spend my most precious resource, which is time. Perhaps I'm being closed-minded, but under the assumption that you want as many people to read and consider your ideas as possible, you may want to see my closed-mindedness as the kind of barrier you'll have to overcome with most people. For instance, one sure-fire way to turn people off is to tell them everything they know is wrong, and then offer them nothing useful in return.
Regarding the dog, I would never run that specific experiment because it's unethical. There are potentially other ways to settle the bet, though. If we can generalize your prediction in a way you'd be ok with, then there's potentially other ways we can test it. How about: "conscious beings on the cusp of death will create new qualia in circumstances in which that qualia would enable them to survive." Do you accept that? On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 10:10 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, 2 May 2019 15:32:43 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the >>> looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference >>> finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is >>> basically that property that makes things with definite properties: red is >>> red, sweet is sweet, etc. So it is a rather precise definition. >>> >> >> I don't think 'precise' means what you think it means. >> > > Yes, is does. Red is red 100%. Physics itself cannot obtain such precises > measurements in its most state of the art experiments. > >> >> >>> Nevertheless, self-reference itself is unformalizable. Self-reference >>> neither exists nor not-exists. >>> >> >> The first sentence is false. And the second sentence is neither true nor >> false. It is meaningless. >> > > I strongly recommend you, if not my book, then at least the "The Emergent > Structure of Consciousness" and the "The Self-Referential Aspect of > Consciousness" papers. Then you will understand what exactly is > self-reference and why exactly the only way it can be described is that it > neither exists nor not-exists. You can then even go on my latest paper "The > Quale of Time" to see that time itself is also self-referential. How aware > are you of Husserl's writings about the retentional nature of time ? If you > are aware, then you would know that you can only get the retention if you > are dealing with unformal dynamics. > > Alternatively, you can read this article that some guy posted on Bernardo > Kastrup "Metaphysical Speculations" group: > https://sites.google.com/site/nondualistlogic/tetralemmic-polarity which > also deals with similar indeas about unformality. > >> >> >>> And depending on what other characteristics this peculiar state of >>> affairs fully entails that consciousness later on displays on its own >>> certain characteristics, including evolution that might not necessarily be >>> part of consciousness per se. This is where the difficulties lie: in >>> understanding what unformal entities actually can do, what kind of powers >>> do they have. >>> >> >> I can't make any sense out of this. >> > > That's why I recommend you do some readings before. That's why papers are > created: to give the information, and then discussion groups to discuss > those informations. Otherwise, if you don't read the papers, you would live > with the impression that people say random things on the discussion groups > (clearly so really do say random things, like living AIs). > >> >> Look, I think you made some progress when you gave a prediction. It >> really crystallizes your ideas. I now know that you really mean it when you >> say the physical world doesn't exist. You think that a dog will >> spontaneously create the ability to see color when it's starving to death. >> I think that's absurd. Would you be willing to place an actual bet with me >> on that, say $100? We can figure out later how to settle the bet in a way >> that doesn't involve killing a dog... I would just like to know you're >> willing to put your money where your mouth is. >> >> Of course, but you would need precise conditions for that to happen. For > example, you mention about colorblind in your last post. There are cases of > colorblind synesthesists that see what they call "martian colors". Probably > those "martian colors" are actually colors that normal people see, but they > don't. Nevertheless, they are able to see them, not because > "electromagnetic radiations excites cells in the eyes", but because meaning > excites their consciousness. And when the meaning of letter A appears in > their consciousness, that meaning will be seen as a "martian color". Colors > are meaning, they have nothing to do with "electromagnetic radiation". So > if a colorblind animal that is starving receives some meaning that can help > him survive, he will see that meaning in colors. Cones and rodes in the > eyes will only later on in his offsprings will appear in order probably to > make the process of seeing colors more effectively, so that for example > colors wouldn't have to appear anymore only when you are starving to death, > but they should appear all the time, because they are good from an > evolutionary point of view. > > So go ahead, to that experiment, I'll give you that 100$. But if you don't > subject the dog to real life-or-death situation I don't know how you will > bring new qualia into his consciousness. > > >> You also never answered my question about where language comes from. >> >> > I also said that life-and-death evolutionary constraints might not be the > only reasons qualia appear. After all, new qualia appear every moment of > our lives. So there are some other things at work as well. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
