Hi John,
Yay, you are saying multiple things that indicate progress. I hear you
saying that over time it could occur that a “green person” could evolve, in
a step-wise cell-cell communication fashion in response to seeing food” and
so on. And it is interesting how this functionality is like pavlova
conditioning.
But your language is still ambiguous. In order to know what a qualitative
word like red means; you need to specify a specific thing which has that
quality for which that name is a label for. You can’t use one word for
lots of different physical things, and expect people to know which thing
you are talking about, when you use that word.
For example, you made the ambiguous statement: “he sees green strawberries
when I see red strawberries”. When you say “green” and “red” like this, I
don’t know if you are talking about the physical properties of the
strawberry, or the physical qualities of your knowledge of the strawberries.
I don’t know if you are saying there are only “green” strawberries all of
which reflect green light, or are you saying our knowledge of all
strawberries, regardless of whether they reflect red or green light – your
brain produces only green knowledge of them. (as would occur when a person
is red/green color blind where they all appear to be the same color.)
Which one did you mean, when you said that?
In order to not be ambiguous, you need to use 2 different words when
talking about different physical properties or qualities. I use the word
“red” to talk about the physical property of “emitting or reflecting red
light” and I use the different word “redness”, when talking about the
physical quality of knowledge of a “red” strawberry. This allows me to
talk about us both seeing the same “red” strawberry, my brain representing
that strawberry with knowledge that has the physical quality your brain
uses to represent knowledge of green things with, or “your physical
greenness”.
So, given that, do you see how only using one word “red” to talk about all
physical qualities is ambiguous, and that I can’t understand what you mean
when you talk that way?
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:48 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Brent, just as I signed off I realized that what I am talking about is
> similar to Pavlovian conditioning, but that process would evolve to become
> inherent physiologically over evolution. In other words the mechanism for
> physiologically controlling salivation would have evolved in a step-wise
> cell-cell communication fashion in response to seeing food, beginning with
> vision and smell signaling to the brain, signaling to the salivary glands
> through the nervous system to secrete saliva based on cell-cell
> communication mechanisms at the interface between neurons and salivary
> gland cells. Over time such interrelationships would become structurally
> and functionally part of dog's physiology.
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 6:36 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brent, thanks for not giving up on me. I keep thinking that I 'get
>> it', but you are telling me I don't. So here goes. You propose physically
>> manipulating this 'green' person's optic nerve so that he sees green
>> strawberries when I see red strawberries. I am saying that this can (and
>> will) occur over evolutionary time scales through epigenetic inheritance.
>> That is to say, if all there were were green strawberries, and I were
>> foraging for them, when I saw the green wavelength strawberries and picked
>> them, there would also be chemical 'cues' that I would absorb through my
>> fingers when picking them, nose when smelling them, tongue when eating them
>> that would be assimilated in my DNA so that when I saw green strawberries,
>> eventually all of those signals would light up in me as consciousness of
>> green strawberries. In other words, 'green' strawberries would be in my
>> physiologic being. Any good? John
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 12:14 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don’t give up on me quite yet. Let’s try one more thing.
>>>
>>> Testability is the critical point of everything we are saying. Everyone
>>> thinks qualia are ineffable, or not testable via science, simply because
>>> they are qualia blind. As soon as someone is no longer qualia blind,
>>> qualia become easily testable, discoverable, objectively demonstrable, or
>>> effable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Consider this image from the Wikipedia article on qualia.
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: 250px-Inverted_qualia_of_colour_strawberry.jpg]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When you look at that strawberry, through the normal, non red green
>>> inverted picture on the left, your knowledge of that strawberry has a
>>> normal redness quality, right? However, if you invert the red green
>>> signal, anywhere between the strawberry and your brain (one way is by
>>> looking through the red green inverted picture of that strawberry on the
>>> right) your knowledge of that strawberry, in your brain, now has a physical
>>> greenness quality, does it not?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, let’s say you engineer someone, with a similar red green signal
>>> inversion in the optic nerve. Let’s say we do this at birth. This
>>> invert’s mother then points to ripe strawberries, which he sees with your
>>> greenness, and his mother says that is “red”. So, he learns to call
>>> strawberries that have your greenness quality ‘red’. She says those are
>>> the strawberries we want to pick. So, functionally he is able to pick the
>>> strawberries, that have your greenness quality, just as good as you are.
>>> This invert's brain will learn to think of “Harm”, “Wounding” and “Injury”
>>> as having your greenness quality, since that is what he always experiences,
>>> when he sees ‘red’ light reflecting off blood, coming from an injury. This
>>> is all true because of the red green inverter engineered into his optic
>>> nerve.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 1:59 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brent, I guess I am Qualia Blind because I just don't understand what
>>>> you are referring to. And if it cannot be tested using scientific methods,
>>>> I am not interested. But thanks for trying to educate me. John
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:28 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don’t think we are talking past each other. Let me try saying it
>>>>> this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are still only thinking of “red” functionally, which is
>>>>> qualitatively ambiguous. In order to define something, qualitatively, you
>>>>> need to indicate a specific set of physical properties, for which the word
>>>>> is a label for. You use it to represent any and all the different physical
>>>>> things YOU interpret as representing “red” functionality such as “harm”,
>>>>> “homeostasis” (“democrat vs republican”?) In order to not be qualitatively
>>>>> ambiguous (not be qualia blind) you need to use different terms to talk a
>>>>> about different physical properties or qualities. In the “Representational
>>>>> Qualia Theory
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=C5897ZGG5XvT-gYxkPtQhe_Ux7cuCBMJJwaQ-n_P2c0&s=0V4irifRxkLjizEgwma13UhPZcka9fzAmqJzdKh9uD0&e=>”
>>>>> statement, we point out that we use the term “red” as a label for physical
>>>>> properties that include reflecting or emitting “red” (650 NM) light. We
>>>>> use a different word “redness” which is a label for a very different
>>>>> physical quality, the final result of the perception process. Redness is a
>>>>> different label for a different physical quality we can be directly aware
>>>>> of.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You never use any other words, except “red” when talking about
>>>>> physical qualities. You are still doing this here. When qualia blind
>>>>> people say “red”, you can’t tell if they are talking about the properties
>>>>> of the strawberry, the redness quality of their knowledge of the
>>>>> strawberry, or someone else’s knowledge of the same strawberry (or them,
>>>>> wearing red/green inverting glasses), which is like their greenness
>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:55 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gregg and TOK, thank you for your kind words and thoughts. The
>>>>>> intent of invoking Relativity Theory is to be all-inclusive, but it may be
>>>>>> a 'bridge too far'.....gotta have goals.
>>>>>> I think that 'pain' is subjective, and may/not mean 'ouch'.....in a
>>>>>> plant it may just be an aversive reaction to something that it finds
>>>>>> undesirable. Given that we are mobile whereas plants are not I wouldn't
>>>>>> think that 'ouch' would be response, but the net result would be the
>>>>>> same-ish. I have attached a recent paper by Frantisek Baluska, a German
>>>>>> botonist and Arthur Reber, a clinical psychologist that may/not be of
>>>>>> interest. Frantisek is the Keynote Speaker at that Consciousness meeting I
>>>>>> am also speaking at fyi.....John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 7:54 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi TOK,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cool thoughts, John. On this topic, here are some interesting
>>>>>>> articles about what plants might “feel” that my brother shared with me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.peta.org_about-2Dpeta_faq_what-2Dabout-2Dplants_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=DAz1KKy3w_nVRSEau_8WrAsYsOtdRPQYOvBm1gyHSdA&s=ZBu0wz5ihYxSnqdQYpHMzROcfg5BWLqQT6emkQuqsuk&e=
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.peta.org_about-2Dpeta_faq_what-2Dabout-2Dplants_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=U03kSP2uYVWZ6m5RezM0t4bwvIrwBgT7ExgKR0DHTFQ&s=qDqAEERAVjbKT2-vhqfgTq91kAfgCMIbRSt6WFgU89c&e=>*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.howstuffworks.com_life_botany_plants-2Dfeel-2Dpain.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=DAz1KKy3w_nVRSEau_8WrAsYsOtdRPQYOvBm1gyHSdA&s=sLWpGH9PLmdvndIUaIFrXpKwzbzCrXUV6EQeg-BjMGE&e=
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.howstuffworks.com_life_botany_plants-2Dfeel-2Dpain.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=K3sr1bqZ0C1vQ-EBF9LTt5e4QFOjnSJzQB3uqW3f0Y0&s=Q6lxSBOL5wQSmBZSRxrY5dnR5cuiwWQSVo6HdEEkxiY&e=>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me, I completely agree that this stuff demonstrates plants
>>>>>>> exhibit aversion and withdrawal behaviors that are the roots of what we
>>>>>>> call “pain”. I would like to call them “proto-pain-behaviors”. However, I
>>>>>>> am a skeptic regarding “plant sentience,” although they clearly exhibit
>>>>>>> functional avoidance and aversion responses. When my son Jon badly broke
>>>>>>> his arm, the docs put him under and they tried to set it. Andee and I
>>>>>>> watched as his body writhed and he moaned and he pulled away. Was he “in
>>>>>>> pain” or did he “feel pain” as it happened? One of my “flashbulb” memories
>>>>>>> was when, twenty minutes later, he woke up and cried out “I am alive!”. I
>>>>>>> don’t think he felt pain during that time, at least in any we mean the term
>>>>>>> (although you might argue yes and he does not remember). Yet he exhibited
>>>>>>> behavior that was far more indicative of pain than the evidence cited for
>>>>>>> plant pain. The body (ours and plants) has lots of “functional awareness
>>>>>>> and response” mechanisms in it…but it is always tricky to sort out what
>>>>>>> observers see as patterns of behavior and what is (or is not) going on at
>>>>>>> the first person level of experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2019 6:21 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Qualia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Brent and TOK, in putting together a brief talk on
>>>>>>> Consciousness, I had to reduce my cell biologic approach to the problem due
>>>>>>> to time constraints. So I decided to start with E=mc2 as the mathematical
>>>>>>> expression of the Singularity of the Cosmos (I assume we're all good on
>>>>>>> Einstein). Based on that 'logic', development of the embryo as cell-cell
>>>>>>> signaling is the conversion of 'mass' (growth factors) into 'energy' (the
>>>>>>> downstream interaction of the growth factor with its receptor (think 'lock
>>>>>>> and key'), triggering an intracellular cascade of high energy phosphates
>>>>>>> that ultimately affect growth and differentiation of the embryo,
>>>>>>> culminating in homeostatic physiology at birth. The aggregate of those
>>>>>>> cell-cell interactions is Consciousness, bearing in mind that the origin of
>>>>>>> the brain is the skin as a graphic. That would explain Qualia as the way in
>>>>>>> which experiences trigger consciousness, i.e. why seeing 'red' free
>>>>>>> associates with the physiology of the individual, bearing in mind that
>>>>>>> those homeostatic signaling cascades reference not only the physiology of
>>>>>>> the current individual, but their past experiences as a species as
>>>>>>> evolution too, so the Qualia go way back in the history of the organism. I
>>>>>>> hope that was helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>> following link:
>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>> following link:
>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link:
>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>> following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>> following link:
>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
