Gregg said:



“One of the things to keep in mind in all of this is that the problem of
subjectivity and scientific knowledge of it is an epistemological problem,
meaning there is no general 3rd person perspective on 1st person
experiential beingness.”



The essence of this is that most people consider qualia to be ineffable.
However, if the predictions made in “Representational Qualia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=0rqOLw0GMklHp-Fg_B0Jz3RzJcx61PHHynNdnUzwUhw&e=>” are verified by
experimentalists, it will falsify this belief.  It predicts that qualia are
simply physical qualities which we can be directly aware of.  Everything we
know about the physics of the brain (and all of reality) is abstract
information, like the word “red”.  In order to know what it means,
qualitatively, you need to interpret it back to the correct physical
quality.  For example, we know everyone about the neurotransmitter
glutamate, at least abstractly.  What we don’t know, is if we should be
interpreting our abstract descriptions of glutamate, as descriptions of the
physical quality we know directly as redness.



There are two main camps predicting what the physical nature of qualia is:
Functional <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DQualia-2DEmerge-2Dfrom-2DFunction_18&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=26g984-TDmWmJtFJ-gmlJMNjGQ0LFzMTPy9a2-bJtoY&e=>
and Material
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DQualia-2Dare-2DMaterial-2DQualities_7&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=Ttf5Q5EIEIBCCS-EIiLNf-BwvsNUaJhQetMcOZaUjck&e=>.  If the
only thing in the universe that has a redness quality is glutamate, this
will prove materialism and falsify functionalism.  If, on the other hand, a
redness quality can “arise” from the correct function, independent of the
underlying mater implementing that function, this would falsify Materialism.



But, even if the functionalists turn out to be correct, the fact the
redness “arises” only from a particular function, and if greenness only
arises from a particular different function, this “arising” process,
itself, and which function it “arises” from must itself be considered a
physical process.



The proponents of both Integrated Information and Global Workspace Theory
admit that they can measure consciousness quantitatively, but not yet
qualitatively.  Like everything else, IIT and GWT remain abstract and
qualia blind, unable to predict which physics have a redness quality, and
so on.



A new “unified theory doctrine” just went live at the end of the
“Representational
Qualia Theory <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=0rqOLw0GMklHp-Fg_B0Jz3RzJcx61PHHynNdnUzwUhw&e=>”
camp indicating that all the supporters of that camp agree the Integrated
Information and Global Workspace can be nicely integrated with
Representational Qualia to create a nice Unified Theory.



So, we just need the experimentalists to stop being “qualia blind” so they
can finally observe qualia and tell us which theory is THE ONE, by
falsifying all the others.  Once we know which physics has a redness
quality, and which has a greenness quality we will finally know how to
qualitatively interpret the abstract information we now have of the brain.
We will then be able to objectively (via 3rd person observation) observe
physical qualities of other’s knowledge.  In other words, we will be able
to justifiably make effing statements like: “My redness is like your
greenness”.



On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:43 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks for this, Alexander.
>
>
>
> Tononi’s IIT theory, along with Baars and Dahaene’s Global Neuronal
> Workspace Theory are the two “big dogs” in consciousness studies, although
> there are six or so other ones that are kicking around (see
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scientificamerican.com_index.cfm_-5Fapi_render_file_-3Fmethod-3Dinline-26amp-3BfileID-3D55975857-2D5619-2D4655-2DA43E710EDCD3741B&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=STmwbOruYudQkH-Vlxga7bajz2LoKbgsc9uyDUBbb4o&e=…if
> you want the full article, I have a pdf I can mail individually). They both
> make headway on important issues, although both of them come at it from
> different angles.
>
>
>
> I actually think of IIT as being very similar to what many of the
> complexity folks are after, although I don’t think Tononi is connected to
> the complexity group. That is, it overlaps to what Gell Mann calls
> Algorithmic Information Content
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Quark-2DJaguar-2DAdventures-2DSimple-2DComplex_dp_0805072535&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=KLrCb3YfeXG3_9YMccjWKyV97oSfSv9zoq-onRVOXjw&e=>,
> although unlike Gell Mann, IIT is explicitly framed in a conceptual way to
> understand consciousness—it starts with the basic structure of experience
> from a first person perspective. Phi, which is the way information
> integration is measured, is an interesting and helpful construct. However,
> I don’t see it being revolutionary as some folks do. Think about the way
> the article ends…we are not much closer to knowing whether a lobster is
> conscious in the way the question was originally asked, which pertains to
> the subjective experience of being.
>
>
>
> My recommendation for any discussion of consciousness is for one to deal
> first and foremost with the “language system problem”. Or, more directly,
> groups who are trying to arrive at a conception of consciousness need to be
> very aware of the terms many meanings, and perhaps not a bad place to start
> is with this blog on the 10 Problems of Consciousness that I did a while
> back:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=trqoXH9ezl4C2D6Rx7x8RdAbIbcTgPStQAOyZK070Tk&e=.
> One of the things to keep in mind in all of this is that the problem of
> subjectivity and scientific knowledge of it is an epistemological problem,
> meaning there is no general 3rd person perspective on 1st person
> experiential beingness.
>
>
>
> However, as far as human consciousness goes, we can achieve direct
> knowledge about linguistic self-consciousness…after all, here I am sharing
> my self-conscious thoughts with you directly. This is the shared
> intersubjective field. And some of us are working on what might be called a
> shared “second person view”. That is, if we create a platform for
> understanding each other, we can created a shared “Inter-Subjective Field”
> that can do much to “box in” human subjectivity.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [log in to unmask] <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 5:13 AM
> *To:* Intellectual Deep Web <[log in to unmask]>;
> Tree of Knowledge Society <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Integrated information theory
>
>
>
> Dear Friends
>
>
>
> Giulio Tononi's integrated information theory for consciousness seems
> about to hit mainstream academia. I found this article on BBC News this
> morning and believes the topic merits a crossposting to both the
> Intellectual Deep Web and the Tree of Knowledge considering recent
> discussions. Feel free to discuss Tononi's theory further if you like.
> Neuroscientists are certainly on fire.
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.com_future_story_20190326-2Dare-2Dwe-2Dclose-2Dto-2Dsolving-2Dthe-2Dpuzzle-2Dof-2Dconsciousness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=e5mR0mkiaIlflaTBcSDzJNd2RRLuryX3RM3UOniey1U&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.com_future_story_20190326-2Dare-2Dwe-2Dclose-2Dto-2Dsolving-2Dthe-2Dpuzzle-2Dof-2Dconsciousness&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=XfCuQABmPqlguw8iC3xLa6uQiUUOP0QMNa-rtedh5tg&s=LE1XkC86n2VsavdFU1WfsVF1sJn_v7K_Gjg_CvOArpQ&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Best intentions
>
> Alexander
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Intellectual Deep Web" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [log in to unmask]
> To post to this group, send email to
> [log in to unmask]
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_intellectual-2Ddeep-2Dweb_CAPgYmjULHn-252BRzvjyYU167JJp4D7ca-2DGDtE4jmkCNy-252BHN-5F7jrVQ-2540mail.gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=aIsCpwNPIZi37fYyNVJN0sS-fiu5h8q3iPpw9J94rBg&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_intellectual-2Ddeep-2Dweb_CAPgYmjULHn-252BRzvjyYU167JJp4D7ca-2DGDtE4jmkCNy-252BHN-5F7jrVQ-2540mail.gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=XfCuQABmPqlguw8iC3xLa6uQiUUOP0QMNa-rtedh5tg&s=rDPZ4A7ILNpoVSPmv8DsRr1EYXBofx1g5HHdotypQBs&e=>
> .
> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BnHDmCh0EymqpidBlh6g7uY-FaKvt8Ai5EJKv3mRV30&s=KQJFUzZ7Sx6fVcZPs1Rn44tjOtjFunbs2mGSgzXXOng&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=XfCuQABmPqlguw8iC3xLa6uQiUUOP0QMNa-rtedh5tg&s=emrysSJXbwivY4-kLfKijeil9v1XwdR4EwAORlSZ2-A&e=>
> .
> ############################
>
> 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