Hi James,


On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 5:14 PM James Lyons-Weiler <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I define it as the wavelength of light detected at 700 nm by a
> spectrometer, and whichever culturally accepted normative label
>  word or thought label attributed to the perception associated with that
> wavelength.  From an evolutionary view, the inversion problem is ad-hoc,
> beyond anything we would expect in individuals with common ancestry,
> requiring unfounded suppositions and assumptions.
>

We’ve gone over all this multiple times on this list, but you must have
missed all that.  Here you are defining both “red” and “redness” as
synonyms, according to the same wavelengths of light.  In other words, you
use “one word for all things red”.  We define any language that uses one
word for all things red as 'qualia blind' simply because that language
cannot bridge the explanatory gap with statements that define them to be
different things like: "My redness is like your grenness, both of which we
call red".


Also, Red / Green color-blind people, for example, represent both red and
green things with the same intrinsic quality.  That is what makes them
red/green color blind.  It could be either your redness or your
greenness, or something qualitatively different, entirely.  Either way,
they at least represent either red or green with something different than
someone who is not red/green color blind.  So, any claim against diversity
of qualia based on genetics and such is proven wrong by facts like this, to
say nothing of achromatopsia, where you represent everything with only
black and white.

 It also lies and outside of the realm of testable hypotheses, and so I
> would consign it to intractable imponderables and is something I would
> prefer to not define a theory of mind in reaction to or base one upon.
>
> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>

One of the key attributes of Representational Qualia Theory is its
falsifiability, or that it can be verified.  Take the easiest to falsify
sub camp “Molecular Materialism
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DMolecular-2DMaterialism_36&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QZHnor38GmKkRtmbNDENMJSEGh7C_MlvrVB3h_JtsLc&s=qmhB09wo0KDYMTpK3_3QIf_LX_74_zO6wqqPkCo0zyM&e= >”, for example.
As I’ve said many times, it predicts something like science will be able to
prove that nobody will be able to experience redness without glutamate, and
everyone will always be able to directly experience glutamate’s intrinsic
qualities, as the same redness.  If someone experiences redness, without
glutamate, theory falsified.  In that case, you keep trying other theories,
till you find the one that can’t be falsified, which proves it is that
camp’s predictions about qualia which is a description of redness.



If science verifies that glutamate = redness in that way, this will
verify Molecular
Materialism <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DMolecular-2DMaterialism_36&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QZHnor38GmKkRtmbNDENMJSEGh7C_MlvrVB3h_JtsLc&s=qmhB09wo0KDYMTpK3_3QIf_LX_74_zO6wqqPkCo0zyM&e= >, and
falsify all the competing camps, like the still well supported Substance
Dualism <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DSubstance-2DDualism_48&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QZHnor38GmKkRtmbNDENMJSEGh7C_MlvrVB3h_JtsLc&s=dIBrw0YA71ZneHljWoxd5Rq--XTLe0OfIi1Kc-AP14M&e= >, the still
most popular functionalism camps
<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=QZHnor38GmKkRtmbNDENMJSEGh7C_MlvrVB3h_JtsLc&s=sPRukWu_BeT8KT-F_eNOM9B8mzYZ67Q-Q0SGfCmpTcM&e= >, and all
the others, since none of them will be able to produce a redness experience
without glutamate.



And that would result in only the 1. weakest form of effing the ineffable,
where if you observe you using glutamate to represent red with, and me
using glycine, to represent red with, you will then be experimentally
objectively justified making an effing of the ineffable statements like:
“My redness is like your greenness, both of which we call red.”



There is also the 3. Strongest form of effing the ineffable, as portrayed
in the movie Avatar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DX0mAKz7eLRc&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QZHnor38GmKkRtmbNDENMJSEGh7C_MlvrVB3h_JtsLc&s=0EJsc1LHxoWSUbJNth4qdInIKr_sTDlpyaREUt4naG0&e= >.  If you
had a  neural ponytail like that, which could do computational binding of
knowledge in multiple brain hemispheres, like the corpus callosum can do
between our two hemispheres (as predicted will be possible by V.S.
Ramachandran <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__psycnet.apa.org_record_1998-2D00856-2D002&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QZHnor38GmKkRtmbNDENMJSEGh7C_MlvrVB3h_JtsLc&s=8uTVDLjK9RQ3eioRTwCB4D1zOEusl7-qaeS69DPydko&e= > back in the
90s), when you hug a loved one you would experience all of the experiences,
not just half.  Or at least as much as you wanted to share.  In other
words, if your partner’s red and green was inverted from yours, this would
become immediately obvious once you directly experienced their inverted
knowledge, together with your non inverted knowledge, as one composite
gestalt or one merged composite qualitative experience.

############################

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