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=fAlUtJQVkDBfUNZUVP76vBhE2kWqq8vZRREeyqTBF70&s=gFF8GFQGJ6rD1qnWGQXLOyN9dLoO_67M2U36RBJIV9g&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=fAlUtJQVkDBfUNZUVP76vBhE2kWqq8vZRREeyqTBF70&s=W0WrOakagFnZXzClSvUntuLZiUANLu3fv0VvKAutNzU&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