http://www.stationlink.com/art/ellipsis_comic1.jpg

Brent My theory does not fit MPD. At the top of the camp statement, it states that MPD is the same as Chalmers' F-type monism. To quote Chalmers: "The type-F view is ... to suppose that fundamental physical systems have phenomenal properties: e.g. that there is something it is like to be an electron" This is neither monism nor is it correct IMO. "If what you say is validated by science, it would be the electromagnetic phenomenon that is the physical stuff or material, that has the redness quale - and without that right "electromagnetic phenomenon" no quale." I'm not sure what you mean by "having a redness quale" but i agree with the second part: no representation means no quale. "Also, you must admit that this same 'electromagnetic phenomenon' going on outside of your brain, with no memory, or intentional system, or anything present with it, the same "electomagnetic phenomenon" would still always have the same quality, whether inside the brain or not, would it not?" No, i don't see that you can divorce the NCC from the brain or similar device and, anyway, there must be an experiencer to have experiences so, if you remove the former you also lose the latter. Hence the name i use for my theory. "And certainly you must agree that our scientific instruments would be blind to the quality, because such qualities suffer from the quale interpretation problem." Yes, qualia are not detectable by scientific instruments but this has nothing to do with interpretation. The reason is that the instruments 1) are not conscious and 2) are making measurements of electrical potential and the like. The latter is what stops us from observing qualia: all we see are e.g. the pictures displaying blood flow contours. "And you seem to agree that we will be able to discover these qualities of various different types of such 'electromagnetic phenomenon' despite this quale interpretation problem?" If you're trying to tell me that a quale is a bit pattern then forget it. "And if so, would you think there is some better way to refer to achieving, and knowing what they are like, than 'effing the ineffable'?" Look, the way to see through another's eyes is to connect the brains appropriately. This achieves your "effing the ineffable", right? I would call this "experiencing anothers' qualia". What's ineffable about qualia? We talk about them all the time!

Theoreticians, The new dualism structure went live last week, so thanks all, for the help. I think this is a big step forward in more comprehensively representing what all experts believe. And I believe we are ready to submit the below new statements for this structure: * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKglpMLAzagRghpCNSzZzxS9FJ-uhg96nb1kBnBk9AA/edit Representational Qualia Theory] * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aDRRFW_lr7FMwSqOQHTP02Rd7za5lvQG3cdhQ69Ya5Q/edit Dualism] * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dii95g7CYV04fe2jMzwLNHk2E68bfIor8HqAaouDrAM/edit Substance Dualism] * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gginaif0YTvDVSwFF7V_wRei-SDZlelt0LPIc5I_gD8/edit Property Dualism] * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dogSoCsouz2RhQ-CTNjtnYJ8Xr6JILNDki5Kn_met_o/edit Material Property Dualism] * [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V03WBMSY5cKf97NoM6KPZSKtxEEHg5MZJfb6FPq0Ui0/edit Macro Material Property Dualism] Mike, you did most of the work on the RQT statement, would you like to take credit for this by submitting the current version? Upwards, Brent Allsop

Hi Rich, In your [http://canonizer.com/thread.asp/88/1/32/202#202 other post] you said you are working on the theory that a quale is "an electromagnetic phenomenon". To me, this is a subset of Material Property Dualism. If what you say is validated by science, it would be the electromagnetic phenomenon that is the physical stuff or material, that has the redness quale - and without that right "electromagnetic phenomenon" no quale. Also, you must admit that this same 'electromagnetic phenomenon' going on outside of your brain, with no memory, or intentional system, or anything present with it, the same "electomagnetic phenomenon" would still always have the same quality, whether inside the brain or not, would it not? And certainly you must agree that our scientific instruments would be blind to the quality, because such qualities suffer from the quale interpretation problem. All our abstracted senses can tell us of this 'electromagnetic phenomenon' NCC in our brain, is abstracted information of the causal behavior - something different - entirely - than it's true phenomenal nature we can experience when it is our brain. And you seem to agree that we will be able to discover these qualities of various different types of such 'electromagnetic phenomenon' despite this quale interpretation problem? And if so, would you think there is some better way to refer to achieving, and knowing what they are like, than 'effing the ineffable'? 'effing the ineffable' is just one doctrine of RQT. Currently, everyone in the comp unanimously supports it - and it's been in the camp for some time. All I did was add two additional paragraphs to support the idea against a particular attack. If someone did show up that believe in everything in RQT, but effing of the ineffable, like many other doctrines of the past that were once part of RQT, we'd just push this particular doctrine to a sub camp of RQT. I don't know how you got I was saying a 'zero point idea is compatible with RQT', I was pointing out how naive and mistaken any "consciousness is a zero point idea" is. But, no worries, I rewrote those two paragraphs without that. Let me know if that is not any better. Brent Allsop

Brent I don't like the phrase effing the ineffable but no matter as the core statement is the assertion in the first para that there will be some way for us to know what someone else's qualia is like. The potential for accessibility seems to me a consequence of RQT since qualia are, or are derived from, our internal representation of the world. Qualia therefore become accessible when you connect representations. So, if people think that qualia are forever hidden from others then they're not in the RQT camp. I don't see how the zero-point idea is compatible with RQT. RQT is not any sort of point, it is 3D. What's the problem with memory, semantics, sensation and emotion? Why wouldn't they be accessible? I don't understand single quale theory but why is it a challenge? In what way does it entail inaccessibility?

Rich, So help me know how to respond to the many competitor camp people that claim we will not be able to eff the ineffable, because they think all a quale as including all the memories and Symantec information, like love, warmth, sweetness... that binds to them. And how do we respond to people that claim consciousness is one single quale, and so on? I could agree that using the term 'zero point' may not be good, so how about we find something else? Perhaps you could propose another term or some other way to say all this? Remember, the goal is to get as much as possible that everyone agrees in, so help me out here, to come up with a counter proposal which allows me to get what I want, while still getting what you want, rather than just destroying what I want? Brent Allsop

Brent I vote to take the new paras out. I don't think talking about naive zero-point is helpful or meaningful. What does "thereby ceasing to be nothing like it originally was" mean? I'm familiar with the neurological deficit conditions you mention in the second para but don't see what your point is. The first para is ok by itself IMO.

Theoreticians, There was a one paragraph section in the new RQT statement entitled 'Effing the Ineffable'. There is a popular naive objection to the idea that people use to think we won't be able to eff the ineffable which I think we should address. So I added two new paragraph to this 'effing of the ineffable section. Let me know if anyone has any issues with this 2 paragraph addition. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKglpMLAzagRghpCNSzZzxS9FJ-uhg96nb1kBnBk9AA/edit Brent Allsop

Wohoo! It looks like we've finally got a great statement everyone supports. I've started a new Google doc proposal for a new Property Dualism camp statement here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gginaif0YTvDVSwFF7V_wRei-SDZlelt0LPIc5I_gD8/edit I just wanted to throw that out there before we submit this new statement for RQT, to get everyone's thoughts, both pro and con. For all supporters of Property Dualism, and for people like Rich Wilson, if you object to any of that, please let us know and I hope you'll all help us improve it. Thanks All!! Brent Allsop

Brent, Yes, this version is much better. I am content with the whole thing. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKglpMLAzagRghpCNSzZzxS9FJ-uhg96nb1kBnBk9AA/edit?disco=AAAAAEM_LjA mike