On Thursday, August 29, 2019, at 6:32 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies wrote: > Qualia are communicable. > As such, I propose a new research methodology, which pertains to one-off > valid and reliable experimentation when dealing with the "unseen". The > "public" and repeat" tests for vetting it as science could be replaced by a > suitably-representative body of reviewing scientists who are accredited in the limitations of subjective, scientific observation.
Originally, I did not like the word "qualia" but it's actually quite good. When Chalmers or whoever named it put his or her stake on that location in the language on that combination of letters it was a good choice. Part of the issue here is that engineers particularly software cannot wait for science in many cases. It is allowed to break physics or invent new ones in a virtual world. And engineers need words to put into code. Also, there are many symbol issues in contemporary language that have not been addressed generally. So two conscious entities need better communications channels to convey structure more efficiently and this is easier to do among software agents verses human by expanding the symbol complexity and bandwidth. In a perfect world full qualia would be instantly transmittable. But this is facilitated contemporarily by transmitting multimedia verses just natural language thus the addition of mechanisms like MMS, video conferencing, realtime document sharing, etc.. Some researchers say qualia cannot be transmitted. I would change that to say full qualia are not transmittable yet. John ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T41ac13a64c3d48db-M75616ccb2a402d5bdda20964 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
