[ExI] Red

[Brent Allsop]

Hi John,




On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 6:30 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 4, 2026 at 10:57 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> *>>> Does the brain create reness out of nothing? *
>>>>
>>>
>>> *>> Maybe. The brain creates redness out of nothing IF AND ONLY IF it's
>>> a brute fact that some arrangements of on and off switches produces a color
>>> qualia. *
>>>
>>
>> *> So you're saying "some arrangements of on and off switches" is
>> nothing???*
>>
>
> *I'm saying that the very meaning of "explanation" is expressing a
> complicated and confusing idea in a way that is less complicated and less
> confusing. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, less complicated or
> less confusing than on to off, or off to on.  *
>
>
>> *> And you're saying some pattern like maybe 0101100 can produce a
>> redness quality without a dictionary???*
>>
>
> *If it's a brute fact then there is simply no answer to the question "why
> does that arrangement of on and off switches produce the redness qualia
> while that different arrangement of on and off switches produces the
> blueness qualia?"*
>
>
>> *> When you say switches, must they be electrical switches??? *
>>
>
> *Of course not! And you are not playing fair, you knew I wasn't suggesting
> that.  *
>
> * > Can it be water valves??? *
>>
>
> *Certainly. Hydraulic digital computers have been made and might even be
> useful in some very specialized situations, they are larger and much slower
> than electronic computers, but are less susceptible to sudden acceleration
> and far less susceptible to radiation damage. If I was a Jupiter Brain
> sending a probe to a magnetar I might consider using one. *
>
> *Digital microfluidics: Droplet based logic gates*
> <https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article-abstract/90/5/054107/333735/Digital-microfluidics-Droplet-based-logic-gates?redirectedFrom=fulltext>
>
>
>
>> *> Engaged or disengaged clutches, say?..   ???*
>>
>
> *Yes. Eric Drexler in his 1992 book "Nanosystems" showed designs
> for several digital computers that used molecular sized gears, cogs and
> switches.*
>
> *> You expect a sane thinker to accept arguments like that???*
>>
>
> *What I expect is that you are going to wear out the question mark key on
> your keyboard.  *
>
>
>> *>> Or to put it another way, the brain can produce subjective states if
>>> it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being
>>> processed intelligently.*
>>>
>>
>> *> Again, how does "data" in any way feel like redness,*
>>
>
> *How? You want to know "how"? As I keep telling you, it's a logical
> certainty that any iterated sequence of "how" questions either goes on
> forever or terminates in a brute fact. I know you don't like either
> possibility but you need to face reality; it's not that we don't know the
> answer, it's that there is simply no answer to your question that would
> make you happy. *
>
> *> and what do you mean by the absurd hand wavy claim: "processed
>> intelligently?*
>>
>
> *And that question I flat out refused to answer because if I did give a
> definition to the words "processed" or "intelligent" it would by necessity
> be made out of words, and I am absolutely certain you would then demand a
> further definition of at least one of those words, and I am just not
> getting on that silly endless circular merry-go-round.*
>
> *Another thing I keep on telling you is that examples are of FAR more
> importance than definitions. So in lieu of definitions I will give you some
> examples: *
>
> * "Processing" is what a bakery does to wheat, or what a multi billion
> dollar semiconductor fab does to sand.*
>
> *"Intelligent" is what Einstein was.*
>
>
>> *> Are those claims scientific claims?*
>>
>
> *Yes, it's not a proof because you only get that in pure mathematics not
> science, but there is solid evidence to support my claim. I know for a fact
> that Natural Selection managed to produce at least one conscious being (me)
> and probably many billions of them, but Natural Selection can't select for
> something it can't see, and it can't directly see consciousness any better
> than we can. But we can both see intelligent behavior. So the logical
> conclusion is that consciousness is almost certainly an inevitable
> byproduct of intelligence.  *
>
>
>> *>> If a brute fact never enters the picture then redness must be created
>>> by A, and A can do that because of B, and B can do that because of C, and C
>>> can do that because of D and D....*
>>> *Brent, as I've said before, I think either possibility would make you
>>> unhappy, but logically one of them must be true, so I fear you may be
>>> destined to be unhappy.*
>>>
>>
You keep asserting that I will not be happy with either, that is false.
I'm saying over and over again, and here, that it is a brute fact.


*> As far as I can tell, I constantly agree that there is some elemental
>>> level brute physical fact: *
>>>
>>
> *Information is Physical
> <https://www.w2agz.com/Library/Limits%20of%20Computation/Landauer%20Article,%20Physics%20Today%2044,%205,%2023%20(1991).pdf> *
>

I agree with everything in that paper, including the fact that it is
completely qualia blind , and like all objective science, today, it still
doesn't account for even a redness quality, let alone subjective experience
made out of qualities.  This paper clearly suffers from the objective
grounding problem (how do you come up with an objective dictionary
definition of redness?)


>
> *> (not nothing) has an elemental redness quality*
>
>
> *What causes one arrangement of on and off switches to produce the redness
> quality while a different arrangement of on and off switches produces the
> blueness quality? If it's a brute fact then absolutely positively NOTHING
> does. And if it's not a brute fact then you're stuck with an infinite
> regress. Take your pick. *
>

 As I said here, and as I say over and over, my falsifiable prediction is
that it is a brute physical fact that something has a redness quality.  So
please stop asserting this.


*> subjective binding (a superior way to do computation)*
>
>
> *You cannot produce one single scrap of evidence to support that claim.** Philosophers
> have been navel gazing about the nature of subjectivity and consciousness
> for over 1000 years, and in all that time they have not advanced our
> understanding of those phenomena by one nanometer. Not even by one
> Planck Length! By contrast, look at the GARGANTUAN amount of progress that
> has been made in just the last 10 years by ignoring subjectivity and
> consciousness completely and concentrating on discovering more about the
> nature of intelligence. *
>
> *And you think we should go back to **navel gazing?!*
>

I'm not talking philosophy, nor navel gazing.  I'm talking about
theoretically falsifiable science and how the subjective will be made
objective, in a demonstrable (brute physical fact) way.  I'm making real
falsifiable prediction: that glutamate behaves the way it does, in a
synapse, because of its redness quality.  I'm predicting that glutamate
will be falsified (someone will experience redness without glutamate) and
in that case they will find something else which will be objectively
demonstrated to be a brute fact that it has the same subjective elemental
redness quality in every brain.  I am predicting that science will never
find any "function" or any series of ones or zeros for which it is a brute
fact that it has a redness quality.

I don't see any way to falsify your claims, so I assume that even after
what I am predicting is clearly scientifically demonstrated—that when we
are doing redness and greenness phenomenal engineering, when we finally
haver a scientific consensus that knows the true qualities of physical
things, that you will continue to claim you are right and that some day
someone will find a pattern of 1s and 0s that has a redness quality (not
requiring a dictionary), and that nobody will ever objectively know whether
it does or doesn't?

If you're not doing navel gazing, then how is functionalism going to be
falsified?

*  John K Clark*
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260705/3539b449/attachment.htm>