[ExI] Red

[John Clark]

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. *
>>
>
> *> 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>
*

*> (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. *

*> 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?!*

*  John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260705/74fe3d71/attachment.htm>