[ExI] Subjective/Objective

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 09/07/2026 20:32, Brent Allsop wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 5:08 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>     On 08/07/2026 04:14, Brent Allsop wrote:
>     > You realize, right, that the left half of your brain knows what it is like for the right.
>
>
>     I think you have an inaccurate view of what the corpus callosum is for, and what it actually does.
>
>
> It's certainly a different view.


Yes it is.
So is flat-earthism, perpetual motion and crystal healing.


>   I predict that science will soon demonstrate which view is accurate.


No need for any predictions. It already has.


>   Not to mention the many problems that your view cannot address, some of which you begin to point out here (consider those issues in more depth)


I don't know what you're referring to. I didn't point out any problems, I just tried to describe what the corpus callosum actually does.
(I should also clarify that this is not 'my view'. It is what science has discovered. I had no part in this. Please don't start using 'creationist tactics' here)


>
>     All that's happening is that various parts of the two halves of our brains are passing messages to each other, as and when necessary. 
>
>
> Subjective binding is more than messages being sent, it is direct apprehension, which enables everything to be experienced as one unified infallable gestalt experience.
> Certainly that must be composed of many neurons distributed over a large part of the brain.

What you call 'subjective binding' (which I take to mean integration and processing of information) can't possibly be anything more than messages being sent (and received). There is no other mechanism. That is how you process information, by passing messages between different elements that perform various operations on it (which can also be regarded as passing messages. Perhaps 'selectively passing messages' might be a better term). Unless, of course, you think 'direct apprehension' is involved.

I've already said that 'direct apprehension' is a bad term to use, as it implies information being transferred magically, with no physical mechanism (or at least the very minimum) to do the transferring. If you persist in using it, you are certain to mislead some people, and annoy others. The paths that information takes in the brain are very far from direct, and this is essential. Minds are necessarily complicated things, combining many signals together in many different ways.

Nobody is arguing against many neurons distributed over a large part of the brain (that understates the situation) communicating with each other to do the many jobs that the brain does, including consciousness.
>
> Let me ask you this: what happens between registers in a CPU doing computation?  Is that merely 'messages being sent"?

'Merely'?! Messages are indeed sent between registers in a CPU doing computation. How else would the registers be able to function? Using the word 'merely' is a gross insult, 'messages being sent' is a supremely important (the most important) thing that the brain (or anything else that does computation) does.

If you're asking if the transfer of information is the /only/ thing that happens, then no, the information is also being transformed. As I said above, you could use the term  'selectively passing messages': Binary logic, which is how the brain operates as well. The 'digital computer' analogy is not based on a fantasy. There are many differences between our current digital computers and our brains, but the fundamental logical processes are exactly the same: Summation of binary signals, inversion, XOR operations, there are even biological equivalents of crystal clock circuits (nowhere near as accurate, but using the same principles).

Don't denigrate 'messages being sent', they are what makes you you.

-- 
Ben