[ExI] Subjective/Objective

Sun Jul 12 19:34:57 UTC 2026

I have an example of subjective/objective.

About 12 years ago, Arel had her knees rebuilt with stem cells. The place
we lived in had about 7 stairs going down the front. She had been going
down them backwards, hanging on to the rail, fearing her knees would give
out. About two weeks after we came back from the Cayman Islands, I observed
her going down the front steps facing forward. A couple of weeks after
that, we were headed to a potluck. I saw her going down the steps with a
plate in each hand. Her experience with the rebuilt knees was subjective;
not sure she was even aware of what she was doing. Mine was objective; it
was clear to me that the stem cell treatment of her knees had worked very
well indeed.

Keith

On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 11:22 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> I guess this is yet another point where we just disagree.  Here are some
> of the reasons I can't accept your claims.
>
> Cause-and-effect-based messaging, and words are, by design, abstracted
> away from whatever physical properties are representing them.  A
> transducing dictionary is required to know the meaning.
> If that is all you have, then John would be right: there is no way to eff
> the ineffable, even for elemental qualities, because messages that require
> dictionaries, alone, can't do it.
>
> When we are aware of many qualities at one time as one unified gestalt
> experience, something more is happening — effing of the ineffable.
>
> You don't like my prefered term "subjective binding" so I'll use
> 'information integration".  If a new quality you have never experienced
> before, call it grue, was integrated with your familiar qualities, you
> would be able to say for the first time:
>
>     "Oh THAT is what grue is like."
>
> It is a tautology that any kind of abstract messaging, like the word
> 'grue' alone, would not give you that ability.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 1:47 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260712/3cb9119e/attachment.htm>