[ExI] Subjective/Objective

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 13/07/2026 22:08, Brent Allsop wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 4:57 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>     On 13/07/2026 02:23, Brent Allsop wrote:
>     > When we are aware of many qualities at one time as one unified gestalt experience, something more is happening — effing of the ineffable.
>
>
>     Nope, nothing more is happening. When we become aware of something, when many signals are happening at the same time and influencing each other, that is what is happening - we become aware of it. I don't know what else could be happening. Isn't it remarkable enough?
>
>
> That is a falsifiable claim.


Hmm, I'm not sure that it is, but if it is, well, that's how science proceeds. We create a falsifiable hypothesis then try to falsify it.

So, please proceed with falsifying it. Either logically or (preferably) experimentally.

My hypothesis is that you can't. Prove me wrong.


>  
>
>     Can I ask that you actually define the words 'ineffable' and 'eff', and explain what you think the phrase means? Do you think 'possing the impossible' means something? It would seem to imply something other than proving that something thought to be impossible is possible after all. What the Wright brothers did, for example.
>
>
> I don't know what more I can say to define this, given everything we've discussed.  You can't tell someone what redness is like, with words alone, because the quality is ineffable.  Parts of our brain integrate information, so we can directly apprehend many qualities into one unified gestalt experience.  I predict we will soon discover new qualities, and achieve the ability to integrate them into our experiences (including the ability to integrate regular qualities into people who suffer from achromatopsia) - the second of 3 different ways to eff the ineffable. And that this will be demonstrated to be more than just abstract messaging.


Here's my proposal for telling someone what redness is like with words alone, in the real world: Do what we do with small children. Show them a red thing, and say "Red". Show them another red thing, and repeat "Red". Do this enough times that they can reliably use the label "Red" whenever they are experiencing 'their redness' when they look at something.

I know that this is slightly different to what you are asking, but seeing as you are asking for something impossible (give someone else the same experience that you are having), I'm going for the nearest practical thing: Give them a name for what they are experiencing, so that they can reliably communicate with other people about the red things that we are all having our own private experience of.

I don't know what "we will soon discover new qualities ..." means, but I do know that each person will, throughout their lives, constantly discover new experiences. Or at least, I know that I have. I can't truly speak for anyone else, of course.

And again, you're saying that there is a type of message that is not abstract. This is an extraordinary claim, as I've already said. Please give us some extraordinary evidence for this physics-breaking new kind of message. If you can't, then you shouldn't be saying that such a thing exists. If I said that we see colours because tiny unicorns charge around in our brains with coloured horns, and jab them into the parts of our visual cortex that make us see colours, I would only expect to be challenged for proof, and if I couldn't provide any, I could only expect to be told to shut up and come back when I had some. That's fair, isn't it?

I tell you what, let's drop the requirement for extraordinary evidence. Just /some/ evidence. Just give us one example. One single example of a message that carries within it its own meaning. A message that can be understood without context, without having to use some method of decoding it. I've been racking my brains trying to disprove this hypothesis that all messages are abstract (that's what scientists do, and while I'm not actually a scientist, I'm a big fan of the scientific method), and have so far drawn a blank, so that's still my default position. Even ".  ..  ..." is not an unambiguous message, needing no context to decode. So that's a second hypothesis you are invited to disprove.

Or, of course, you have a second option. You can use the 'Philosophy' get-out clause: "No, you misunderstand. This is PHILOSOPHY, not science. It's not meant to be taken seriously!"

-- 
Ben