[ExI] Subjective/Objective

Tue Jul 14 15:53:43 UTC 2026

Hi Jason,

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 7:43 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 6:41 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> This is an interesting study, and I can see how it could be taken as
>> evidence for functionalism.  But consider the following.
>>
>> First off, what happens in the retina is causally far upstream from the
>> rendered subjective experience, so almost anything could explain this.
>>
>
> Do you think that qualities of that exist only in the retina can be
> subjectively bound to the visual experience of the brain? I don't see any
> reason to suppose they couldn't be, since you believe in the plausibility
> of neural ponytails, then the retina itself could be just a sort of
> ponytail (indeed some preliminary processing is performed by neurons in the
> retina, so the retina can be viewed as an extension of the brain).
>

Yes, this is a possibility, for the reasons you give.

> But then consider: what is transmitted between two brains linked by a
> neural ponytail? It isn't the molecules in each distinct brain, right? So
> then is it anything beyond information? If an information signal is all
> that's needed for one brain to know what another brain experiences, is that
> not a case for functionalism?
>

To me, the thinking error lies in the notion of what is 'transmitted'.
This is the same issue I have with 'mere' messages brought up by Ben.

If we are aware of a redness quality at one location in the brain, and a
greenness quality at another, no redness or greenness is being transmitted
between them.  We are simply directly aware of both of these intrinsic
qualities simultaneously, as one unified gestalt experience.   Abstract
transmission of messages is insufficient to integrate this information into
one unified gestalt experience.

>   Is it possible they just perceive red as a brand-new, highly distinct
>> shade of or mixture of color qualities they already knew, like yellow or
>> blue?
>>
>
> I suppose that's a logical possibility.
>
>
>> They used 2 male squirrel monkeys in this experiment, specifically
>> because female squirrel monkeys are not red/green colorblind. This
>> suggests to me that the males very likely still have the ability to render
>> redness into their subjective experience.  The proper stimulation from the
>> retina is likely the only missing element (the only thing needing to be
>> fixed) in the 2 males tested.
>>
>
> Our sensory systems are far more flexible than is generally acknowledged.
> We can wire inputs from one sense organ to other parts of the brain and
> still function normally, we can feed visual stimuli in through tactile
> nerves and see images.
>
> Neural networks are a generic structure that permit any kind of logical
> processing, and neural plasticity means sending a new signal into a brain
> will automatically lead to new forms of processing being applied to
> interpret and make sense of it.
>
> As I see it, the only thing that was missing from the male monkey brain
> was the appropriate input signalling.
>
> If we engineer new photopigments, and add them to our retinas, we could
> make humans see, four, five, six, or any number of primary colors we
> desired, and they would all be experienced as distinct, as would their
> myriad combinations. All this, I predict, could be done simply by sending
> new signals down the optic nerve, without making any changes to brain
> chemistry. Of course, it takes some time for the brain to adapt, and this I
> think is why it took a few weeks before the monkeys could actually see this
> new color.
>
>
>> Tetrachromat humans are mostly female, suggesting that we trichromat
>> males may also have the ability to render this 4th primary color quality
>> into our subjective experience. Therefore, modifying our retinas similarly
>> or stimulating the primary visual cortex with a visual cortical prosthesis
>> might easily enable us to become tetrachromats.
>>
>
> I don't think you could just stimulate the primary visual cortex of a
> trichromat and have them experience this fourth primary color. You would
> need to stimulate some cone cells differently and at times when no other
> primary color is strongly detected, then over time, the visual cortex
> adapts via neural plasticity to process signals received from the
> particular neurons, and will then add a new color dimension to the visual
> field it renders through its processing. It is only when this new
> processing is occurring that the person will be able to experience this
> fourth primary color.
>
> I'm looking forward to saying, "Oh, THAT is what that 4th color is like."
>>
>
> It will be possible in the future. But there's no guarantee that this 4th
> color is objective and shared by others. It could still be unique to you
> and whatever idiosyncrasies of processing emerge when your visual cortical
> neurons adapt to the new signal.
>
>
>> I guess it is possible this is all purely 'functional', but either way,
>> whatever is responsible for this 4th quality would surely be objectively
>> observable and distinguishable from the other qualities, right?
>>
>
> From the third-person viewpoint, there would be objective changes to the
> processing structures of the visual cortex. And there would be objective
> reports by people who undergo this procedure that they can now see a new
> color. And they could objectively distinguish shades of color that they
> couldn't before. But note there is no objective determination that the
> experience is felt in the same way by any two subjects.
>
>
> And IF there is some 'function' from which redness 'arises,' that would
>> still be a, what John refers to as a "brute physical fact," right?
>>
>
> I think we can explain all the properties of color as we experience them
> from the relationship our visual processing bears to the rest of the brains
> processing.
>

We've gone over this difference between our views many times, I guess here
we go again.
To a functionalist, colors are defined in relation to each other, but a
materialist would argue this is wrong.  One of Dennett's 4 things about
qualia says:  "2. – inntrinsic.  They are non-relational properties, which
do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.

> See what I wrote about color on pages 177-200 here:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/195RNlMKZd5ayWwTd45M48sfhonDEyRZQ/view?usp=drivesdk
>

You quote Aristotle in your book:

"With  what do we discriminate white from sweet?” The answer: with
the whole of one’s brain."

It seems to me that Dennett and I disagree with this.  White is a stand
alone quality, and you don't need any other quality to experience what
white is like.

> Jason
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 3:08 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:40 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Adrean,
>>>> Thanks for jumping in.
>>>> I hope you're not asserting that beliefs about qualia are unfalsifiable?
>>>> Did you see my response to Ben about an hour before you sent this,
>>>> where I discussed fixing issues for people who suffer from achromatopsia?
>>>> People are working on cortical visual prosthetics and are getting close
>>>> to figuring out how to stimulate the cortex in a way that results in the
>>>> experience of color qualities.
>>>> Once they know what is responsible for color qualities, and what to
>>>> stimulate in the cortex to produce them, all this will be objectively
>>>> understood, including the method by which those qualities are rendered into
>>>> our conscious knowledge or experience.
>>>> And if it is demonstrated to be something more than just 'messages,' it
>>>> would falsify the belief that it is all messages or 'signals'.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent,
>>>
>>> Wasn't this addressed by the experiment in 2009 where colorblind monkeys
>>> had their retinas infected with a virus that coded for a new photopigment,
>>> and then in a few weeks their brains adjusted to process the new signals in
>>> a way that allowed them to discirminate colors they weren't previously able
>>> to discriminate?
>>>
>>> This result suggests to me that it's not any new molecules introduced
>>> into the brain that gave these monkeys a new color property, but rather,
>>> new signals/data coming into the visual cortex which were not previously
>>> there. After the visual cortex rewired itself to be able to distinguish and
>>> appropriately process this new signal (a signal that was uncorrelated with
>>> either of the other two color signals from the retina) the monkeys would
>>> then see this new color, which is completely unlike seeing any mixture of
>>> the other two colors.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 12:43 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 1:39 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat
>>>>> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it now?  Do you have a way to measure awareness other than by
>>>>> measuring these signals (which would seem to include all relevant
>>>>> aspects of the brain's physical status)?
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260714/be3670a8/attachment.htm>