[ExI] Subjective/Objective

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 14/07/2026 23:59, Brent Allsop wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> You are missing things that seem obvious to me; making it seems to me you are being incinseer.


The things that seem obvious to you contradict what we know about physics and neurology.

There's nothing insincere about challenging such things. In fact, it's essential that we challenge such things, so we can put them on a sound footing. Either they can be disproved or they can't. I've repeatedly shown (over several years!) how various of your claims can be disproved, either by simple logic or by experimental results. You just ignore it, and carry on with the same claims. If my understanding of your claims is faulty - which I often suspect, as they seem so bizarre - I have repeatedly asked you to clarify them, but you never do.

What seems obvious to me is that, when challenged to give some solid evidence for your ideas, you have ignored the challenges, and attacked the challenger instead.

I'm being very sincere about asking you to follow the scientific method instead of just making baseless assertions and refusing to defend them.

You have explicitly stated that something I have said, is falsifiable. But then you've refused to even try to falsify it. Have you changed your mind?

You haven't even tried to address my claim that all messages are abstract, despite Jason trying to help you by essentially saying "well, not necessarily..." (I'll say more about that in a separate post).

So who's the insincere one?

You have steadfastly refused to explain what on earth a 'redness quality' is. Saying "It's just an intrinsic brute fact" explains nothing, and is no evidence that whatever you think it is, actually exists. It's clearly not the experience someone has of the colour red, nor is it the neural activity that causes such an experience. I'm totally at a loss to even imagine what it might be (especially as you keep saying that glutamate 'or something else' might have it. In other words, it's a material property of certain (unknown) molecules). But you will not explain it. You might say that Intrinsic Brute Facts can't be explained, but there are other things that can't be explained as well: Things that don't exist.

So here's my third falsifiable hypothesis for you: 'Redness Quality' (given that the term doesn't refer to someone's experience of a specific colour, or the underlying neural activity (messages passing between neurons)) does not exist.

Seeing as 'redness quality' seems to be a central concept for you, it should be easy to falsify this claim. And I am being /very/ sincere about this.

-- 
Ben