[ExI] How the brain builds sentences, neuron by neuron

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 10:29 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:


>
>
>
> *> I just wanted to reiterate that nothing physical, like for instance a
> neurotransmitter, has the kind of 'qualities' we talk about when referring
> to colours (e.g. redness, etc.).This should be obvious when you consider
> how many types of red there are (many, many more than the number of
> neurotransmitters our brains use), then how many different types of green,
> and blue, and yellow, etc., etc. Then there are all the other sensations we
> are capable of experiencing.There are probably more different types and
> variations of possible qualia than there are atoms in the universe, so they
> cannot possibly be inherent in or dependent on specific pieces of matter.
> There simply isn't enough of it /in the entire universe/, let alone in a
> single brain.If you come up with some way for a small number of molecules
> to combine together in different ways, though, things are very different.
> Molecule x in molecular aggregate A can signify something entirely
> different from the same molecule in aggregate B. This is how an atronomical
> number of different proteins can be made from 22 amino acids. Unending
> complexity can be, and is, built from small numbers of simple things. We
> know this from physics, from biochemistry, and from biology. It's a pattern
> we see again and again in nature.So rather than asking "what molecules have
> what physical qualities that are equivalent or relevant to mental states?"
> (which leads to the above problem of there not being enough molecules in
> existence), we need to ask "what simple processes in the brain can be
> combined in endless ways to produce the vast variety of mental states that
> brains can experience?". The answer is glaringly obvious, when you know how
> neurons work. To drive this point home, imagine that in the early days of
> computing, instead of using holes punched in cards or tape to represent
> zeros and ones which can be combined in various ways to produce a hierarchy
> of codes that could be assigned to an endless variety of meanings, we
> instead started with the meanings themselves, and used chemicals in small
> areas on the cards, with each meaning being assigned to a different
> chemical compound. Waving away the problems of producing and reading the
> different chemicals, how far would computing have got? Would "sodium borate
> = homesickness, silver nitrate = black with the faintest tinge of crimson,
> etc., etc., etc..." actually be practical? Complex things are made of
> simpler things. All the ordinary matter in the universe is made of
> neutrons, protons and electrons. All the staggering complexity of physical
> things boils down to that.In the same way, all mental states, no matter how
> complex, are made of two pieces of information, ON and OFF, combined
> together in a huge variety of ways. This is what red is, this is what
> homesickness is. The infinitely large space of possible thoughts boils down
> to ON and OFF, nothing else. The physical properties of molecules are not
> only unnecessary, but totally insignificant in comparison.*
>

*I agree with all of that. *

*John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260624/f6d7c8bc/attachment.htm>