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

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 6:15 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> does a hole in a tape equal ON or OFF?*


*That question is of absolutely no importance because either will work
equally well. The only important thing is that "on" is different from
"off", and zero is different from 1, and having a hole in a tape is
different from not having a hole in a tape. *

*> It is a brute physical fact that some strawberries are 'red' (because
> they reflect light in a particular way).*
>

*No. That is NOT a brute fact because quantum mechanics can explain why
certain chemicals in strawberries reflect red photons of light but absorb
blue and green photons of light.  *

*> Whatever has a red (or redness) quality is just a brute physical fact *


*OK, so what are we arguing about? A certain arrangement of on and off
switches produces the redness quality.  *

*> It also must be a physical fact that something in the brain behaves as
> it does because of its subjective quality.*
>

*You're never going to get a good explanation for the existence
of subjectivity by simply invoking more subjectivity, objectivity must come
into the picture someplace! You want an explanation for the existence of
the objectivity-subjectivity bridge, you want to start with something
objective and end with something subjective, but postulating subjectivity
at both ends of the bridge, as you're doing in the above, is not going to
get you there. *

*As I said before, a good explanation means breaking up something that is
complicated and confusing into its simplest and easiest to understand
parts, so you have only 3 possible courses of action:*

*1) Accept my explanation.  *

*2) Find something simpler and easier to understand than on and off (I
don't think that's possible but you're welcome to try). *

*3) Claim that brute facts do not exist because iterated sequences of "why"
and "how" questions always go on forever. *

*But if #3 is true then your investigations are not going to make any
progress; or to put it another way, in the next thousand years you'll make
exactly as much progress thinking about the nature of consciousness as
philosophers have made in the last thousand years thinking about the nature
of consciousness, and that would be ZERO. It would be a complete waste of
time, pointless navel gazing.*

*John K Clark*







>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 12:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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/20260626/bd5db08e/attachment.htm>