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

[Brent Allsop]

Hi John,
Thanks for the continued help with this; I think we are making progress,
and I now better understand what I'm still failing to communicate about
objectively observing subjective qualities.



On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 5:17 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 only doesn't make a difference if you rewrite the dictionary to be
different.  For example,  If the dictionary says physical redness
represents off and greenness represents on, and if you switch the two,
there is an important difference in quality, or what it is like.  And
recognizing this difference is important for objectively understanding what
consciousness is like.



> *> 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.  *
>
>
I wouldn't use the term "produces" because that separates qualia from
objectively observable physical reality.   The functionalist only cares
about what is causally downstream from the redness quality, and they fail
to realize that the strawbery still has the red quality, which is different
from the different type of light that is reflected.  i.e. the light isn't
what has the red quality, it is the strawberry.  In other words, using "has
quality" communicates better what we are talking about.  It behaves the way
we objectively observe it behaving because of the redness quality we are
only objectively observing. (doesn't tell you what it is like.)

All objective observation can detect is what is causally downstream from
the physical behavior.  But the subjective binding does more than detect
causally downstream behavior.  It must have some way to direclty aprehend
qualities, as if they were all one subjectively bound gestalt direct
awareness of all the qualities at the same time.  Sure, you can objectively
observe the causally downstream behavior of all the qualities and the
binding, but that doesn't tell you what any of it is like.

Once we demonstrate the true color qualities of stuff, and know the true
color qualities of stufff, once we finally understand color (not just
seeming color) then the objective will be subjective.  All we need is the
dictionary between the subjective and the objective brute physical facts.


> *> 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.*
>

What you are saying is that consciousness is not approachable via science.
You are saying there really are 'hard problems' that we will never solve.
There is a 4th option, neurons can do subjective binding, allowing us to
directly apprehend subjective qualities.
We simply need to realize there is some objectively observable subjective
binding which can directly apprehend these qualities.  They will soon be
able to bind whatever has my elemental redness into your subjective
experience, then you will know with infallible certainty the true color
quality of things, and you will finally know if my elemental redness is
like yours.  And you will know that AI systems just run on different
voltages, which aren't like anything, so they aren't qualitatively
conscious.


> *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/20260626/8ea17454/attachment-0001.htm>