<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:37 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi Ben,</div><div>Exactly, qualities like redness are 'mental construct' rendered into our subjective<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suTugEv9F-U&t=8s" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"> knowledge of the world in our head </a> .</div><div><br></div><div>There are all kinds of evidence, like magenta, that there is a LOT of difference between patterns of reflected light and the qualities of our knowledge of such.</div><div><br></div><div>What is a 'mental construct' if not something objectively observable in our brain? In addition to our objective descriptions of those mental constructs (we don't know which is a description of redness, but it must be something), there is some reason the redness quality is behaving the way we objecetively observe it behaving.</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My argument against Brent's intrinsicism (the idea that quale depend on intrinsic physicochemical properties of the neural substrate) is as follows:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There are some 20,000 genes which means that there are no more than roughly 20,000 unique chemicals/molecules within the brain. Let's round up and say 30,000.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But this number, 30,000, is smaller than the 1,000,000 unique colors tetrachromats can see, and much smaller than the 100,000,000 colors human tetrachromats can see.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For the intrinsicist to accommodate this he must say that quale depend on the relative concentrations or proportions of fundamental primary color molecules in some part of the brain. But once the intrinsicist makes this move, he is already retreating to high-level information states (e.g., the molecular concentrations) as being definitive in creating that conscious qualitative experience. But then if it is high-level information states that define qualitative states, how is that different from functionalism?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 5:39 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 30/06/2026 11:45, John K Clark wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 5:39 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > We have a colour called Magenta, but it doesn't correspond to any wavelength of light, or any band of wavelengths. <br>
><br>
><br>
> According to Google: "Magenta is a unique, extraspectral color that does not exist as a single wavelength of light in the visible spectrum. Instead, it is created by the human brain filling in the gap to bridge the opposite ends of the color spectrum—mixing short-wave blue light and long-wave red light"<br>
><br>
> And if you decrease the amount of red light a little and increase the amount of blue then your brain interprets that as purple instead of magenta.<br>
<br>
<br>
Indeed. So, I'm wondering what Brent will have to say about this. Magenta doesn't seem to fit into his view of things, as it cannot be a 'physical property' of anything, it only exists as a mental construct, or a hallucination of our brains.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Ben<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>