<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div>Hi John,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 12:50 PM John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</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"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;background-color:transparent">On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 9:29 AM Brent Allsop <<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span><b style="background-color:transparent;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><a href="https://www.w2agz.com/Library/Limits%20of%20Computation/Landauer%20Article,%20Physics%20Today%2044,%205,%2023%20(1991).pdf" target="_blank">Information is Physical</a> </b></blockquote></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><b style="background-color:transparent;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></b></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>This paper clearly suffers from the objective grounding problem (how do you come up with an objective dictionary definition of redness?)</i></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>You can't.<span class="gmail_default"> That's why the paper doesn't even try to do so, and you shouldn't either. </span></b></font> </div><span style="background-color:transparent"> </span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>What causes <span class="gmail_default">one</span> arrangement of on and off switches<span class="gmail_default"> to produce the </span><span style="background-color:transparent">redness quality<span class="gmail_default"> while a different </span></span><span style="background-color:transparent">arrangement of on and off switches</span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent"> produces the blueness quality? If it's a brute fact then absolutely positively <u>NOTHING</u> does. And if it's not a brute fact then you're stuck with an </span><span style="background-color:transparent">infinite regress</span><span style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default">.</span> Take your pick.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></span></b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>As I said here, and as I say over and over, my falsifiable prediction is that it is a brute physical fact that something has a redness quality. </i></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><span style="background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><b><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="background-color:transparent">If it's a brute fact <span class="gmail_default">that</span> some<span class="gmail_default"> </span>thing<span class="gmail_default"> causes the redness quality </span></span></font><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif" style="background-color:transparent"><span style="background-color:transparent">then <span class="gmail_default">NOTHING </span>causes that<span class="gmail_default"> </span><span class="gmail_default">"</span>something<span class="gmail_default">" to have the redness quality. It having the redness quality is a <u>fundamental fact</u> about the universe.</span></span></font></b><span style="background-color:transparent;font-size:large"><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default"> You can't keep asking "HOW" questions because if it's a brute fact then you've reached the rock-bottom of reality. </span></span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent"> </span></b></font><span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;background-color:transparent"> </span></span></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" size="4"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>You cannot produce one <span class="gmail_default">s</span>ingle<span class="gmail_default"> </span>scrap of evidence to support that claim.<span class="gmail_default"></span></b></font><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large;background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default"> Philosophers have been navel gazing about the nature of subjectivity and consciousness for over 1000 years, and in all that time they have not advanced our understanding of those phenomena by one nanometer. Not even by one P</span><span style="background-color:transparent">lanck <span class="gmail_default">L</span>ength<span class="gmail_default">!</span></span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent"> By contrast, look at the <u>GARGANTUAN</u> amount of progress that has been made in just the last 10 years by ignoring subjectivity and consciousness completely </span><span style="background-color:transparent">and concentrating on discovering more about</span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent"> </span><span style="background-color:transparent">the nature of intelligence.</span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent"> </span></b></div><div><b style="background-color:transparent;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent">And you think we should go back to </span></b><b style="background-color:transparent;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><span class="gmail_default">navel gazing?!</span></b></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default">> </span><span style="background-color:transparent">I'm not talking philosophy, nor navel gazing. </span></i></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>I think that's exactly what you're talking about.<span class="gmail_default"> </span> </b></font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I'm predicting that glutamate will be falsified (someone will experience redness without glutamate)</i></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>And I predict that if you discover a correlation between a glutamate molecule (or<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>any other molecule) with someone making a noise with their mouth that sounds like  "I am experiencing redness" then I will be able to discover a correlation between a certain arrangement of on and off switches inside the electronic processor of an <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">A</span>rtificial <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I</span>ntelligence that will make a noise through a speaker that sounds like "I am experiencing redness". So after all these "experiments" what have we learned at the end of the day? We have learned the same thing that consciousness experiments always tell us about the nature of reality, absolutely nothing. </b></font><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I am predicting that science will never find any "function" or any series of ones or zeros for which it is a brute fact that it has a redness quality.</i></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>I am predicting <span class="gmail_default">s</span>cience will never find<span class="gmail_default"> a molecule that can do that either. And I will go further, science will never be able to say what a subjective thing like a color qualia is "like" because they are "like" nothing else in existence except for themselves, they certainly are not some objective thing which apparently is the only sort of thing that would satisfy you.  </span></b></font></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I don't see any way to falsify your claims,</i></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>I see <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">a</span> pattern of on and off switches<span class="gmail_default"> that I think will cause the AI to make a noise through its speaker that sounds like "I am experiencing the redness</span><span style="background-color:transparent"> qualia<span class="gmail_default">" but instead the noise sounds like "I</span></span><span class="gmail_default" style="background-color:transparent"> am <u>not</u> experiencing the redness</span><span style="background-color:transparent"> qualia<span class="gmail_default">". So I am wrong and it's back to the drawing board for me, I'll need to look for a different pattern of switches. </span></span></b></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, Then, can we both agree that we are both doing theoretical science?  I am predicting that something objective in the brain is behaving the way it does, because of its redness quality.  And you are making a different, equally falsifiable prediction: that a pattern of on and off switches will result in a redness quality.  So, now it is up to the experimentalists to conduct the experiment, and prove to us, which one is right, if any, and which one is wrong, forcing both of us into THE ONE true scientific consensus camp.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-style:italic;font-weight:bold">> </span><i><font face="georgia, serif">If you're not doing navel gazing, then how is functionalism going to be falsified?</font></i></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><br></b></font></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Charles Darwin could've answered that question <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">over </span>150 years ago,<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> f</span>ind a way<span class="gmail_default"> for Natural Selection to select for something that it can't see. Good luck in completing that little task. </span></b></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe I've addressed this assertion of yours you continue to make, many times, but here it goes again:</div><div>There are two types of computation, one is drastically more efficient than the other.  Since one is more efficient, that is why evolution selected for computation on top of phenomenal qualities, rather than brute force discrete logic gates.  And the reason evolution selected redness, to represent the strawberry, was because it knew that if the animal focused on that quality while ignoring the green leaves, it would be more efficient at selecting the red strawberries from the green leaves if it used something in the brain that had that redness quality.  This is simply because a redness quality stands out in a system of other qualities.  As Hoffman and others point out with their "fitness beats truth" theorem, evolution selects for survivability, not for truth. Nature certainly doesn't select for the grossly inefficient way we're still doing computation (which requires dictionaries for everything to achieve substrate independence).  It's much more efficient to run directly on the fundamental qualities of nature, even if those qualities do, (using some magic?) arise from 1s and 0s.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div>