You mean like writing something in the sand? If so, then it is still subject to thermodynamics. If not, then I suggest moving this thread to pseudoscience, since you seem to have a completely paranormal idea going here. You might think that you have provided concrete and sufficient empirical support for your stance, but you simply have not.Our information is completely incorporeal
Please explain what memory is, if not physical.
Memory is preserved through chemical changes in the brain. Memory is a physical thing. If you think it is not, then you are mistaken.
These changes are ordered. They are non-random. If memory is lost the chemical changes are random. Entropy increases. This is base level thermodyamics. If someone who understands it to a higher level wants to come in and improve/correct my terminology please do, but the fundamentals are there and you don't seem to see them.
I've have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate with your Hawking argument. Let's stick to the fundamentals.
(And please stop double posting. The edit button is there for a reason.)
Alright. At least you have some accredited support on your side on that one. Still, I remember reading about a proposed experiment (something that'd have to be built) that would be able to test string theory vs loop quantum gravity, but since I don't know enough details to even look it up, I'll drop the string theory argument.Originally Posted by Manynames
Back on topic, can you point out what experiments have been done, or could be done, to test your theory?
(And like John said, use the edit button.)
I'm very dissappointed in you all. From an online definition:
<jargon> The opposite of logical in its jargon sense. Compare real, virtual, and transparent.
It is said that what you can touch and see is real; what you can see but not touch is virtual; what you can touch but not see is transparent; and what you can neither touch nor see is probably imaginary.
(01 Jun 2001)
physiatrics, physiatrist, physiatry, physic < Prev | Next > physical, physical address, physical addressing
physical medical dictionary
Pertaining to the body, to material things or to physics.
This entry appears with permission from the Dictionary of Cell and Molecular Biology
Now Go back to the Jargon part:
It is said that what you can touch and see is real; what you can see but not touch is virtual; what you can touch but not see is transparent; and what you can neither touch nor see is probably imaginary.
Now you almost certainly CANNOT TOUCH a memory, thus and hence all the points i have been making. If one said to me that memory has a physical origin, then i would nod and say, ''yes... so does the rest of consciosness,'' but if someone said to me that ''consciousness itself was physical,'' i'd laugh in their face.
Kalster, i'm getting bored of this. Stop trying to promote psuedoscience when it is not please. I am sticking to my guns in saying that memory is not a corporeal substance. We remember things; whether or not that act of remembrance is from a corporeal body in nature, but rather the act of one physically holding a memory is obsurd. Memory in all its array cannot be ''a physical entity,'' when something as abstract as some ''minds'' it in their ''conciousness''.
No, i've proven that the act of remembering is not based on any particular set of particles. If memory is an information, perhaps you would first like to identify for me John, how memory is stored in nuerons... is it an energy?
If it is indeed a set energy stored in a neuron, tell me... what about the arguement of having entirely new bodies in about five years? Would that eliminate all memory we have?
Well, in referral to ''observations now determines wave function events in the past,'' i refer you to The Delayed-Choice Experiment, and then a more newer experiment, i think conducted thi millenia as the Eraser Experiment. They should be a good for you.Alright. At least you have some accredited support on your side on that one. Still, I remember reading about a proposed experiment (something that'd have to be built) that would be able to test string theory vs loop quantum gravity, but since I don't know enough details to even look it up, I'll drop the string theory argument.
Back on topic, can you point out what experiments have been done, or could be done, to test your theory?
(And like John said, use the edit button.)
okay, in that case, I feel this question has some validity, why does a lobotomy alter the memories and conscious state of an individual so drastically, if all of that information isn't really even stored in the brain?
It can indeed alter the subjects memory. I never said that consciousness was not a mediation through matter itself. The very concept of memories, consciousness and what-have-you, are all immaterial abstracts however.
If you could locate a single memory, let' say to the ''contructive part of the brain,'' and remove that part in the brain, would successfully remove that memory for good. However, this is not always the case, because memories have been known to ''come back'', so to say.
Also, hasn't this been extensively worked on with lab rats? Hasn't scientists maliciously removed parts of rats brains only to find them to navigate through mazes?
navigation and memory are very different. you can use sensory perception to navigate a maze, portions of a brain more important to rats than humans, and as such governed by different areas of the brain. Either way, my point was that the "mind" or conscious state of an organism is contained in the brain, it is, even if immaterial itself, held within some construct of corporeal matter. Same with memories, the information itself is "written" on the cells and neurons in the brain, similarly to computer memory storage. and just like computer memory, animal memory has a tendency to become corrupted, even more so than the machine because we are organic and are in a constant state of degradation. there is no way of knowing EXACTLY what a memory is (at this point in time) now how it's stored. but we do know that it is very much tied into the cells of the brain and that the information must somehow be in those very cells. and even though you can't touch a memory, your touch sure can affect a memory.
But you mut be able to remember how to navigate through a maze a particular way surely?
But i don't disagree with the rest of the post. I never disagreed from the relation between the abstract self and that of body.
Don't be ridiculous. I am not promoting anything, you are. If you insist that memory is incorporeal, then you are conducting pseudoscience.Kalster, i'm getting bored of this. Stop trying to promote psuedoscience when it is not please.
Don't quote standard dictionaries when you are trying to talk science. In science there are particles and energy. Nothing else. You don't have to touch a particle to know it is there.It is said that what you can touch and see is real; what you can see but not touch is virtual; what you can touch but not see is transparent; and what you can neither touch nor see is probably imaginary.
This does not apply to the central nervous system! If it did, we would only be paralysed for 5 to 7 years at a time. Why do you think such great effort is being put into trying to get fully specialized neurons to grow?If it is indeed a set energy stored in a neuron, tell me... what about the argument of having entirely new bodies in about five years? Would that eliminate all memory we have?
This point has been made already, but why are there serious effects to memory and consciousness when the brain is damaged or artificially stimulated? Example
Wolf is a trained physicist. Does he have any credentials as a biochemist? Neurologist? Any biological science training at all? I don't think so. Read this and understand it: Just because a suspected cause of something has not been satisfactorily found, does not mean you can assume any alternative. Experiments have shown an increase in size of certain parts of the brain when a large volume of information is learned. How can this happen if memory is not physical? If memory is not a physical thing, then for once, please, tell us what it is. If you are going to say soul or spirit, then you are headed straight for pseudoscience.Not according to doctor wolf who is an extensive psychphysicist. In all his years he can honestly say that ''self'' has never been found to any material unit of the brain. Candace Pert a Neurobiologist would argue against the brain idea and say that consciousness is rather in each and every cell of the body. Until we can pin ''memories'' and the ''mind'' to the body, i'm afraid there is more speculation here than even maybe what i am producing.
Now please, pray tell, how can you say the bolded part and then turn around and say memory is not a physical recording of information? Are you confusing memory recall with storage? Do you think we are saying that there is a literal picture imprinted on the tissues of the brain or something?Now you almost certainly CANNOT TOUCH a memory, thus and hence all the points i have been making. If one said to me that memory has a physical origin, then i would nod and say, ''yes... so does the rest of consciosness,'' but if someone said to me that ''consciousness itself was physical,'' i'd laugh in their face.
The fact is that many experiments have found direct links between certain parts of the brain and different forms of memory. Damaging those parts of the brain has serious effects on memory, while damage to others has serious effects on a plethora of different areas of consciousness. These facts are indisputable.
Nonesense. Absolute nonesense. The very fact i understand a memory to be non-tangible in effect when being the very nature of consciousness itself does not mean i am promoting psuedoscience.
The definition itself shows exactly the points i was making. Though, i never said there was no connection between that of consciousness and matter. This is something you lot seem to be picking on, and it's completely not true from what i have presented. I never said there was no connection, but everyone here who says that thoughts are either tangible, material, corporeal, ect ect are almost indeed wrong from the definition of memory i have adopted and understood. the memory itself is not physical for how can it be? If it fits the discription i've given including the definitions, then it [b]cannot surely be my[b] definition which is wrong, but rather the equality or equivalance rather people have adopted to that of the purely materialistic and not abstraction that seems to be consciousness itself.
''Now please, pray tell, how can you say the bolded part and then turn around and say memory is not a physical recording of information? Are you confusing memory recall with storage? Do you think we are saying that there is a literal picture imprinted on the tissues of the brain or something?
The fact is that many experiments have found direct links between certain parts of the brain and different forms of memory. Damaging those parts of the brain has serious effects on memory, while damage to others has serious effects on a plethora of different areas of consciousness. These facts are indisputable.''
May i answer this with my hand on heart? I never said consciousness did not require matter. I said consciousness from the observer is an abstraction, can never be attainable, only removed by removing the function of the self, which is the body. The body acts as a mediator for such a ''reconstruction'' of events in our minds. This is the body-mind relationship, and the lack of knowledge in this relationship i find deeply disturbing. All scientific evidence that i have gathered shows that consciousness, memories the act of saying the plural ''I'' is not in spacetime itself. It cannot be a physical entity within itself, but it is very safe to say that the ''I'' and acts of ''memory'' and that of consciousness all exist as purely, imaginal. The deifinition i gave prooves that.
Right. I made my post after the second post on this page. Now, I will say it again. The brain is physical. It has billions of neurons interconnected and these interconnections change as new things are learned. Those are the tissues of the brain as it were. Now here comes the important part: Neurons communicate with each other with electricity for the most part. The obvious conclusion to be made is that consciousness and memory in the sense you have been talking about, is nothing more than a complex interplay of electricity produced by the physical tissues and chemistry of the brain. Can you agree that memory and consciousness is complex electricity?
I would agree with an electrical biofield.
ps. But please, read this part again:
May i answer this with my hand on heart? I never said consciousness did not require matter. I said consciousness from the observer is an abstraction, can never be attainable, only removed by removing the function of the self, which is the body. The body acts as a mediator for such a ''reconstruction'' of events in our minds. This is the body-mind relationship, and the lack of knowledge in this relationship i find deeply disturbing. All scientific evidence that i have gathered shows that consciousness, memories the act of saying the plural ''I'' is not in spacetime itself. It cannot be a physical entity within itself, but it is very safe to say that the ''I'' and acts of ''memory'' and that of consciousness all exist as purely, imaginal. The deifinition i gave prooves that.
Though you are missing the biggest point of all. Whether or not consciousness arises from matter or even an electrical stimuli, something which i've never doubted in this, they are still signals interpreted by consciouseness that ''recreates'' an arena which is not physical itself. This is the point i am making and you refuse to see.
I am saying that this "arena" is similar to a movie, a sentence written in the sand or an operating system. It is an order that exists, but this order is still mediated and confined by the physical system that produce these emergent properties. How does an operating system for a computer and consciousness differ?Though you are missing the biggest point of all. Whether or not consciousness arises from matter or even an electrical stimuli, something which i've never doubted in this, they are still signals interpreted by consciousness that ''recreates'' an arena which is not physical itself. This is the point i am making and you refuse to see.
If that was the case, indeed if i am understanding you right, then consciousness continually leaves a mark on spacetime, but there is no quantum interpretation which can ''back that up.'' So far, as far as we can tell, our perception of the universe is ''recreated'' in this arena, as much as it only can be ''recereated'' on the platform of some material body. However, the arena itself is not located in space, and cannot be pin-pointed down to a certain space.
On Wolfs Blog he receives questions. One of them he recieved was this:
Question: Do we project reality?
Answer: The evidence of physiology seems to indicate so. It tells us that our memories alter our perceptions and hence color our senses of the putative objective world. Hence the world we see appears according to our expectations. A change in expectations leads to a different view of the world. Since we can't get beyond our subjective views, we can never really determine what is absolutely "out there." Classical neurophysiology would say that our minds play tricks on us and in some sense distort the "true" objectivity of the world.
On the topic of the delayed choice and quantum eraser experiments (and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment), those are interesting results, but there are plenty of interpretations of those results that don't involve breaking causality. In fact, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment was shown to be incapable of violating causality.
Now, I'm not saying that your suggestion is a violation of causality. Not exactly anyway. But there's nothing there that leads me to believe that the past was actually changed in any way. Also, there's absolutely no connection in any of those experiments to a conscious observer. In all cases, the entire process is mechanical.
It shouldn't be a surprise that certain experiments now or even in the future suppose a violation of causality.
Did you realize that the zero-point energy field has a violation of causality of its own? It turns out that such violations should be kept for macroscopic interest only, but when it comes down to quantum foam, matter is constantly being created, and thus being violated all the time.
A surprise?
p.s A causality violation is very hard to proove also. It turns out there are multiple interpretations that allow things to be changed in the past. It is just a necessity that science, physics in general, can allow such changes without such a violation to occur.
Can you not disgaree Kalster? You made such a big ballyhoo of moving this thread i am sure... correct me if i am wrong, but all evidence points to my conclusions, not yours.If that was the case, indeed if i am understanding you right, then consciousness continually leaves a mark on spacetime, but there is no quantum interpretation which can ''back that up.'' So far, as far as we can tell, our perception of the universe is ''recreated'' in this arena, as much as it only can be ''recereated'' on the platform of some material body. However, the arena itself is not located in space, and cannot be pin-pointed down to a certain space.
On Wolfs Blog he receives questions. One of them he recieved was this:
Question: Do we project reality?
Answer: The evidence of physiology seems to indicate so. It tells us that our memories alter our perceptions and hence color our senses of the putative objective world. Hence the world we see appears according to our expectations. A change in expectations leads to a different view of the world. Since we can't get beyond our subjective views, we can never really determine what is absolutely "out there." Classical neurophysiology would say that our minds play tricks on us and in some sense distort the "true" objectivity of the world.
Well, that is mostly because the way you put it removed any physical aspect of consciousness and memory. Now that you have agreed that consciousness and our awareness of memory are a complex pattern of moving electron directed by neurons, we can talk some more.You made such a big ballyhoo of moving this thread i am sure
No. You have to be precise about how you define all of this.correct me if i am wrong, but all evidence points to my conclusions, not yours.
Quantum interpretation? What are the quantum interpretations of an operating system?If that was the case, indeed if i am understanding you right, then consciousness continually leaves a mark on spacetime, but there is no quantum interpretation which can ''back that up.''
But what is it that you are trying to say with this? The firing neurons are limited to the brain and the emergent operating system is objectively also limited to the brain. This operating system can "contemplate" all sorts of things though. It can think about the farthest star or consider its own existence. Nevertheless, all of this still happens within the confines of the skull.However, the arena itself is not located in space, and cannot be pin-pointed down to a certain space.
''Now that you have agreed that consciousness and our awareness of memory are a complex pattern of moving electron directed by neurons, we can talk some more.''
I never said that a ''physical aspect of consciousness was irremovable.'' In fact, i clearly stated the opposite.
''No. You have to be precise about how you define all of this.''
I've tried to be very precise. You have not however. You failed to take into comprehension the definition of what is tangible i provided, and therefore, you have assumed more than what i have.
''But what is it that you are trying to say with this? The firing neurons are limited to the brain and the emergent operating system is objectively also limited to the brain. This operating system can "contemplate" all sorts of things though. It can think about the farthest star or consider its own existence. Nevertheless, all of this still happens within the confines of the skull''
Pure physics. If something cannot be located into a certain space, then time energy and matter follows. my point was before as it holds now, you cannot locate asbtract functions such as ''thoughts'' to a particular location of matter.
Not only have i provided a damning proof to this, but i feel you are neglecting all other aspects i have brought forth. If you can define such a thing to a ''peice'' of matter, then i will ask the *ucking question again.
How come memory persists if in five years a single body is renewed by other matter? It's not a trick question, so just answer please.
I DID ANSWER IT! NEURONS DON'T RENEW THEMSELVES!How come memory persists if in five years a single body is renewed by other matter? It's not a trick question, so just answer please.
_____________
What...??? MEMORIES RENEW THEMSELVES? in what way do you think this happens...???
Ah, i now see why this is in hypothesis section. Not only does ''neurons renew themselves'' an adiquate answer, but your own answer seems as absurd as what it implies. Apparently now, the choice of ''remembering'' is not bound to matter. So you are now backing around what you previously said.
What you said was that thouhts are purely material. Not only is this definition in err, but also your contempt of my contention that thoughts are not ultimately phsyical at all. Tell me, when someone pricks your side with a needle, in a spot which may not directly influence your nervous system, you may not be aware of it until you actually see the dent. What does this tell you about the incorporeal nature of thoughts and awareness?
You are digging your own grave here.
No, dude, really.
There is no paper today which states that a memory is a phsyical transaction of the choice of the person, neither have you addressed any of the points i made personally. Personally address them with your own intelligence or give up. You can either provide evidence that a single thought (a purely subliminal thought) is material or give up.
Simple.
I will read your papers you provided, but i personally know of no experimentation which can prove these facts you speak of.
Also, most of these experiments you cite are psuedoscience when comparing an ultimate reason to thoughts themselves. Whilst i never denied that consciousness requires a matter as a mediator you assumed that by this i mean that consciousness does not require a matter. I never said this. If this was the case, then the ''mind'' would be all over the place.
Look, end of the day, you said that thoughts where absolutely phsyical. I want to see a paper which states this... Indeed, if any paper would be bold enough to state such a thing.
Also, from the work cited:
''Their amazing discovery was that nerve cells in most of your brain are as old as you are.''
Well, Candace Pert a Neurobiologist seems to ultimately believe that ''consciosunesss'' is not in the brain, but rather every cell of the human body. This citation seems to be....... very biased at best in its conclusions.
I'm not convinced at all. Not at all, in fact.
I take it from such a late respone, you could not find a single scientific paper which concludes that thoughts are phsyical then?
I rest my case.
Are you insane? These are the FIRST citations I have given! I have been addressing your assertions using my own intelligence the whole time.
Memories are stored as new synaptic pathways.
I never said that thought per se are material, but they are the emergent properties of material things. Your synapses fire, producing electricity. All the synapses in your brain are potentially connected in this way. The different parts of your brain are responsible for different aspects of consciousness. If you damage those parts, your consciousness alters.
Brain tissue is similar to computer hardware (genetically hardwired structure and components) with all the programs (different sections of the brain) running on it, all of it built into a robot. The different programs each perform a function and react to different stimulae, while being able to interact with each other. The different stimulae affects what is stored in memory and the relevant programs decide what is discarded from the RAM (short term memory) and what is temporarily saved on the hard drive (permanent memory). Stored data affects how new input is processed and interpreted. Consciousness is the sum total of all of these systems working together, constantly processing new data and deciding on appropriate actions. In the human body this is just hugely more complicated and integrated. Consciousness is the operating system, made up out of components, but working as a whole as a means for the robot/human to function in the world. It has to recognise dangers, fight for position in its group, find sustenance, court a mate and try to propagate its genes.
Now, all of this happens on the inside of the robot/human. The whole system consists out of nothing more than particles and energy. It is only remarkable for its mindboggling complexity.
Now, would you like to explain to me exactly what you mean by "non-physical"? Is a pattern physical or does it only exist when someone can recognise it?
I would bet that he says that consciousness has its origin in the brain, but includes the whole body. You are aware of your feet, no?Well, Candace Pert a Neurobiologist seems to ultimately believe that ''consciosunesss'' is not in the brain, but rather every cell of the human body. This citation seems to be....... very biased at best in its conclusions.
Bolded by me.
Yes you did. Are you calling me a liar now? I bet you will dive into your posts and even mature them to your most recent thoughts... then again, maybe you won't.
Nevertheless, thoughts are not materially based as an object, which is a point i showed from the very beginning, a point which you are trying to flout with the highest impunity and disrespect to every other point i have made.
I said ''thought's are not material, in which one can hold,'' pointing out that such a subject remains as abstract as consciousness itself. However in response, you and another, and perhaps another tried to say they where purely material.
Make up your mind for Gods sake, please?
Also, find me a paper which cites thoughts are material. Again, this is not a trick question. What i see from your citations, is nothing but tests surprisingly enough that not only have materialistic approach, but none of them can answer the questions i cited. Only indirectly do they propose that memory is a function of matter, but are wholey biased on the research of other promonent leaders in this area, such as the one i gave, called Candace Pert, again, a neurobiologist who is adament that ''mind'' is notn associated to the brain, but rather every cell of the body...
... which raises yet again the material arguement i gave where our bodies are not confined to an absolute count of cells over five... or to seven years.
Also i have explained what is non-physical. Don't make me run circles again.
Respond to this please. Ask me questions if anything is unclear.Brain tissue is similar to computer hardware (genetically hardwired structure and components) with all the programs (different sections of the brain) running on it, all of it built into a robot. The different programs each perform a function and react to different stimulae, while being able to interact with each other. The different stimulae affects what is stored in memory and the relevant programs decide what is discarded from the RAM (short term memory) and what is temporarily saved on the hard drive (permanent memory). Stored data affects how new input is processed and interpreted. Consciousness is the sum total of all of these systems working together, constantly processing new data and deciding on appropriate actions. In the human body this is just hugely more complicated and integrated. Consciousness is the operating system, made up out of components, but working as a whole as a means for the robot/human to function in the world. It has to recognise dangers, fight for position in its group, find sustenance, court a mate and try to propagate its genes.
I will until you answer mine. For two days (or just less) i took solid questions and gave solid answers in return, but as soon as i give questions out, you respond to them with more questions, so it's give and take.
Answer mine, then i will answer yours - fully.
I'll be back tommorrow to see the results.
took long enough to move this monster
Though indefense of my monster thread, i must say i feel it's been moved under false pretences now. One of the main arguements of the removal of this thread was because i was stating thoughts where not physical entities themselves; though do exist around matter as though matter acted like a meditor. After much debating and concluding, KALSTER finally ''changed??'' his mind and said thoughts are not ''physical per se.''
So i ask now whether the removal of the thread was the correct thing to do.
That bit you quoted is my answer and describes precisely what I mean.Answer mine, then i will answer yours - fully
The physical/non-physical part: That is why I ask you to explain exactly what you mean. In my example the programs and hardware are all undeniably physical, i.e. made up of semi-conductors and, here is the important part, patterns or certain arrangement of atoms. That is the way memory is stored. Nothing gets taken away from or added to a hard drive when data is stored or deleted. The only change is how the atoms are arranged and this arrangement directs the paths of electrons. You see what I mean?
The way you have been frazing your points have been ambiguous to me. I am saying that memories are not physical per se, because it is not like a clump of clay that gets remolded by new and forgotten memories or a box labelled "memories". It is a group of atoms/compounds (like my sand analogy) that is given a pattern to or a pattern taken away from.
Now comes the part where I think you are having issues with my view. The processes of thought, recall of memories and awareness. I am saying that every bit of what constitutes consciousness is contained in the brain (or body at large, if you want to include awareness of your body). This is the objective view. The subjective view though, the one of the consciousness itself, might well experience its own consciousness as not being defined in any physical sense or contained within a certain space or as existing somewhat independently from its origin. It is abstract, delusional and imaginary. It is subjective reality, but it is not based in objective reality.
It was 100% the correct thing to do. Kalster has been accurate, clear and definitive in what he has said. You have been wrong, vague and waffly.
Memory is physical. If you wish to claim otherwise you are going against the conclusions of thousands of psychologists, neurologists and the like. (Please do not cite Dr. Wolff again. I am tired of hearing about this one man who has a unique take on reality that is not supported by evidence or the experts in the field.)
Debate the idea of non-corporeal memory as much as you like, but do not try to pretend the idea is mainstream. It isn't.
Finally, do you require guidance on using the edit function?
I disagree. I knew there was someone else advocating this to me.It was 100% the correct thing to do. Kalster has been accurate, clear and definitive in what he has said. You have been wrong, vague and waffly.
Memory is physical. If you wish to claim otherwise you are going against the conclusions of thousands of psychologists, neurologists and the like. (Please do not cite Dr. Wolff again. I am tired of hearing about this one man who has a unique take on reality that is not supported by evidence or the experts in the field.)
Debate the idea of non-corporeal memory as much as you like, but do not try to pretend the idea is mainstream. It isn't.
Finally, do you require guidance on using the edit function?
Take your word for it right...? Now, if thoughts are physical, then it must be equally possible to transpose our thoughts, wishes and even consciosness on a computer... But how does one exchange vital information such as a consciousness onto hardware?
Frank J. Tipler seems to think it is possible, but he is one and very few scientists who would. It's generally considered psuedoscience, simply because of the ethereal nature of one thought alone. I say ethereal because ''thoughts'' are not created by random fluctuations generally in consciousness, but rather are created upon the will of the observer.
Now, i've never said consciousness never required matter, or thoughts requires neurons, but what i did explicitely say that a thought is ''unattainable'' next to attaining for instance the physical body of a single neuron. You cannot take abstractions like thoughts into your hands, no more you can seize a consciousness from wiring hardware to neurons.
I don't see why this point is not being understood correctly. I also disagree i am being vague. I provided sources for such an explanation into these concepts... i even posted a definition that was absolutely in my favor. I don't understand this at all..
..And why do you keep insisting i use an edit button... If I feel the need to seperate something from something else, i will, thanks anyway.
Indeed though, parts of these things are my points. You cannot put a thought in a box, label it and keep it in the cupboard. If you could, then equally at the end of the year, you could go get that box, and lift it out and use it again. This would be a physical entity, a thought would then be an entity that is physical. But the origin of a thought does require a physical mediator... why do you not understand this?
Lets brake this down:
A thought is an action. Of course you can't isolate it in a box. Can one isolate "jogging" in a box? If this is what you have been saying, then I agree. BUT a thought cannot be a thought without the things that are performing the action, i.e. the physical. In short, a thought is a structured movement of interacting physical parts. The thought is affected by the arrangement of the physical parts before the thought is put into action along with an instigating stimulus, which could itself be a thought.
I agreed up to the bolded part. The reason why, is because i have shown that a thought in a conscious being is not a random fluctuation of the physical parts themselves because generally-speaking, a thought is created upon the will of an observer.
But it is not based on random fluctuations. There is always a precursor and it is a dynamic, interconnected process.i have shown that a thought in a conscious being is not a random fluctuation
That “will” is the product of an unimaginably complex set of precursors which started the moment the brain was “switched on”. The components of thought, i.e. the tissues and electrons, still behave in a predictable manner. If you connect a power source to two lengths of conductor and a light bulb, it will burn. It is entirely predictable. In the brain it is just vastly more complex and as such is chaotic.a thought is created upon the will of an observer.
Now you are bringing into advantage for me the arguement that we have aboutstatistical averages in the human brain, which is far too complex for us to trace for a definable model of quantum consciousness. It is the truth, that anything even over
quantum particles is gruesomely difficult if not entirely impossible to track a workable theory of consciousness... so more speculation must hit the post when saying ''that 'will' of the observer is a product of unimaginably complex set of precursers''... so forgive me for feeling you personally have adopted a completely materialistic approach to consciousness, contentions i am affraid i cannot share.
By these very arguements, you could easily take a Tipler Hypothesis and say consciousness can be wired into the cold hardware of computer systems and perhaps nanotechnology. Not only today is this kind of thought generally considered psuedoscience, but we have no current workable theories which have:
1) Answered for the mind-body problem, where consciousness is almost in many respects a spiritualised exsitence and the body being that purely physical
2) How consciousness and machine can even intermingle in the same repects as a biomechanical conscious system
Surely when we consider AI - even in films - we often forget that consciousness is just more than a bunch of electron moving through a wire. I believe that consciousness, indeed all forms of concious or non-conscious life have about them electrical biofields. It is known that these biofields could be imprints of how consciousness works as a whole, but do not answer for the subjective ''I''. Then we have all the other subjective phenomena, with no direct influence or compatability to the material body of ''self''. I can sit here and be content that there is more to consciousness than a mere biofield relation between mind and body, as exampled in axiom 1), but more important is that in axiom 2) we have yet to see evidence of an independantly thinking consciousness to arise in a cold hardware of electrical stimuli... indeed... consciousness is more than just matter being complex, and more profound than that of futuristic AI computers that are generated through electrons in a wire.
Consciousness is more than just complex matter. If it wasn't, we would have found damning evidence to suggest it was. And according to all the work I have investigated, this problem persists and remain to be answered.
Nevertheless, it is possible we will have a working theory in the future which is purely materialistic, but something in my heart tells me there is something wrong with a materialistic approach to the subjective and totally ethereal nature of thoughts, consciousness and the plural ''I''.
1. I have never discussed or mentioned thoughts in this thread. I have never discussed or mentioned consciousness in this thread. I am denying your statement that memory is not physical.I disagree. Take your word for it right...? Now, if thoughts are physical, then it must be equally possible to transpose our thoughts, wishes and even consciosness on a computer... ....................Now, i've never said consciousness never required matter, or thoughts requires neurons, but what i did explicitely say that a thought is ''unattainable'' next to attaining for instance the physical body of a single neuron. You cannot take abstractions like thoughts into your hands, no more you can seize a consciousness from wiring hardware to neurons.
2. The vagueness I refer to is partly caused by you jumping from idea to idea, such as now - one moment we are discussing memory, then suddenly you talk about thoughts and consciousness. Yes, they are inter-related, but this discussion began and was centred on the corporeal or non-corporeal character of memory.
3. It is against forum etiquette and probably against forum rules to make multiple posts, one after the other. You may wish to do this, but it is considered rude. You can separate out the ideas as I have done here by numbering each separate idea.
Indeed... i do deny the statement that ''thoughts are physical.'' It's a proposterous statement which does not give credit to the unnatainability of the concept of thoughts themselves. Perhaps the ''origin of thoughts are materially-based'' is gerately more accurate.1. I have never discussed or mentioned thoughts in this thread. I have never discussed or mentioned consciousness in this thread. I am denying your statement that memory is not physical.I disagree. Take your word for it right...? Now, if thoughts are physical, then it must be equally possible to transpose our thoughts, wishes and even consciosness on a computer... ....................Now, i've never said consciousness never required matter, or thoughts requires neurons, but what i did explicitely say that a thought is ''unattainable'' next to attaining for instance the physical body of a single neuron. You cannot take abstractions like thoughts into your hands, no more you can seize a consciousness from wiring hardware to neurons.
2. The vagueness I refer to is partly caused by you jumping from idea to idea, such as now - one moment we are discussing memory, then suddenly you talk about thoughts and consciousness. Yes, they are inter-related, but this discussion began and was centred on the corporeal or non-corporeal character of memory.
3. It is against forum etiquette and probably against forum rules to make multiple posts, one after the other. You may wish to do this, but it is considered rude. You can separate out the ideas as I have done here by numbering each separate idea.
And i am sorry about the non-editing. But i am hardly spamming. I was just keeping seperate some replies. It's order in my head.
I am not discussing thoughts. Stop bringing up the topic of thoughts. This discussion began with a debate about memory. Memory is physical. You say it is not. You are mistaken. Stop deviating the discussion onto thoughts, at least until we have sorted out the subject of memory.
I'm sorry... maybe I am missing the point, or maybe i've not directed my point on thoughts clearly enough. Consciousness is a memory. You cannot have memory without a consciousness, and thus vice versa. Interconnected, and almost indestinguishable is the humans ability to gather memory through a collection of ''thoughts'' made in the present time, the real time, i might add. These real time events must make, ''thoughts'', ''consciousness'' and even ''memory'' (which for me is the base of many collection of thoughts all interdependant.I am not discussing thoughts. Stop bringing up the topic of thoughts. This discussion began with a debate about memory. Memory is physical. You say it is not. You are mistaken. Stop deviating the discussion onto thoughts, at least until we have sorted out the subject of memory.
If i want to talk about memory, then that is all it is. It is a collection of well-defined focal points that are enbedded into the experience of the conscious observer.
I'm not 100% sure here but I think you two may be arguing past one another because of one difference in perception.
I think John Galt is talking about memory in its "rest state" as in once it has already been committed or stored, if you will.
And I think Manynames is talking more about the creation of memories rather than memories themselves.
The creation of memories is down to experience, which is produced by consciousness and is not physical but rather a by-product of physical existence.
Memories themselves are stored information however and thus, like other information, they are physical.
| « The Retroactive Butterfly Effect | Grand Unified Theory of The Universe » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
