If it exists, it has atoms

[Willum]

So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 48 by AgnosticBoy]

That isn't all that different from turning the ones and zeros in PC into a picture on screen. One can fairly easily come up with a fuzzy statistical matching based algorithm to compress visual data, trivially needing a statistical matching algorithm to lossily decode into pixels. Can images stored in such a format be said to be "not available to 3rd person point-of-view?"

[FarWanderer]

FarWanderer : �Yes. That's why arguing that only the physical exists is pointless. You are just defining "physical" as 'what exists'.�

And I wait for you to demonstrate some non-physical but existent phenomenon. There is no rational reason, for instance, to posit mind-body dualism.

That is logically impossible if "physical" means "what exists", so we both know you aren't waiting for anything.

And I am a monist, if that matters to you.

FarWanderer replied: �Epistemology and neuroscience aren't even the same category of thing. The possibility of further investigation is all well and good, but the questions being answered are of an entirely different nature.

But in two thousand years epistemology has answered no questions.

I would say Hume did.

But even if what you say is 100% true, so what? Neuroscience doesn't answer the questions that epistemology asks, so even if neuroscience is a more worthy endeavor of intellectual inquiry, that does not make it a "replacement" for epistemology any more than it makes geology or astronomy. That's why I said it has nothing to do with the brain.

FarWanderer: �...you are simply translating ideas well-understood in one linguistic medium (experiential description) to another linguistic medium (physical description) in which they are not well understood. That doesn't mean the world as described in experiential terms and world as described in physical terms are metaphysically different.�

TSGracchus: �But the phenomenon was not “well understood� it was merely described. It was merely the subject of ignorant gossip. And if we don't understand every nuance of consciousness and how we learn, we (at least some of us) do understand more than all the philosophers of the last several millennia.

FarWanderer: �It was well-understood in terms of experiential language. I know what it's like to learn and to have learned things. When you say it was not well-understood you are NOT talking about the same thing I was, and you are in fact implying that experiential knowledge isn't even real."

I am not implying, I am explicitly stating that knowledge, however acquired, is a pattern of neurons biochemistry in the brain.

Yes, I understand. I was saying if you were actually engaging me in experiential language then that would be the implication of what you said, which would contradict your own position.

Like I said in the previous post, "When you say it was not well-understood you are NOT talking about the same thing I was". That's the problem.

What I am trying to discuss is the nature of knowledge and consciousness.

And I am saying there are multiple ways to discuss that topic.

TSGracchus wrote: �Arbitrary patterns can convey information to a detector. No detector means no information is transmitted by the signal. Information requires transmitter (always physical), medium (always physical) and detector (always physical). If there is no pattern that can be interpreted by the detector that means no information has been transmitted.�

FarWanderer: �There is actually no way to distinguish a world in which the physical exists independent of information, because all observation necessarily involves a "detector". “

TSGracchus: �When a tree falls in a forest part of the energy of its fall is transferred to the atmosphere even if there is no one to hear. Without the detector that energy still exists but it is not information. Without the observer there is no observation. But reality remains.'

FarWanderer: �Begging the question. The only way you can actually demonstrate your claim is by observation.

And that is the method on which I try to rely, while the only way you can demonstrate your claim is by proposing unverifiable entities.

That's not the point. To demonstrate that the energy from the falling tree exists, you have to observe it. It makes no difference whether we are talking about sound waves or the energy released into the atmosphere. Claiming that it exists without observing it is begging the question.

And I am not sure which claim of mine you are referring to when you say "the only way you can demonstrate your claim is by proposing unverifiable entities."

FarWanderer replied: �All the other stuff is just information waiting to be detected or physical stuff waiting to be observed. There is no metaphysical difference, just linguistic.�

You keep using the word “metaphysical�. How can you demonstrate that it is not synonymous with “imaginary�?

I am more or less saying that it is imaginary. I am saying metaphysical distinction, such as the mind/body distinction, does not exist.

TSGracchus: �Information necessarily involves an emitter, a medium and a detector. Physics draws its observations, its facts, from reality. It checks its conclusions against predictions of reality. Reality is not “information waiting to be observed�, it is not information until it is actually observed.

FarWanderer : �An empty distinction. It amounts to precisely the same thing. You are just defining information in such a way that it is logically impossible for you to be wrong.

When you base your well-constructed argument on valid premises and definitions the conclusion does have the annoying property of being correct and tautological. It is possible for me to be wrong if my premises are false, or if my argument is flawed. If not, then it is the logical, rational response to accept the conclusion.

There is no such thing as a "valid" definition except in the sense that it is useful. I am not talking about information exactly as you define it. In particular, your definition of information says all things involved are physical, so you have already decided that it's impossible for information to be non-physical even in principle.

I am not saying your definition is invalid, but that it is not the only valid definition. I look at how people actually use words to determine their meaning. For example, if your definition held true universally, no one would use the term "gather information" as though information were something "out there" to collect. It would be something more like "create information", which sounds incredibly strange as everyday language.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 48 by AgnosticBoy]

That isn't all that different from turning the ones and zeros in PC into a picture on screen. One can fairly easily come up with a fuzzy statistical matching based algorithm to compress visual data, trivially needing a statistical matching algorithm to lossily decode into pixels. Can images stored in such a format be said to be "not available to 3rd person point-of-view?"

Sure, you can compress data into binary code or vice-versa. But TsGracchus's point is like arguing that the binary code and the image on the screen have the same properties. We know that's false because the binary code does not contain actual colors, shape, but the image on the monitor does.

As to your point, the image that we see in our mind is SUBJECTIVE which was my only point so far. It can not be objectively observed like the image on the "monitor". You see I'm not disputing that the binary code or brain activity does not cause imagery, I'm simply saying that the objective process leads to something subjective and I'd even say non-physical or having a lack of physical properties. But lets at least get some agreement on subjective, first.

[AgnosticBoy]

editing

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by TSGracchus]

William: �For example, you claim you cannot detect GOD. In what way does this signify that GOD does not exist?�

It does not.

Correct. Now let's read your reasons why you think GOD does not exist anyway...

But...

This should be interesting....

If there is no independently verifiable evidence of “GOD�

What is 'independently verifiable evidence of GOD.'? Is what exists not evidence enough?

(There is no need to shout. Shouting doesn't make it real.)

There is no need for "Quotation Marks" "Quotation Marks" do not make it unreal.

and if there is no need of that hypotheses, then we have as much need of “GOD� as we do of leprechauns.

What has need got to do with anything? You exist. Do you need to exist? Does the world need you to exist? Do you need the world in order to exist? Your answers to those question will reflect what you think and belief about yourself - your existence - but the question still remains. "Do you know for sure your beliefs about that are truth"? and the truthful answer is 'No, you do not.' So, that being the case, what NEED do you have in those beliefs, and WHY the need?

Your reasoning is faulty. You claim you don't need what you don't see as existing (like 'leprechauns') but there are many things which do exist which you don't need anyway, so your NEED has naff all to do with anything. All you are saying really is that even if GOD did exist, you don't need GOD.

TSGracchus: �Imagery in the brain is physical, and can be detected.

William: �Is it detected as imagery?�

At least once that I have heard of.

Oh goody, some hearsay...

It required lots of computer time, and the image lacked detail, but it was a recognizable landscape.

Show me the evidence to support this claim
Repeat the experiment to show it is not merely coincidence and remember to include that classic argument 'the brain is trained to see patterns that are not there' etc...

But really, is this all that is at the bottom of your barrel?

When you experience, clusters of neurons are activated. For instance when you hear a word, certain clusters are activated. When you remember the word, when you use the word, when you read the word, the same clusters are activated. So the “voice� in your head is just the reactivation of clusters of neurons.

Well that's one theory. Sounds like something someone who has 'no need of GOD' would come up with.

But is it the truth of the matter, or is Consciousness GOD within form, using the form and the brain as a reliable enough tool for the job and the invisible is made visible through that interaction?

One has simply got to come up with facts rather than theories if one is to claim anything as the truth of the matter rather than remain in the true area of possibilities.

Which is to say, my argument is always 'it could be this or it could be that' and your argument is 'it is not that, it is this.'

That is also why death is such an important aspect of this argument, because I am prepared for the event of a possible 'afterlife' experience and you are already convinced such a thing is impossible, because of your NEED for the brain to be the sum total of who you are and why you exist.

This is why you interpret the evidence the way that you do and will not allow yourself to see that it can be interpreted any other way.

Because "leprechauns"

William: �Can this audial inner voice of the thought 'in the brain' be detected as audio in the same way that images can be detected as images?'

I have not heard of such. Visual images have been recovered, but perhaps not audio images.

Wow! Now you are saying visual images have been recovered!! Why does the world not know of this amazing breakthrough!!!
But..if visual, then why not audio?

Also, in what way would that even prove consciousness is indeed as you claim it to be?

And I, at least try not to invoke that which may be very well non-existent.

On the surface your statement above appears pious. However, as the astute reader can see, you invoke one but not the other, when indeed both are possible. So no - not pious but bias.

If it may be very well non-existent, it equally may be very well existent, but you not only ignore the possibility of the one in favor of the other, but you base you world view on that one belief AND promote it as TRUTH!!

William: �Because if you are saying that the 'detection' is just what is being observed re brain activity associated with the non physical audio and imagery, then that is not the same thing as to claim the actual non physical being detected as physical. Rather it is the detection of the non-physical interacting with the physical which is just as likely being observed.�

You have not demonstrated the “non-physical� nor have you demonstrated the necessity for such.

Yes I have. Consistently. The fault is not there, but in your well established beliefs which prevent you from acknowledging what is possible by simply interpreting that which is evident as somehow proving the possible is impossible. You believe it proves something which it does not actually prove at all.

It proves the non existence of GOD, is what you believe. Your beliefs, like your needs, are not relevant to the argument.

William: �Wrong. I repeatedly use the same evidence you use and repeatedly say that the only difference is in how we each interpret that evidence. Please be conscious of avoiding the use of misrepresentation in relation to what I actually am doing, as such tactic is simply dishonest of those who use it, and disrespectful for that.�

I have presented evidence about neurons and neurotransmitters.

And I have responded that it is possible to interpret that evidence another way, because that other way is possible.

You have not interpreted that evidence, you have merely dismissed it without stating any good reason, merely invoking implicit mind-body dualism.

I continue to show the possibility as a relevant interpretation, without belief or need or (as in the above example) emotion, coming into the argument.
Also your claim that I "merely dismissed it without stating any good reason" is ignorant and untruthful. I stated my position as one which can accept either proposal as possibly being the truth. It is you who are being dismissive of the one in favor of the other so I will thank you to cease with the attempt of transference of your actions being mine. They are not, and it is dishonest of you to claim they are.

I repeat: You have not interpreted the findings of neuroscience. You have not addressed those findings. You have merely asserted without supporting evidence, that they are insufficient.

I have not developed unshiftable belief systems in relation to those findings, because those findings can be interpreted through another lens which is possible, and until such time as that possibility can be shown to be impossible, I will continue to do so.
I certainly have addressed all the arguments you have presented so far re 'the findings of neuroscience' - so your claim is empty and apparently a tad emotionally based as well.

William: �Discharge of electricity could be interpreted as part of the process of consciousness - in this case the Earth Entity Consciousness, interacting with the physical thing, in this case, the planet.�

And with that same justification one could interpret watermelons as part of the process of bird flight.

Are those watermelons which are grown by leprechauns or does it matter? Your propensity to take a big concept and attempt to reduce it to equal that of a minor unimportant joke, is a common reflex of someone who's beliefs and needs are perceived as being under threat.

Can you show the connection between watermelons and bird flight which one can see the interpretation as possible?


William: �Indeed, the whole universe reacting as it does can be interpreted to be the direct result of the Universal Consciousness interacting with the thing.�

Or it could be talking snakes, or garrulous jackasses, but it is not necessary to invoke such things.

See my above reply. Your statements are incongruous with my own and in that, wander away in meaninglessness and thus, do not address what I am actually saying.

Please try to focus.

William: �The non-physical interacting with the physical.�

By what mechanism does the “interaction� function?

The machine is the universe - the physical. The interaction is the non-physical with the physical, which is why the physical has formed as it has.

How do you know, what reason do you have to believe, that the non-physical exists?

The same evidence you have. Pay attention. I have said oft enough that the evidence is simply interpreted differently depending on what the platform one is viewing the evidence from is.

The platform your are positioned on, is based upon need and belief. Such is required when all the evidence is not in but where one has to - for whatever reasons - come to a conclusion.

The platform i am positioned on requires no belief or need. It simply acknowledges a possibility and does not feel threatened about it to the extent that one aligns it with watermelons and leprechauns etc in order to attempt to disparage something one is otherwise obviously afraid to accept as possible.

Each to their own of course. The reader can decide for themselves which is the better position and attitude to adopt on the subject.

William: �Until science can definitively show me this is in fact - NOT the case - there is no need for me to accept your beliefs on the matter as being truth.�

Well of course!

Precisely!

There is no need for you to disbelieve in the non-existent.

I remind you that you have yet to show what is 'non existent' and also remind the reader that you have already agreed that the non existent simply means that something has not yet been detected and as such, may indeed, exist. Need and belief are not required in that.

You would be better to call it as it is. "Not presently detected", rather than 'does not exist'. That way you won't run the risk of conflating things, or confusing the reader.

By the way, one benefit I find in pantheism is that there is no reason to postulate a “spiritual�. The real world is all there is.

Spiritual is another word for consciousness in regard to the idea that Consciousness is the non-physical aspect of the physical universe. Panentheism acknowledges the possibility of multi-universes, and even universes within universe etc et al.

Panentheism is also able to contend solely with the idea that this universe is all that exists and that this universe has always existed in one form or another, and that Consciousness has also existed in the same manner - the two are not separate and when I speak of one or the other I am not saying they are separate from each other, I am saying that they are different aspects of the same. One is physical and the other is not. One is the form and the other is why the form is as it is.

[ttruscott]

So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

So, is a neutrino a force or does it have atoms?

[AgnosticBoy]

That isn't all that different from turning the ones and zeros in PC into a picture on screen. One can fairly easily come up with a fuzzy statistical matching based algorithm to compress visual data, trivially needing a statistical matching algorithm to lossily decode into pixels. Can images stored in such a format be said to be "not available to 3rd person point-of-view?"

Your point is valid for computers. Knowing that the binary code represented an image and having that image extracted and/or transmitted to a monitor would count as viewing the image directly. That's all there is to a digital image . There are no real image properties until you transmit it to a screen. However, your point doesn't hold up when it comes to how its done in the mind. One reason being that the experience of the mental image is taking place somewhere other than the monitor. The scientists in the studies I referred to only see the "predicted" or "inferred" image on a monitor. Secondly, we don't know that the brain activity that they're measuring so far is all there is to mental imagery. All we have is correlation. I suppose even if we found out the cause of mental imagery, you're still left with my first point of not being able to observe it as it is - it's INDIRECT observation.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 54 by ttruscott]

It is the analogy of a "photon" for Neutron Degeneracy and some other effects.
Trying to make this OP so that lay people can contribute.
V/R

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 55 by AgnosticBoy]

I suppose even if we found out the cause of mental imagery, you're still left with my first point of not being able to observe it as it is - it's INDIRECT observation.

Why would you expect to be able to directly observe a mental image? It is a perception created by the brain and not itself a physical "thing" that is resident as an entity that could be observed as an image. It is much like a thought, or an idea, or any other manifestation that itself is not a physical "thing", but is produced by the actions of the physical components of the brain. Since the image itself is not a physical thing ... only a perception ... it could no more be "directly" observed than a thought could be observed.

The studies where images could be roughly reconstructed by correlating certain brain activity are, to my understanding, not an attempt to show that a mental image exists as a directly observable entity within the brain, but that it is possible to at least partially understand how the mental image perception is created and which components are interacting in the process. But throughout all of these similar discussions you seem to imply that a mental image is something different than a perception ... that it is somehow a physical entity in and of itself that could be directly observed in some way as such.

You've stated that you agree that a mental image is the result of the interactions of physical brain components, so why is there any need to go beyond that and attempt to relate some kind of physically observable nature to the image itself as an entity, rather than accepting that it is purely a perception.

[FarWanderer]

William: �Is it detected as imagery?�

At least once that I have heard of.

Oh goody, some hearsay...

It required lots of computer time, and the image lacked detail, but it was a recognizable landscape.

Show me the evidence to support this claim
Repeat the experiment to show it is not merely coincidence and remember to include that classic argument 'the brain is trained to see patterns that are not there' etc...

I have seen an article on this. It wasn't a landscape, but other images; but it was the same idea. It's quite remarkable (and frightening in a 1984 kind of way). They were able to recognizably recreate images that subjects were looking at via a brain scan.

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/artific ... man-brain/