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?

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by 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". 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.

I understand the good point you are trying to convey above, but would add that the physical is not 'waiting' for anything, as it is non-conscious. Rather the observer is ALWAYS consciousness (arguably non-physical) - the 'detector' is the observer, as well as the language developer, as well as the interpreter etc...Consciousness is the only aspect of the universe which is able to achieve this and thus, makes what it will from that, including reasons for why the universe exists in relation to it.

The universe is mindless stuff which even totally imbued with consciousness is still stuff. It has no mind of its own. Its mind is consciousness - consciousness is that which is the mind of stuff. Consciousness is not 'stuff', because stuff is physical, and consciousness is non-physical.

So really, if there is any waiting for information to be detected, observed, worked out, and utilized, it is consciousness and consciousness alone which is doing all of these things.

[TSGracchus]

TSGracchus wrote: �If one wishes to understand origins, one studies physical, observable phenomena.'

FarWanderer replied: �What is a non-physical observable, even in principle?'

That is the point. There is not, cannot be such a thing. The non-observable is indistinguishable from the non-existent. And, if reasoning from the observed can explain the phenomenon there is no reason to propose undetectable extras.

TSGracchus wrote: �If one wishes to understand how we know what we know, one studies neurology.�

FarWanderer replied: �I can't agree with this. First off, there is a semantic problem here: Knowledge is justified true belief, so the understanding of how we know something is presupposed in the notion that we know it in the first place. It has nothing to do with studying the brain.�

Millennia of debating epistemology produced no useful result. It was obvious that we learned but we didn't know how.
Modern neurological science has give us testable explanations. As a baby learns repeated patterns emerge from chaos of sensations. The most often repeated patterns are learned, (Although not the constant ones! It is the changes that we find important.) that is, they activate and reinforce synapses in the same nodes of the brain. This can be studied. It has been studied.

FarWanderer replied: �Secondly, no matter how much you study the brain you will not find experiences there. Well, I suppose you can in the sense that you might be able to reduce love/pain/wetness/etc. to "chemical reactions", but there is no point in it;...�

The point is that we know how. This makes possible further investigation.

FarWanderer replied: �...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.�

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.

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

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 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.�

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. Sophists chase their unsupported reifications of fantasy round and round the moebius strip, have loads of fun in their caucus dance but discover nothing.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 38 by William]

TSGracchus: �Kill the neurons, and there is no consciousness.�

William: �No tool useful for consciousness to express itself through. The tool is dead.

The “tool� is the process. It is not separate, any more than the ripple is separate from the river. Consciousness without neurons has not been demonstrated. There is no reason to suppose, there is no evidence, that consciousness without neurons can exist.

TSGracchus: �Non-physical is indistinguishable from non-existent.

William: �What is 'non existent'? That which you cannot detect? How does that which you cannot detect = that which you call 'non existent'?

The non-existent is that which doesn't exist. Now, not all that is presently non-detectable is non-existent. But all that is non-existent is non-detectable.

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

It does not. But... If there is no independently verifiable evidence of “GOD� (There is no need to shout. Shouting doesn't make it real.) and if there is no need of that hypotheses, then we have as much need of “GOD� as we do of leprechauns.

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

William: �The voice of your thought is a voice right? It sounds exactly as an audial voice sounds to the ear, in a language you understand yet there is no mouth speaking, or air vibrating or ear hearing. What is speaking and what is hearing that voice? The voice is not physical but is made to appear to the one hearing it, as being physical. Yet it is not.

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.

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

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.

TSGracchus: �Actually, you don't argue it, you merely state it, repeatedly and without supporting evidence.

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

TSGracchus: �And of course, consciousness is observable, since you and I and perhaps a few others have observed it. It is a dynamic pattern of biochemical reactions: No reactions, no consciousness. Just so, we know that lightning is a discharge of electricity. It is not some metaphysical process. If there is no differential charge, there is no discharge, and if there are no functional neurons there is no consciousness. The electrochemical feed-backs of the brain are consciousness.

William: �I have already responded on many occasions to this interpretation as not being the only interpretation which can be developed through these observations�.

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.

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.

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.

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

By what mechanism does the “interaction� function? How do you know, what reason do you have to believe, that the non-physical exists?

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! There is no need for you to disbelieve in the non-existent. You can even claim to deny the necessity of reason, and substitute hormones and endorphins as the basis for interaction, and use your anterior cingulate cortex only to rationalize the uninterrupted reaction of your amygdala. As long as it doesn't seriously disrupt society you can believe or disbelieve all sorts of things. I suspect you are relatively harmless.

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.

[FarWanderer]

TSGracchus wrote: �If one wishes to understand origins, one studies physical, observable phenomena.'

FarWanderer replied: �What is a non-physical observable, even in principle?'

That is the point. There is not, cannot be such a thing. The non-observable is indistinguishable from the non-existent. And, if reasoning from the observed can explain the phenomenon there is no reason to propose undetectable extras.

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

TSGracchus wrote: �If one wishes to understand how we know what we know, one studies neurology.�

FarWanderer replied: �I can't agree with this. First off, there is a semantic problem here: Knowledge is justified true belief, so the understanding of how we know something is presupposed in the notion that we know it in the first place. It has nothing to do with studying the brain.�

Millennia of debating epistemology produced no useful result. It was obvious that we learned but we didn't know how.
Modern neurological science has give us testable explanations. As a baby learns repeated patterns emerge from chaos of sensations. The most often repeated patterns are learned, (Although not the constant ones! It is the changes that we find important.) that is, they activate and reinforce synapses in the same nodes of the brain. This can be studied. It has been studied.

FarWanderer replied: �Secondly, no matter how much you study the brain you will not find experiences there. Well, I suppose you can in the sense that you might be able to reduce love/pain/wetness/etc. to "chemical reactions", but there is no point in it;...�

The point is that we know how. This makes possible further investigation.

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.

I have a similar attitude as you with regards to metaphysics and even epistemology to some extent, but linguistics and logic are and will always be important.

FarWanderer replied: �...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.�

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.�

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.

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.

Sophists chase their unsupported reifications of fantasy round and round the moebius strip, have loads of fun in their caucus dance but discover nothing.

I think their efforts were fruitless because they failed to understand they were confusing two different modes of linguistic expression for two metaphysically different modes of existence. You, on the other hand, actually accept the dichotomy as metaphysically real and hold one of those modes of existence to be primal and the other to be emergent.

Both ways work just fine with regards to scientific knowledge, because all that's needed for science is inductive logic and the uniformity of nature. You don't need to subscribe to material realism.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 42 by FarWanderer]

TSGracchus: �If one wishes to understand origins, one studies physical, observable phenomena.'

FarWanderer: �What is a non-physical observable, even in principle?'

TSGracchus: �That is the point. There is not, cannot be such a thing. The non-observable is indistinguishable from the non-existent. And, if reasoning from the observed can explain the phenomenon there is no reason to propose undetectable extras.

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.

TSGracchus wrote: �If one wishes to understand how we know what we know, one studies neurology.�

FarWanderer replied: �I can't agree with this. First off, there is a semantic problem here: Knowledge is justified true belief, so the understanding of how we know something is presupposed in the notion that we know it in the first place. It has nothing to do with studying the brain.�

TSGracchus wrote: �Millennia of debating epistemology produced no useful result. It was obvious that we learned but we didn't know how.
Modern neurological science has give us testable explanations. As a baby learns repeated patterns emerge from chaos of sensations. The most often repeated patterns are learned, (Although not the constant ones! It is the changes that we find important.) that is, they activate and reinforce synapses in the same nodes of the brain. This can be studied. It has been studied.

FarWanderer replied: �Secondly, no matter how much you study the brain you will not find experiences there. Well, I suppose you can in the sense that you might be able to reduce love/pain/wetness/etc. to "chemical reactions", but there is no point in it;...�

TSGracchus wrote: �The point is that we know how. This makes possible further investigation.

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.

FarWanderer replied: �I have a similar attitude as you with regards to metaphysics and even epistemology to some extent, but linguistics and logic are and will always be important.

Linguistics concerns itself with usage. Logic is useful when the argument is based on premises that correspond to reality.

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

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.

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�? "Information" as defined in information theory necessarily involves transmission, medium and detection. Without those elements it may be real phenomenon but it is not information.

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.

TSGracchus: "]Sophists chase their unsupported reifications of fantasy round and round the moebius strip, have loads of fun in their caucus dance but discover nothing.

FarWanderer : �I think their efforts were fruitless because they failed to understand they were confusing two different modes of linguistic expression for two metaphysically different modes of existence. You, on the other hand, actually accept the dichotomy as metaphysically real and hold one of those modes of existence to be primal and the other to be emergent.

Their efforts were fruitless because they had no evidentiary bases for their reasoning. I do not accept “metaphysical reality�. It is not reality. It is imagination arising from the ignorance of reality, “argumentum ad ignorantiam� a secular version of the “god of the gaps�, an unnecessary postulation of entities.

FarWanderer : �Both ways work just fine with regards to scientific knowledge, because all that's needed for science is inductive logic and the uniformity of nature. You don't need to subscribe to material realism.

Science is based on methodological naturalism. It cannot remain science if it invokes undemonstrated “spirits�, “miracles�, or “metaphysics�. Thousands of years of ignorant fantastical drivel produced no useful answers, but rather stifled real investigation.

It wasn't a philosopher who laid the basis for the eradication of smallpox, it was a physician who noticed a fact: Those who got cowpox didn't contract smallpox. No metaphysics involved!

[AgnosticBoy]

Seeing involves chemical changes in the optic nerves. The nerve transmits an electrochemical signal via the synapses, activating clusters of neurons in the brain. Repeatedly stimulating the same clusters causes those clusters to “learn� that signal. Unused or seldom used synapses tend to deteriorate. Thus we tend to “forget� the signals that are not repeated. When we “remember�, associated clusters activate those same clusters again. If, for instance, seeing another's pain causes you to remember your own pain, you may actually feel that pain though usually not as strongly, because the same nerve clusters are activated. We can map those clusters that are activated with MRI, for instance. It is all physical. It is all electrochemical.

Consider that there is a objective process behind the subjective experience. One leads to the other as opposed to both being the same. One is observable/quantifiable (the neural activity) whereas the subjective or qualitative aspects (its severity and/or how it feels) is not. This is why doctors rely on self-report to know about the level of pain.

So the “subjective� and “objective� do share the same properties, and in fact are the same phenomena, the activation of clusters of neurons.

I don't see where you factored in the subjective experience aspect. If I have a mental image of a woman in my head, that is not the same thing as the flow of chemicals and electrons across brain matter. Again, this is why one is objectively observable and the other is not.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 44 by AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy: �Consider that there is a objective process behind the subjective experience. One leads to the other as opposed to both being the same. One is observable/quantifiable (the neural activity) whereas the subjective or qualitative aspects (its severity and/or how it feels) is not. This is why doctors rely on self-report to know about the level of pain.�

However it is reported, it is the same experience. The same experience may, and often does, produce varying reactions, depending on time, place, or past association of factors. There is no reliable metric for phenomena such as pain. All the physician learns from his inquiry is how seriously you regard the pain, which depends on many factors. What usually has you groaning or crying out may be endured with stoicism when your girlfriend is present and you want o impress her with your manliness.

AgnosticBoy: I don't see where you factored in the subjective experience aspect. If I have a mental image of a woman in my head, that is not the same thing as the flow of chemicals and electrons across brain matter. Again, this is why one is objectively observable and the other is not.�

I am pretty sure that I have mentioned this before but perhaps you overlooked it: When you experience something, clusters of neurons are activated. Memory is the re-activation of those neurons. And we can indeed directly observe that activity. It can be tracked by a computer. Do computers differentiate between "subjective" and "objective"?

[Willum]

Great conversation - but honestly my ulterior motive was discussing of the spirit or soul.

Pain and information got close...
(I know, I'm a rat.)

[FarWanderer]

Great conversation - but honestly my ulterior motive was discussing of the spirit or soul.

Pain and information got close...
(I know, I'm a rat.)

Well, the words have some sort of meaning even if it's hard to pin down exactly what, so I wouldn't say their designations "don't exist".

The soul is something like "what is constant and unique to a person over time". It is why human beings are given unique, capitalized names. It's why we are categorized as "the same" as our infant selves, in spite of the fact that physically speaking we are more like other adults than our infant selves. It also seems to be what makes a person have value as "something more" than just a chunk of meat.

Spirit is something more like "energy", and I don't mean that in the physics technical sense, but sense that say, a kitten, has a lot of energy.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

You haven't provided any verifiable empirical evidence for your claim.

Only the brain activity associated with mental imagery can be detected, otherwise the actual experience (the mental image that's being experienced) can not be directly observed. There are brain scan studies that show images that we're supposed to be experiencing, but these images are put together by a computer (not the brain). The computer doesn't even get it right all of the time. It's based entirely on correlational data. Here's a better way to explain it:

In broad strokes, here’s what the Yale researchers did. They created mathematical descriptions of 300 images of faces. All were portraits, shot from the same angle. Then they did fMRI scans on six people to record the pattern of brain activity elicited by each of those 300 faces. Next, they fed those patterns of brain activity into a statistical matching algorithm they’d developed to serve as a kind of translator. After it’s been “trained� on lots of examples, the translator can look at a pattern of brain activity and predict the image that produced it.

Source: https://www.wired.com/2014/04/brain-scan-mind-reading/

If mental imagery was available to 3rd person point-of-view (as in objectively observable), then we wouldn't need to rely on "statistical matching algorithms". You also don't need to "predict" if you were directly observing.