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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 66 by AgnosticBoy]

To deny that you're basically saying that image or visual content is nothing more than just brain activity which is like saying that the image on a computer screen is nothing more than binary code. I'm sure you'd agree that imagery on a screen is much more than the TEXT of binary code.

I'm simply arguing that a perception created by the brain need not be a physical thing in and of itself.

In the case of the computer generated image there is clearly a physical thing that represents the image (the screen it is being viewed on), but it is the code behind the control of which pixels are turned on and off on that screen, and what color each pixel is, that creates a real, physical image on the screen. So in this case the image does exist as a real thing, and it can be "seen" by a human via the eyes, retina, optic nerve, visual cortex, etc. But the end of that process is a collection of electrical inputs in the visual cortex that the brain then assembles into the perceived image. In the brain, I'm arguing, there is no analogy to a physical image as with the computer image ... the "experience" of the image is formed by the brain's ability to assemble the electrical input signals and create a perception within the mind of the image.

Maybe it is terminology. When I compare a mental image to a thought or an idea, I'm trying to suggest that they are similar in terms of being only perceptions within the mind, rather than physical entities themselves. If a thought is the manifestation of the brain accessing and organizing information from memory, for example, there does not need to be some physical representation of the thought residing in the brain somewhere ... other than the memory elements that were recalled and organized to create it. If there were 25 memory elements scattered around in the brain that combined to create the thought or idea, these memory elements are real and physical, but the thought itself is not ... it is a perception or experience created by the brain assembling the information from the memory elements.

So lets say there is no independent "image" to perceive but there is still visual content. So why can't a scientist observe my mental content the way, shape, form, and place that I perceive it if it is all physical?

I would argue that this might eventually be possible, and result in the crude images referenced earlier in this thread becoming more clear and precise. But the main point I'm trying to make is that something like a mental image is created by the brain via assemblage of various inputs (neuronal, memory...). It does not exist as a standalone entity but is present only as long as the brain is actively processing the various inputs. Are you suggesting that science could never refine experiments like those referenced earlier to eventually be able to identify the various inputs the brain uses to form a clear mental image that matches what the person is experiencing? That is ... there is some metaphysical component to the formation and existence of a mental image so that it is beyond the ability of science to ever figure it out?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 68 by AgnosticBoy]

The part in green font is similar to what I've been arguing for when it comes to mental imagery lacking physical properties. Yet it still exists and can be experienced or perceived WITHOUT our senses which alone point to it being different than physical images/objects.

Do you believe that a mental image exists only for the brief period of time that someone is "thinking" of it (not referring to dreams, but intentionally thinking of something that results in a mental image of it)? Could you produce a mental image of something that you had never seen before (ie. of something that cannot be recalled from memory)? If I asked you to imagine what an apondronodon looked like, could you do it without trying to find out what it was in order to form a reference image first that you could then draw upon to form a mental image?

I don't think any of the materialists would argue that the mental image of an apple (your green text example from post 68) is different from a physical apple. And I've been arguing that the mental image isn't physical in and of itself, but rather it is created as a perception by the brain assembling memory elements (or simply recall of a stored memory directly). So I'd agree that a mental image isn't "real" itself (as a physical entity within the brain), but it is created by real things (neurons, memory) as a temporary perception that can vanish as soon as the mind "thinks" of something else.

If a mental image can only be formed from things a person has seen or experienced before, then that is a good argument for them simply being memory recall, in the form of a perceived image. I can recall sounds just as easily as a mental image (eg. a song) and would argue that this is an identical process of memory recall and organization, and a perception created by the brain. The song 'in my head" is not a real entity itself, but rather a string of memory recalls assembled properly into the same song I have heard before. When I stop thinking about that song, those memory elements still remain, but my brain is not actively addressing them to organize them into the song that I can replay in my head.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by DrNoGods]

The information representing the image exists as a collection of electrical signals by the time it is processed into the perception of an image that we "see", so in that sense the information is real (electrons are real). But it is not in the form of the image that was on the paper ... it has been transformed into a collection of inputs that the brain can properly assemble into the perception we call "seeing" something.

When you say 'seeing' you are refer to the internal image are you not?

What does it matter that the image is rendered in another manner? It is still an image or it cannot be 'seen'.

Exactly. The electrical information processed by the visual cortex is not an "image" itself ... it is a collection of signals that the brain is able to assemble to create the experience of "seeing" the external image.

This is one interpretation of events. The other is that the consciousness which is using the brain is able to do what you interpret as the brain doing.

It is the consciousness which is doing the 'seeing'while the brain acts as a medium for that to take place.

What?

Therefore your argument is also stating that what you consider not to exist or be real, is nonetheless able to make itself real through this process, thus you are saying something non existent created something which exists.

I never said mental images do not exist. I'm simply arguing that they are not physical structures or entities within the brain that exist as organized images that resemble in any way what is being imagined. Instead, they are created by the brain assembling and organizing inputs from memory, possibly memory elements scattered physically across the brain, in a way that creates the perception of an image. Certainly people can easily conjure up mental images routinely so in that sense they are "real", but my point is that they are created "on the fly" from various signal inputs, and so don't exist as distinct entities that could be described as an "image."

I don't think anyone here was arguing that the internal image was made up of the same stuff as the internal.

Indeed, that argument is that the internal is non physical but still exists.

As I said;

Thus, rather than argue which is 'real' and which is 'not real' just accept that both are parts which together make up what we can call 'reality' and reality just happens to be a conflation of physical and non physical aspects.

In that, reality is whatever consciousness experiences, and in this universe, that includes both the physical and non physical.

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by AgnosticBoy]

I can agree that images exist as some independent entity, but I don't agree that it's all entirely physical like Kosslyn does.

For me, this is the crux of the matter, and the argument simply cannot be presently resolved so there is simply no justification for believing either way.

Also, some of the imagery I and others experience (being 'that which is perceiving' the images) is not 'real' in terms of being a verifiable fixture in what we call 'reality' - the physical universe - yet such 'hallucinations' interacted with are experienced as 'more than real' in that - for whatever reason - the experiences compared with normal reality are sensually superior. They involve both heightened sense as well as more than the normal senses, and are specific to OOB states, even that one sometimes does not actually have the sensation of leaving one's body. It strongly suggests that the human form - especially the brain - may act as an inhibitor rather than being the actual cause of these experiences.

I would say that this natural enough occurrence is the reason why there exists ideas of GOD and afterlife, devils and angels etc et al. It has being part of human experience for as long as humans have been experiencing.

It is clear to me that the argument won't be resolved one way or the other through science any time soon, but that the individual will have it at least partially resolved upon their death, should there actually be more than meets the eye - as the experiences on no uncertain terms verify for those experiencing them - or not.

Shutting the door on something which may be an unavoidable reality we will all get to experience after this one, is a premature response.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 71 by William]

When you say 'seeing' you are refer to the internal image are you not?

I'm referring to the perception of an image created by the brain recalling and organizing memory elements. That we can perceive (or experience) the result of this process as an "image" does not mean that the image exists in any physical form as an integrated entity, separate from the memory elements that the brain used to "render" it as a perception.

This is one interpretation of events. The other is that the consciousness which is using the brain is able to do what you interpret as the brain doing.

It is the consciousness which is doing the 'seeing'while the brain acts as a medium for that to take place.

I believe that consciousness is simply the result of normal brain activity and ceases to exist within any given person as soon as the brain is destroyed or otherwise ceases to function. That is, it is an emergent property of the brain and created entirely by the capacity of the brain to integrate the inputs from some 100 billion neurons to create the awareness and cognitive ability that humans have.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776484/

I know this is not how you see things, but I see no reason to believe otherwise as it seems to be the most simple and straightforward explanation for consciousness. And if you look at the behavior and capabilities of all animals with a real brain structure (from worms to humans), this view is consistent across the range. Brains have evolved continuously for hundreds of millions of years, and humans just happen to have a highly complex and capable version (this IS our evolutionary advantage).

Therefore your argument is also stating that what you consider not to exist or be real, is nonetheless able to make itself real through this process, thus you are saying something non existent created something which exists.

I'm not saying that ideas, thoughts, artistic ability and creation, mental images, etc. do not exist. I'm saying that these things are not independent, physical entities that could be pointed to in the brain as such. They are the result of complex interactions managed by the brain which create these phenomena. How can a thought be a physical "thing" residing in the brain somewhere that you could point to and say "this is a thought ... it is this wide and this long and located between this or that group of glial cells"? How the brain manages and presents a thought I have no idea, but my point is that it (or a mental image) does not need to be a physical construct within the brain in order for it to be perceived. Maybe the discussion is really about the mechanism of the "clipboard" where the mental image "appears", and how that actually works.

[AgnosticBoy]

To deny that you're basically saying that image or visual content is nothing more than just brain activity which is like saying that the image on a computer screen is nothing more than binary code. I'm sure you'd agree that imagery on a screen is much more than the TEXT of binary code.

I'm simply arguing that a perception created by the brain need not be a physical thing in and of itself.

I already factored in your point into my last response. What you’re saying is no different than what occurs with ‘hallucinations’. I don’t expect scientists or anyone else to be able to observe someone’s visual hallucinations because there’s not really an independent physical object there (or whatever object the person is hallucinating). However, the visual perception still exists in that it is experienced or perceived in some form. It contains visual content. Under materialism, all perceptions are physical or of something physical. I'm questioning why scientists are unable to observe this perception (doesn't have to involve a separate independent image according to you but there's still a visual perception/content) if it's all physical. My view of course is that it's non-physical since it can't be objectively observed.

In the case of the computer generated image there is clearly a physical thing that represents the image (the screen it is being viewed on), but it is the code behind the control of which pixels are turned on and off on that screen, and what color each pixel is, that creates a real, physical image on the screen. So in this case the image does exist as a real thing, and it can be "seen" by a human via the eyes, retina, optic nerve, visual cortex, etc. But the end of that process is a collection of electrical inputs in the visual cortex that the brain then assembles into the perceived image. In the brain, I'm arguing, there is no analogy to a physical image as with the computer image ... the "experience" of the image is formed by the brain's ability to assemble the electrical input signals and create a perception within the mind of the image.

Keep in mind that I'm working off of your assumption. And by that, I assume that you reject Kosslyn's view (post #68) on physical mental imagery along with other scientists in these "mind-reading studies".

I'll have to repeat what I said earlier. "I'm questioning why scientists are unable to observe this perception (doesn't have to involve a separate independent image according to you but there's still a visual perception) if it's all physical."

Maybe it is terminology. When I compare a mental image to a thought or an idea, I'm trying to suggest that they are similar in terms of being only perceptions within the mind, rather than physical entities themselves. If a thought is the manifestation of the brain accessing and organizing information from memory, for example, there does not need to be some physical representation of the thought residing in the brain somewhere ... other than the memory elements that were recalled and organized to create it. If there were 25 memory elements scattered around in the brain that combined to create the thought or idea, these memory elements are real and physical, but the thought itself is not ... it is a perception or experience created by the brain assembling the information from the memory elements.

If it is experienced then they are real even if it's not physical. They 're still experienced or perceived and at times the perception involves "visual content".

So lets say there is no independent "image" to perceive but there is still visual content. So why can't a scientist observe my mental content the way, shape, form, and place that I perceive it if it is all physical?

I would argue that this might eventually be possible, and result in the crude images referenced earlier in this thread becoming more clear and precise. But the main point I'm trying to make is that something like a mental image is created by the brain via assemblage of various inputs (neuronal, memory...). It does not exist as a standalone entity but is present only as long as the brain is actively processing the various inputs. Are you suggesting that science could never refine experiments like those referenced earlier to eventually be able to identify the various inputs the brain uses to form a clear mental image that matches what the person is experiencing? That is ... there is some metaphysical component to the formation and existence of a mental image so that it is beyond the ability of science to ever figure it out?

I believe scientists will be able to identify all of the neural mechanisms involved in mental imagery. Of course, all of those physical processes are necessary but not sufficient because we also have a subjective aspect (the experience). The subjective aspects shows that mental imagery is much more than just the flow of electrons and chemicals (physical and/or non-subjective aspect).

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 68 by AgnosticBoy]

The part in green font is similar to what I've been arguing for when it comes to mental imagery lacking physical properties. Yet it still exists and can be experienced or perceived WITHOUT our senses which alone point to it being different than physical images/objects.

Do you believe that a mental image exists only for the brief period of time that someone is "thinking" of it (not referring to dreams, but intentionally thinking of something that results in a mental image of it)? Could you produce a mental image of something that you had never seen before (ie. of something that cannot be recalled from memory)? If I asked you to imagine what an apondronodon looked like, could you do it without trying to find out what it was in order to form a reference image first that you could then draw upon to form a mental image?

I believe that most mental imagery is reconstruction from memory. But NDEs are one class of hallucinations that may be an exception, especially when kids have them. The mental imagery at that point seems to take on a life of its own.

I don't think any of the materialists would argue that the mental image of an apple (your green text example from post 68) is different from a physical apple. And I've been arguing that the mental image isn't physical in and of itself, but rather it is created as a perception by the brain assembling memory elements (or simply recall of a stored memory directly). So I'd agree that a mental image isn't "real" itself (as a physical entity within the brain), but it is created by real things (neurons, memory) as a temporary perception that can vanish as soon as the mind "thinks" of something else.

If a mental image can only be formed from things a person has seen or experienced before, then that is a good argument for them simply being memory recall, in the form of a perceived image. I can recall sounds just as easily as a mental image (eg. a song) and would argue that this is an identical process of memory recall and organization, and a perception created by the brain. The song 'in my head" is not a real entity itself, but rather a string of memory recalls assembled properly into the same song I have heard before. When I stop thinking about that song, those memory elements still remain, but my brain is not actively addressing them to organize them into the song that I can replay in my head.

You mention mental imagery is "not real" because it is not a physical object to be observed. I disagree, and that's why I brought the "virtual apple". They don't have to be physical in order for it to be an "object". Here's how the notable philosopher David Chalmers would explain it:
From The Virtual and the Real

What are virtual objects? In my view, they are digital objects, constituted by computational processes on a computer. To a �rst approximation, they can be regarded as data structures, which are grounded in computational processes which are themselves grounded in physical processes on one or more computers.

Here's from my other source:

To warm up, let’s think a little bit more about the opening example of the virtual apple. As Brey points out, this ‘apple’ clearly exists in some form. It is not a mirage or hallucination. It really exists within the virtual environment. But its existence has a distinctive metaphysical quality to it.

Here we're talking about the virtual world and how "objects" can exist distinctly, we can perceive them as independent from of ourselves or from other items. I believe this is analogous to mental imagery being the perception of mental "objects". In fact, mental imagery must be real (even more than just a picture). These two social psychologists would agree....
Here's Dr. Heather Barry Kappes and Dr. Carey K. Morewedge on 'mental simulation' here:

Mentally simulating an experience causes similar cognitive, physiological, and/or behavioral consequences as having the corresponding experience in reality.

[William]

[Replying to post 73 by DrNoGods]

I believe that consciousness is simply the result of normal brain activity and ceases to exist within any given person as soon as the brain is destroyed or otherwise ceases to function.

You along with millions of others. I simply cannot be expected to accept the notion simply because you and millions of others believe in it.

Certainly if there were no other ways in which to interpret the observable, then there would be no need for belief and we would all accept the same.

That is, it is an emergent property of the brain and created entirely by the capacity of the brain to integrate the inputs from some 100 billion neurons to create the awareness and cognitive ability that humans have.

As you say, this is your belief.

I know this is not how you see things, but I see no reason to believe otherwise as it seems to be the most simple and straightforward explanation for consciousness.

I think that accepting simplistic explanations for complex things and pinning belief in such explanation is contrary to that fact of complexity.
I also think that the reason for the belief in simple explanation for complex reality is motivated by things which are not altogether science but rather, bias formed through a developed revulsion to ideas of GOD and afterlife.

The above might seem too broad a statement, but I have never encountered anyone who argues for simplicity not to also be solidly atheist, and often anti theist.

I have to take that into account in relation to the overall simplistic argument being made, that is has more to do with why individuals interpret what is being observed than it does with actual science. Science really is giving us the information, not the means to interpret the information correctly. Indeed, that is why you believe, rather than know for sure.

And if you look at the behavior and capabilities of all animals with a real brain structure (from worms to humans), this view is consistent across the range.

Inconsequential. The form has to also be acknowledged and thus consciousness experiencing the form will show similarities as well as varying limitations to do with the form.

Then we have the other issue of what can be regarded as the sign of consciousness through displays of obvious intelligence and self awareness, where brains are absent.

Brains have evolved continuously for hundreds of millions of years, and humans just happen to have a highly complex and capable version (this IS our evolutionary advantage).

That advantage remains to be seen.

Assuming consciousness is literally imbued within all that is physical, that which we can measure most easily are forms which have brains, or where they don't have brains, their expressions are quick and obvious to observe.

We understand that consciousness will experience being a dolphin quite differently from being a human, simply by observing those differences.

I think that the earth itself is the form of a conscious self aware creative entity but standing on the moon wouldn't give a human that immediate impression. It simply looks like some magnificent pearl.

Indeed, standing on the earths surface might offer a better impression to the individual, but then there is the notion that IF it were the actual case, THEN 'scary'. The fear is largely due to the common disconnect individual humans appear to have with the planet. This denial (assuming the notion is true) explains adequately why humans are currently behaving as they are in relation to the planet. They are not treating it as a living being deserving of respect and love

This disconnect continues in relation to human interact with humans. We are not treating each other as living beings deserving mutual respect and love.

We are behaving as if we are merely (or 'simply' if you prefer) brains in jars. The jars just happen to be skulls connected to skeletons wrapped in meatiness which are able to move about on the planets surface.

I'm not saying that ideas, thoughts, artistic ability and creation, mental images, etc. do not exist. I'm saying that these things are not independent, physical entities that could be pointed to in the brain as such.

This is based upon your belief, which is based upon your interpretation that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain which will cease to exist when the brain which created it ceases to exist.

How can a thought be a physical "thing" residing in the brain somewhere that you could point to and say "this is a thought ... it is this wide and this long and located between this or that group of glial cells"?

The idea of the OP is that all things which EXIST, are made of atoms.

You argue that thought exists, internal images, sounds etc - are real but not real in the way real sounds and images are real. So you argue that in order to exist things have to be real, and that things which are not real are simply 'the brain' making it appear that they are real or exist, but they do not.

Again, this is a matter of interpretation, which is why I argued that many things which once did not exist in the external world you argue is 'reality' but now do exist in the external world, exist solely because of imagery/sound created in the internal world.

Neither of us are arguing that the brain doesn't have something to do with this process, or the human form for that matter, because how can a brain alone make something of the physical from the non physical, without the rest of the body?

As stated, the difference we have is in the interpretation of what is so far known.

Even looking at the human form, brain and abilities, I can clearly see that IF consciousness - the earth entity consciousness - wanted a means of moving out of the planet and into form and through that into machinery, THEN what we are witnessing in relation to human history, science and engineering is EXACTLY what one would expect to see.

And there it is.

From that I can deduce such things as 'Einstein was the best form in which the earth entity could bring about the knowledge of the equation E=mc2 into the general awareness of humanity.'

Or the idea that 'yes we are individuals, but yes we are all connected'.

All that an much more by allowing a complex answer to emerge from a complex process.

Rather than settle for KISS. If Occam's Razor is to be used indiscriminately, one might as well just use an axe, Eugene.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 55 by AgnosticBoy]

If your whole point was subjective experience cannot be observed directly then fine, but the specific claim I was objecting to was "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"." There are objectively observable images that are that require "statistical matching algorithms."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 76 by William]

You along with millions of others. I simply cannot be expected to accept the notion simply because you and millions of others believe in it.

I wouldn't ask you to believe in anything just because millions of people believe in it, but because of whether or not there is evidence to support the belief. What evidence do you have, besides your own personal interpretation, of something like an "earth entity consciousness", or that consciousness is NOT simply a manifestation of brain activity within an individual?

The above might seem too broad a statement, but I have never encountered anyone who argues for simplicity not to also be solidly atheist, and often anti theist.

I'm not specifically arguing for simplicity in all things as some position to take, but if there is no evidence to support a hypothesis then it remains just that. Why invent complicated explanations for something until it can be shown that such an approach is necessary? In many cases, the simplest explanation IS the correct one, and if the answer is not yet known with certainty the "KISS" principle is a rational approach.

Science really is giving us the information, not the means to interpret the information correctly. Indeed, that is why you believe, rather than know for sure.

In regards to the mechanism of consciousness, I don't "know for sure" because I am not a "brain scientist." I have spent my career as an experimental spectroscopist (Ph.D. is in physical chemistry) and I like to read a lot. So I am just an "armchair scientist" when it comes to areas outside of physical chemistry and spectroscopy, and in those other areas I can only "believe" what I understand from reading on the subjects. If the complete mechanism of consciousness were thoroughly understood there would be no need to debate the subject here.

That advantage remains to be seen.

It has been demonstrated by our control of this planet and the amazing accomplishments in the areas of science, engineering and virtually every other subject that requires intelligence of the kind we possess as humans. There is no other creature with anywhere NEAR the cognitive capabilities of humans ... yet.

This is based upon your belief, which is based upon your interpretation that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain which will cease to exist when the brain which created it ceases to exist.

Yes ... is there any reason to believe otherwise?