Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:33 am

How to explain and/or describe the causality in this example (scientifically?)

Socrates has an idea (that if applied has a strong impact, influence)
Plato writes it down in a book.

Both die.

2400 years pass.

I find the book, manage to understand what is written, read it.

That idea has a strong impact on me and I apply the idea which then has a strong impact, influence.


How to explain the different causality links between the original “cause” (Socrates has an idea) and the final effect (in this example, which stops at:) which is that my “application” of the idea has?

I will provide a short summary and details below. (I don't think you need to read any of this in order to answer the question, it's just for those who "don't understand").




1. Short summary in very simple straight forward English :

Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.
Spoiler:
Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe. The notion of causality that appears in many different physical theories is hard to interpret in ordinary language. One problem is typified by earth's interaction with the moon. It is inaccurate to say, "the moon exerts a gravitic pull and then the tides rise." In Newtonian mechanics gravity, rather, is a constant observable relationship among masses, and the movement of the tides is an example of that relationship. There are no discrete events or "pulls" that can be said to precede the rising of tides. Interpreting gravity causally is even more complicated in general relativity. Similarly, quantum mechanics is another branch of physics in which the concept of causality is challenged by paradoxes. For statistical generalization, causality has further implications due to its intimate connection with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see the fluctuation theorem).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause#Physics


That sentence essentially says that physical (=material) forces cause all other events in the universe.

On that basis : how can immaterial information cause physical (=material) events?


note : it could be that my initial statement about what Physics concludes is wrong (that Physics concludes more than this). Which (I'd like to point out) only matters if any other "thing" that Physics concludes "causes events" in the Universe is either not "material" (since that kills the question from the start) or is not necessarily linked materially (thinking of QM?)

Disclaimer : I am not a physician, do not have a degree in physics, and certainly do not claim to be qualified in Physics. I am asking the question, not suggesting or claiming anything except that when Socrates has an idea 2.4k years ago, that is a cause which has an effect on me today if I read his idea.

2. Details :

The 2.4k years isn’t the focus of my question, rather it is an illustration of how the cause and effect in this specific case is independent from time.

(apart from the physical decay of the ink and paper, there is no “loss” of whatever influential potential Socrates’ idea has through time. Not only that, but whatever the state of decay of the ink and the paper, provided the idea can still be read and understood, is irrelevant isn’t it?)

I would add, whatever the state of the words on paper (in absolute terms, whether they are physically ink on paper, a sound recording, a recording on a magnetic tape, numeric 1s and 0s or any other “medium”) is irrelevant provided the words and idea are understood.

In addition, were the idea to be copied regularly, thus changing form again and again, the actual source of influence (as I imagine it because it is abstract in my mind) would remain intact.

If I had read that book 1 year after Socrates had written it or 30k years after, the effect would have been (relatively) the same.

(relatively because I’m presuming context would influence the application of the idea a lot, but “all other things being the same”, it would have been identical).

The “material” form mutates from whatever form an idea has (wouldn’t know to be honest, I might suggest whatever form Socrates’ brain activity has at the particular time when the idea “appears” in his brain) to “ink on paper” (which potentially could have an almost infinite number of other forms since this can be scanned on computer, numerised, translated and so on) to whatever form that idea has once it’s in my brain which then “moves” me to apply it and have an effect (worth noting that how I apply the idea is also a huge variable that varies “independently” from most things on which Socrates’ idea affects since how it turns out “in reality” is unpredictable from Socrates’ point of view if my “free will” has anything to do with it).

I can’t see how it could be explained in terms of :

a) gravity
b) strong or weak nuclear forces
c) electromagnetism

And with regards to anything else I know of (the relation between mass and energy for example) there’s nothing that I know that I can use to explain this either.

When an object is travelling at a certain speed and is obstructed, the energy is transformed, transferred into various things, heat, noise, destruction or division of the object and so on.

When you clap your hands, there is a physical causality link that can be traced between the movement of your hands and the resulting sound.

Energy is never lost, it is only transformed (the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, mass is a property of all energy and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant.) (((E=mc2)))
Spoiler:
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistent and does not depend on any specific system of measurement units. The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits relativistic mass in whatever form the energy takes.[2] Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass.
A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.
Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).[15]
A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[16]
Note that no net mass or energy is really created or lost in any of these examples and scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are some examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principle of mass–energy conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2


In relativity, all of the energy that moves along with an object (that is, all the energy which is present in the object’s rest frame) contributes to the total mass of the body, which measures how much it resists acceleration. Each potential and kinetic energy makes a proportional contribution to the mass. As noted above, even if a box of ideal mirrors “contains” light, then the individually massless photons still contribute to the total mass of the box, by the amount of their energy divided by c2.

(source :
Spoiler:
^ Hans, H. S.; Puri, S. P. (2003). Mechanics (2 ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill. p. 433. ISBN 0-070-47360-9., Chapter 12 page 433 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2#cite_note-5
)

Right?

So how does the energy and/or mass of an idea (assuming an idea has energy) transform without losing any of its potential, again, irrespective of the time scale, potentially an infinite amount of times, only to result in a specific “effect” ( “effect” that would be equal irrespective of time and the form in which the idea is communicated assuming “all other things remain the same” and the idea itself is read and understood) ?

Because if the above is true AND if the hypothesis that an idea can be the cause of an effect, then it seems to me that
  this necessarily means that “an idea” has no mass, no energy, is not composed of matter. In fact, in physician terms, it literally does not exist.  


Yet it can have an important influence on matter/energy/mass.

  Which, if it is true, proves (unless I am mistaken) that to define reality with regards to “physical” terms is false since how could anyone argue that something which is influencing reality “does not exist”?  
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10436
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:40 pm

Inzababa wrote:How to explain and/or describe the causality in this example (scientifically?)

Socrates has an idea (that if applied has a strong impact, influence)
Plato writes it down in a book.

Both die.

2400 years pass.

I find the book, manage to understand what is written, read it.

That idea has a strong impact on me and I apply the idea which then has a strong impact, influence.


How to explain the different causality links between the original “cause” (Socrates has an idea) and the final effect (in this example, which stops at:) which is that my “application” of the idea has?

Socrates' idea did not cause the final effect. Your application of energy to do work caused the final effect. Note that, for 2400 years, in the absence of someone applying energy to do work, nothing happened.

The idea may well have inspired you, motivated you, but it did not cause you to perform the work.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Donnageddon » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:38 pm

I do not see the "idea" as having no mass or energy. The "idea" is the result of much work (computational) in the brain.

Example:

1. Da Vinci observes a natural phenomenon. (this takes biochemical energy)
2. Da Vinci thinks about what he observed. (This takes biochemical energy)
3. Da Vinci arrives at an application (idea) from what he observes (This takes biochemical energy)
4. Da Vinci stores the result of this process on paper. (Mechanical energy)

time passes

5. You read Da Vinci's paper describing the result of steps 1 thru 3 (This takes biochemical energy)
6. You work to understand the paper (This takes biochemical energy)
7. You apply physical and mental work to create a physical object (Biochemical and mechanical energy)

This all required energy (let alone mass in brains, neuro transmitters and receptors, calories, muscles, mitochondria, ATP, etc)

The paper (or whichever media) was just a "battery" for storing the work Da Vinci already applied.

Or of course, you could just crack open Da Vinci's skull and eat his brain. But that seems such a waste of potential energy. :)
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:47 pm

Socrates' ideas were communications. Communications require a medium (the paper and eventually for you the Internet), a code (language, translated into English eventually), a mind to transmit the ideas (Socrates) and a mind to receive the ideas (you). In order to receive the idea your mind must understand the language the current message is in. It could be argued that language contains all the information sent in that message, however this is not entirely accurate, as the message itself requires interpretation in order for you to understand it. This implies extracting meaning, and at times, creating meaning. That meaning is not created out of thin air, it is created from combinations of other ideas in your head, which were also communicated to you at previous times. Your mind uses its understanding of the English language, and the concepts involved in that understanding, and basically builds the meaning of a message from these concepts and their relationships. Now due to the need to build or create your own meaning from a given message, there are always going to be some differences in the interpretations of the message as compared to the ideas of the originator. These differences can usually be ironed out through direct discussion on the point to confirm if your understanding really is the same as their understanding. Luckily the are many other people who like to discuss Socrates, so even though he is long gone, we can come to a general consensus about his ideas by discussing them between us. Now all of the information which is represented in the brain which is used to build this understanding of a communication exists as brain states (or so the theory goes). This means nothing is created from nothing, only transformed. Understanding is created, however it is created from existing building blocks, as anything else is created which our hands touch.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:03 pm

Socrates' idea did not cause the final effect.


EDIT : actually more than one thing caused the final effect. (but that's irrelevant)

Your application of energy to do work caused the final effect.


Which was caused by what?

Note that, for 2400 years, in the absence of someone applying energy to do work, nothing happened.


Note that time is irrelevant to this question, this is just a historical fact because Socrates happens to have lived roughly 2.4k years ago (if I remember right).

The idea may well have inspired you, motivated you, but it did not cause you to perform the work.


ok, (you said that already) so what did?

PS there are other effects which can be demonstrated easily :

-----you read the idea, you understand : your heart starts beating faster

simple.
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:17 pm

I do not see the "idea" as having no mass or energy. The "idea" is the result of much work (computational) in the brain.

Example:

1. Da Vinci observes a natural phenomenon. (this takes biochemical energy)
2. Da Vinci thinks about what he observed. (This takes biochemical energy)
3. Da Vinci arrives at an application (idea) from what he observes (This takes biochemical energy)
4. Da Vinci stores the result of this process on paper. (Mechanical energy)

time passes

5. You read Da Vinci's paper describing the result of steps 1 thru 3 (This takes biochemical energy)
6. You work to understand the paper (This takes biochemical energy)
7. You apply physical and mental work to create a physical object (Biochemical and mechanical energy)


That's a great point, but I thought of that already.

Assuming it's correct (for the sake of argument), the question is :

Can you explain the causality between one "biochemical energy" and the other?

Since between the two, the "power" of the idea (or if you prefer, its "effect on point B where there is also "biochemical energy") goes from one point to the other how?


And the amount of time that passes is irrelevant as well, because if I understand the idea 1 day after, or 10 000 years later, it's the same.
The amount of space travelled is irrelevant to, because if I am in Greece or in France, the effect of the idea is the same.

But not only that, whether it's in one form or another is irrelevant, what counts is that I am able to understand the idea.

Example (about the form) : the book is scanned, sent by email to Brazil where someone downloads a copy and translates it to Brazilian. Then that translation is put online where someone in Japan likes it, does not download it but writes down on paper and then reads it to a Japanese friend while translating it for him.

Then the Japanese friend goes home, tells his wife who thinks it's brilliant, writes it down and sends it by email to someone in London. That person then translates it to English and sends my neigbour a fax, the neighbour loves the idea and starts beating it on morscode on his drums (god knows why lol) anyway, I'm next door and happen to understand morse code, I understand the idea.

Boom.

see?

If the "idea" was made of energy or matter or whatever else is "physical" such as even a "wave" or "force field", how can you explain that it gets transformed in this way (potentially for thousands of years, across the world and back) yet when (if) I receive it, it has as much effect as if Socrates had told me himself 2400 years ago?

I understand your point about "the battery" idea, but there is a scientific explanation to how electric batteries work.

Assuming the battery idea :
How would you explain (scientifically) that ink and paper (or 1s and 0s online, (or morse code, or whatever) serves as a battery? How is the energy transferred from one to the other and then to me?
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:20 pm

Dimebag wrote:Socrates' ideas were communications. Communications require a medium (the paper and eventually for you the Internet), a code (language, translated into English eventually), a mind to transmit the ideas (Socrates) and a mind to receive the ideas (you). In order to receive the idea your mind must understand the language the current message is in. It could be argued that language contains all the information sent in that message, however this is not entirely accurate, as the message itself requires interpretation in order for you to understand it. This implies extracting meaning, and at times, creating meaning. That meaning is not created out of thin air, it is created from combinations of other ideas in your head, which were also communicated to you at previous times. Your mind uses its understanding of the English language, and the concepts involved in that understanding, and basically builds the meaning of a message from these concepts and their relationships. Now due to the need to build or create your own meaning from a given message, there are always going to be some differences in the interpretations of the message as compared to the ideas of the originator. These differences can usually be ironed out through direct discussion on the point to confirm if your understanding really is the same as their understanding. Luckily the are many other people who like to discuss Socrates, so even though he is long gone, we can come to a general consensus about his ideas by discussing them between us. Now all of the information which is represented in the brain which is used to build this understanding of a communication exists as brain states (or so the theory goes). This means nothing is created from nothing, only transformed. Understanding is created, however it is created from existing building blocks, as anything else is created which our hands touch.



see above, if it exists as a brain state, how does it transform to any of the infinite number of communications?

How can you make that fit into E=mc2 or any other kind of "physics" formula? (from morse code to digital to fax to telephone to simply saying it to sign language or whatever?)

PS (off topic) Higgs Boson is transformed from what?
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:50 pm

Inzababa wrote:
Dimebag wrote:Socrates' ideas were communications. Communications require a medium (the paper and eventually for you the Internet), a code (language, translated into English eventually), a mind to transmit the ideas (Socrates) and a mind to receive the ideas (you). In order to receive the idea your mind must understand the language the current message is in. It could be argued that language contains all the information sent in that message, however this is not entirely accurate, as the message itself requires interpretation in order for you to understand it. This implies extracting meaning, and at times, creating meaning. That meaning is not created out of thin air, it is created from combinations of other ideas in your head, which were also communicated to you at previous times. Your mind uses its understanding of the English language, and the concepts involved in that understanding, and basically builds the meaning of a message from these concepts and their relationships. Now due to the need to build or create your own meaning from a given message, there are always going to be some differences in the interpretations of the message as compared to the ideas of the originator. These differences can usually be ironed out through direct discussion on the point to confirm if your understanding really is the same as their understanding. Luckily the are many other people who like to discuss Socrates, so even though he is long gone, we can come to a general consensus about his ideas by discussing them between us. Now all of the information which is represented in the brain which is used to build this understanding of a communication exists as brain states (or so the theory goes). This means nothing is created from nothing, only transformed. Understanding is created, however it is created from existing building blocks, as anything else is created which our hands touch.



see above, if it exists as a brain state, how does it transform to any of the infinite number of communications?

I think I actually answered that in my above reply when i stated:

Dimebag wrote:as the message itself requires interpretation in order for you to understand it. This implies extracting meaning, and at times, creating meaning. That meaning is not created out of thin air, it is created from combinations of other ideas in your head, which were also communicated to you at previous times. Your mind uses its understanding of the English language, and the concepts involved in that understanding, and basically builds the meaning of a message from these concepts and their relationships.

Basically, your brain uses the energy it extracts from its environment, through metabolism and eating, to build the relationships between concepts in your brain, which it also acquired through learning language, and its understandings of that (also accountable by the transformation of mechanical energy of sound, light, etc into electrochemical energy used by your neurons to codify that which it is interpreting, along with the energy from metabolism used to store this information). From here your brain rearranges that energy to form something meaningful. What is interesting to note is, even if an idea is stored in your brain, in order for you to communicate it through language, you basically have to "guess" what the original idea is, and try and compare that with what the idea stored seems like, if the two match, you get a feeling of understanding and you then are confident in communicating that idea into a medium. But due to this guessing or interpreting, there are always differences in the original encoding and what you eventually arrive at (unless you can remember it verbatim - and if you do then you require no thought or deliberation to extract meaning - it is pure reflex). This would account for the variation. Additionally, that idea can be reinterpreted from a different perspective, and even more meaning can be created.

Inzababa wrote:How can you make that fit into E=mc2 or any other kind of "physics" formula? (from morse code to digital to fax to telephone to simply saying it to sign language or whatever?)


Note that the physical energy required to encode a message, and store it in some kind of medium, might not be the same amount as needed for it to be communicated to you, so trying to account for all the energy in the transaction is rather futile and pointless. Just know that the system is contained, and all the energy that goes into creating a message comes from somewhere, and trying to account for it all is akin to filling a bucket with holes in it with sand, then trying to go back and find every single grain of sand. The amount of energy you are talking about which goes into everyday mental processes is far to varied to totally account for it all. This is why I focussed more on the idea of where the information comes from. I am not interested in searching for every single trace of energy which goes into/out of the brain. The fact is, the brain requires energy to perform work, effectively it transforms the energy from one form to another, in different amounts and frequencies. Remember the brain sends its energy to the rest of the body through the central nervous system, which enables the body to move and create sounds (language), and move in meaningful ways, or move to achieve some purpose. The body also has the energy which is required to move it and perform work stored in the blood stream, with reserves stored in fat.

Inzababa wrote:PS (off topic) Higgs Boson is transformed from what?


Im not sure it is supposedly is transformed from anything, it is represented supposedly in the higgs field (which I assume is fundamental and is not composed of anything more - until we find something along with the hypothetical higgs boson)

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 pm

as the message itself requires interpretation in order for you to understand it. This implies extracting meaning, and at times, creating meaning. That meaning is not created out of thin air, it is created from combinations of other ideas in your head, which were also communicated to you at previous times. Your mind uses its understanding of the English language, and the concepts involved in that understanding, and basically builds the meaning of a message from these concepts and their relationships.


Sorry, I did read that, and if I asked that question, it's because I don't think it answers that question.

The question is, those "concepts in the brain" you speak of, how are they communicated in a way that takes into account the "science" relevant to cause and effect (that I provided in my first post)?

take it from


into electrochemical energy used by your neurons to codify that which it is interpreting, along with the energy from metabolism used to store this information)


Where does this electrochemical energy go between the point when the idea is expressed on a communication medium (any) and then that electrochemical energy has an effect on my body and brain?

If you answer : it gets stored in the ink on paper, then could you explain that? (and the other forms)

Because "if" it gets stored on ink on paper

a) it can be copied a million times (and therefore have a million effect on people)
b) the ink and paper can go from ink and paper to 1s and 0s and packets sent over the internet

and so on

I "know" you described that as code, indeed it is code. So : how does electrochemical energy that represents the presence of that code in your brain get transferred (by some other form of code) across the world, transformed, stocked for thousands of years, and so on.

How does that work "physicially"?


let's try something simple and "in a controlled environment" :

(I used this example on another forum in another discussion)

Take two people, put them in a controlled environment (lab).

Put them in two separate rooms which are physically unrelated (no energy, no waves, no matter can communicate between the two rooms unless it is controlled by the scientists, that's probably impossible but let's assume it's possible)

Give an idea or the information of an important event to one person that neither he knows or the other person knows, something which in an abstract form (such as : 2 planes just flew into the twin towers in New York, or the answer to a question the other person was wondering about in a problem he faces).

Let the first person write that down on a piece of paper.

Now take that piece of paper, shut the door, scan the paper, clean the paper, even convert it yourself by typing what is written on a computer and letting it print out on another piece of paper or whatever "medium" you wish.

Then provide the idea to the second person (in whatever way you like, by telling him, by showing him the piece of paper, by sending him an email, by sending him a fax, a text message, by using morse code on the wall he's in, whatever)

Observe and analyse the effects caused by the reception of that information (which are independent from the medium, are unrelated to the form in which that information is communicated, which means it is purely and singularly "the idea" or "the information" or "the answer to that question" which is being communicated).

EDIT (forgot this part, apologies)

Now. Explain what the {!#%@} is going on using scientific method.

Cause and effect.

Cause number 1. subject "a" has an idea or is inspired to have an idea or acquires in one way or another a piece of informatoin.

Effect at the end of the chain of events :

subject "b" has important physiological consequences (heart starts racing, stress, sweat etc) because he knows people who lives in the Twin Towers.

or

subject "b" now knows how to solve his problem and solves it (which potentially could be a cure to aids or something "big")

or

subject "b" gets really pissed off and angry and starts destroying the furniture in his room

or

subject "b" breaks down and cris in shock, pain and terror from the news

whatever


An if you can't explain this, I'm going to my local church to get baptised.

(that was a joke by the way ;) )

Note that the physical energy required to encode a message, and store it in some kind of medium, might not be the same amount as needed for it to be communicated to you,


That's a great point. In fact, there is no "relation" that I can see between the "physical energy required to encode the message and the final effect that this code has on my brain once I've read and understood it.

It might take a lot of energy to carve it in stone. It might take a lot of energy to represent it with fireworks in the night sky, it might take less energy to simply tell it to someone, or copy paste it into an email and send it.

Whether it's one example or another (or any of the millions of examples I haven't provided) the end effect is identical (all other things being the same).

The amount of energy you are talking about which goes into everyday mental processes is far to varied to totally account for it all.


So forget the brain process, imagine the "code" is out of the brain already.
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:27 am

Inzababa wrote:Sorry, I did read that, and if I asked that question, it's because I don't think it answers that question.

The question is, those "concepts in the brain" you speak of, how are they communicated in a way that takes into account the "science" relevant to cause and effect (that I provided in my first post)?

take it from


into electrochemical energy used by your neurons to codify that which it is interpreting, along with the energy from metabolism used to store this information)


Well, ok if you are willing to accept my explanation of how those ideas or "concepts in the brain" come to reside in the brain, I will take it from there. I am not claiming to have all the answers, nor is science, which is why research is occurring rather vigorously, so if you expect a full account of the causal chain, you will be sadly disappointed. All we can give is our "best guess", which does not involve causal descriptions, but rather a description of "processes" which are thought to occur. Now I am required to interpret these understandings of processes and communicate them to you, so if any errors occur I take full accountability for those.

I will use this simple idea as an example: "All mean are created equal". So, we have these concepts stored in the brain, a message has been interpreted and now exists in the brain as a web of concepts, or areas of the brain which represent a concept, which are "activated" or basically the neurons which represent those concepts are "firing" and sending their electrochemical signals, due to the content of the message matching that particular concept.

In the case of the message, the words "all men" might be represented by a visual image of a general group of men (one possible way). The words "are created equal", would be generalised to be "are equal" as the created is irrelevant (well my mind would deem this). It might be represented by the concept of fairness, itself a meta concept which is also represented by concepts such as giving (conjures images of gifts of food, etc.), acceptance (welcoming arms), and maybe even the scales of justice to represent the supposed fairness of the judicial system.

Its important to note that the individual concepts which represent the initial idea are more likely to occur if they have been "primed" or previously encountered recently. For example if you have been doing math just before hearing the idea "all men are created equal", your mind might represent the idea with a visual image of a man on either side of an equals sign. This visual image might then be interpreted by the language system and words such as balance, symmetry, etc. These might occur as thoughts in the mind, and from here, the language system reinterprets these concepts, builds on them, and applies syntax and context, and an utterance starts to emerge. As the utterance emerges, it re-stimulates the mind as we hear our own communications, and more and more concepts are elicited, further stimulating more overarching language representations and the cycle continues until our idea is sufficiently expressed. Our mind likely builds a representation of the message we have just uttered, and if this representation matches the initial communication which came into our heads to start it all, we would be sufficiently satisfied and no more utterances would occur. However more thoughts might still emerge, and thus our mind will continue to build up more to say about it for use once we get a response, all the while pre-empting possible replies to our utterance and preparing additional comebacks.

Where does this electrochemical energy go between the point when the idea is expressed on a communication medium (any) and then that electrochemical energy has an effect on my body and brain?

If you answer : it gets stored in the ink on paper, then could you explain that? (and the other forms)

Because "if" it gets stored on ink on paper

a) it can be copied a million times (and therefore have a million effect on people)
b) the ink and paper can go from ink and paper to 1s and 0s and packets sent over the internet

and so on

I "know" you described that as code, indeed it is code. So : how does electrochemical energy that represents the presence of that code in your brain get transferred (by some other form of code) across the world, transformed, stocked for thousands of years, and so on.

How does that work "physicially"?

What you seem to be asking is, how does an idea in the brain make its way out of our head, into a particular medium, and be ready to be interpreted by any number of people at an indeterminate point in time. I have attempted to describe how the idea reaches the brain, in the form of a web of concepts, is reinterpreted by the language system, occurring as basic thoughts, which are then reinterpreted by the language system and built upon forming utterances.

If those thoughts are to be encoded in text via a keyboard, the thoughts existing in our minds, chains of "inner speech" which also exist as webs of concepts, are then interpreted by the lexical area of our brain, which takes an "inner utterance" and finds its lexical equivalent, expressed as letters to form words. This word then stimulates the motor cortex and the finger movements required to express that word on the keyboard then occur. The motor cortex "knows" that it needs to produce movements related to a keyboard, not written word, and thus those movements are appropriate to the keyboard. When all utterances are interpreted by the lexical areas of the brain and the motor cortex produces the movements related to each word, the mind has finished its communication. The mind of course has read what it has typed, compares this with what was required to be communicated, and if this matches, the process ceases.

From here, the information is free to be copied, and pasted a million times, as it is now a representation in the form of 1's and 0's, and all that need to occur to copy a message is to take energy from its power source, and use this to store either the presence of a voltage or absence (in computer memory), which are sent when requested into the ether of the net.

I know this explanation might not satisfy you completely, as it is not an account of the energy from A to B, but rather an explanation of the possible process which occurs to interpret a message, and produce a response in a medium. Additionally I reiterate, my interpretation might be incorrect, I have not cited any sources, and have only used my knowledge of psychology and neuroscience (which is far from all encompassing) to try and answer the question you posed. This requires much dot connecting.

That's a great point. In fact, there is no "relation" that I can see between the "physical energy required to encode the message and the final effect that this code has on my brain once I've read and understood it.

It might take a lot of energy to carve it in stone. It might take a lot of energy to represent it with fireworks in the night sky, it might take less energy to simply tell it to someone, or copy paste it into an email and send it.

Whether it's one example or another (or any of the millions of examples I haven't provided) the end effect is identical (all other things being the same).

In the end, the efficiency of the medium containing the message has no relation to the amount of energy which the message might elicit from the brain. This is because the energy does not represent the message itself, the message is "interpreted" by the patterns created by the medium. The amount of information contained in a message has no relation to how much energy it takes to encode it, nor how much energy the information might elicit from the brain. This "information" only exists within the brain and mind, and when it exits the mind and body, it exists again only as a pattern, which must then be reinterpreted. Additionally, we can interpret naturally occurring patterns and extract meaning. Meaning and therefore information, is created by the brain. This information in the brain is not the same as the information required to describe the physical universe. They are different concepts.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 am

Dimebag,

I appreciate the time you put into the reply (if anyone knows how long it takes to come up with something like, I do :p) (and that's only for typing it out, sometimes the time "thinking" about it is actually longer :p)

So thanks for that.

I'll try and adress each "point" and/or "category of points" as you present them.

First off, I wanted to point out with regards to this :

Well, ok if you are willing to accept my explanation of how those ideas or "concepts in the brain" come to reside in the brain, I will take it from there


I'm more than happy to, because, the way I see it, even whatever explanation of what brain activity is and how that represents the idea in itself, or explains how the idea exists in a biological way or whatever, is, (in my view) irrelevant unless related in one way or another to the explanation of how that idea then "exists" (physically) when it is communicated through all those processes I gave as examples.

To put it simply, I'm happy to "assume" that when an idea is in the brain, it exists "physically" (I don't agree with that, but then am not qualified to dispute it either.

So assuming that's an established fact, what I meant by
take it from


into electrochemical energy used by your neurons to codify that which it is interpreting, along with the energy from metabolism used to store this information)


is, take it from "after" that. Sorry if you mis understood, but that phrase "take it from there" probably means different things, for example, in English spoken by a French man, than where you come from.

What I should have said is, take it from "immediately after" there, so apologies for that. Unfortunately, with regards to the question, it means that this bit :

Well, ok if you are willing to accept my explanation of how those ideas or "concepts in the brain" come to reside in the brain, I will take it from there. I am not claiming to have all the answers, nor is science, which is why research is occurring rather vigorously, so if you expect a full account of the causal chain, you will be sadly disappointed. All we can give is our "best guess", which does not involve causal descriptions, but rather a description of "processes" which are thought to occur. Now I am required to interpret these understandings of processes and communicate them to you, so if any errors occur I take full accountability for those.

I will use this simple idea as an example: "All mean are created equal". So, we have these concepts stored in the brain, a message has been interpreted and now exists in the brain as a web of concepts, or areas of the brain which represent a concept, which are "activated" or basically the neurons which represent those concepts are "firing" and sending their electrochemical signals, due to the content of the message matching that particular concept.

In the case of the message, the words "all men" might be represented by a visual image of a general group of men (one possible way). The words "are created equal", would be generalised to be "are equal" as the created is irrelevant (well my mind would deem this). It might be represented by the concept of fairness, itself a meta concept which is also represented by concepts such as giving (conjures images of gifts of food, etc.), acceptance (welcoming arms), and maybe even the scales of justice to represent the supposed fairness of the judicial system.

Its important to note that the individual concepts which represent the initial idea are more likely to occur if they have been "primed" or previously encountered recently. For example if you have been doing math just before hearing the idea "all men are created equal", your mind might represent the idea with a visual image of a man on either side of an equals sign. This visual image might then be interpreted by the language system and words such as balance, symmetry, etc. These might occur as thoughts in the mind, and from here, the language system reinterprets these concepts, builds on them, and applies syntax and context, and an utterance starts to emerge. As the utterance emerges, it re-stimulates the mind as we hear our own communications, and more and more concepts are elicited, further stimulating more overarching language representations and the cycle continues until our idea is sufficiently expressed. Our mind likely builds a representation of the message we have just uttered, and if this representation matches the initial communication which came into our heads to start it all, we would be sufficiently satisfied and no more utterances would occur. However more thoughts might still emerge, and thus our mind will continue to build up more to say about it for use once we get a response, all the while pre-empting possible replies to our utterance and preparing additional comebacks.


Which admittedly is fascinating, is nevertheless (in my view) irrelevant to the question because it all takes place "inside the brain" and I was asking (and am asking) about once the idea is out of the brain. (which coincidently is a figure of speech, since at that point, the idea is in the brain AND out the brain (which provides even more difficulties to explain on a physical level : how could an entity that has a defined amount of energy and/or mass not only exist simultaneously in two place, but also have the potential to be reproduced indefinitely at no cost to the idea itself).

What you seem to be asking is, how does an idea in the brain make its way out of our head, into a particular medium, and be ready to be interpreted by any number of people at an indeterminate point in time.


yes! Again, you (like many other people) show me ways to express what I'm thinking in simple terms, with one phrase where it takes me 2 paragraphs to express mine :)

Because the "point" is that that "idea" not only has a cause and effect, it has a cause and an unpredictable effect (in reality, without "all things being the same")

From here, the information is free to be copied, and pasted a million times, as it is now a representation in the form of 1's and 0's, and all that need to occur to copy a message is to take energy from its power source, and use this to store either the presence of a voltage or absence (in computer memory), which are sent when requested into the ether of the net.

I know this explanation might not satisfy you completely, as it is not an account of the energy from A to B, but rather an explanation of the possible process which occurs to interpret a message, and produce a response in a medium


No, I'm sorry it doesn't. You've explained how an idea forms in the mind, how it gets transferred to "symbolism" of some sort (and coincidently, you've also explained how it gets read and forms at the receiving end, since I'd imagine the process is similar).

My whole point is that in between the two, if "the idea" exists "materially" in the form of brain activity (that's necessary if we were to postulate that abstract concepts exists)

Because if it "exists in the brain" at one point, then "exists in the brain at the other" but doesn't exist in between the two, that is "crazy". Know what I mean?

So, how does it "exist" in other forms (for example, ink on paper or 1s and 0s in an email)?

Not only that, but how would you explain the "physical" transformation from one state to the other (as you would when explaining velocity to heat, sound and so on in the case of a moving entity that is stopped).

Additionally I reiterate, my interpretation might be incorrect, I have not cited any sources, and have only used my knowledge of psychology and neuroscience (which is far from all encompassing) to try and answer the question you posed. This requires much dot connecting.


That's fine, because a) we're assuming what you say and what we can conclude from what you say means that abstract concepts have physical properties while in the brain (which you described). and b) with regards to once it's in symbolic form, you've simply described what happens (not explained it in scientific terms).

ie "how the idea is physically transferred from your fingers to the keyboard and into an email or word document" (NOT the physical description of what causes that idea to be expressed symbolically, but the physical properties of that expression once it is expressed and how those physical properties relate to the original idea (ie, physical transformation of mass/energy/force field/nuclear force or whatever)

This requires much dot connecting.


It does require much dot connecting, but any and all of these examples share one common fundamental (I think) "dot", I think it is simply that particular "dot" that needs to be connected.

Because from then on, whether the idea is translated (which goes through the process you described in the case of a translation by a brain (but could be explained in an easier way in the case of a translation by google translate), whether it is expressed in morse code (in audio or in writing), whether it's expressed in any kind of "language" at all, it necessarily has to go through that "dot".

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea exists in a transformed form which allows ------DOT-----someone or something to interpret it and "bring it to existence"

I'd suggest that DOT is the same on both sides and the same (in principle) with regards to any transformation of that idea for whatever kind of language or symbolism in which it is transformed.

However, even connecting that dot doesn't (at least for now) explain how the idea physically exists at this stage : "idea exists in a transformed form"

Let's try something else :

If you were to postulate that that idea (or any idea, or any kind of information) once on paper or once in 1s and 0s on a computer or whatever "exists" or once translated into Japanese, or once sang at the top of your voice "exists" materially (physically).

What would be it's "physical" properties and form?

Maybe looking at how DNA and genes store information that is "used" by the body might help, though that's an intuitive long shot and there's no {!#%@} way I could get into that lol

(the intuition comes from the "fact" that the common denominator between what we're discussing and genes and/or DNA is "information / language")

In the end, the efficiency of the medium containing the message has no relation to the amount of energy which the message might elicit from the brain. This is because the energy does not represent the message itself, the message is "interpreted" by the patterns created by the medium.


Well this is what I'm trying to get to.... "the message itself" exists physically yes or no?

Because I'm postulating that "the message itself" is a (material / physical / none existent????) cause that can have an effect "physically" and it's doing my {!#%@} head in ;)

The amount of information contained in a message has no relation to how much energy it takes to encode it, nor how much energy the information might elicit from the brain.


Exactly my point.

This "information" only exists within the brain and mind, and when it exits the mind and body, it exists again only as a pattern, which must then be reinterpreted


yes ! now we're almost on the "same level" I think.

Additionally, we can interpret naturally occurring patterns and extract meaning. Meaning and therefore information, is created by the brain.


which would make me conclude that if it is created by the brain, then it didn't exist before it was created by the brain????

This information in the brain is not the same as the information required to describe the physical universe. They are different concepts.


This I am curious about (fascinated even).

You seem to know more about this than I do. Would you say then that "this information" exists or not?

And if it does not exist, then how to link the causality between it's creation in one brain and it's interpretation in another (which has potentially huge "physical" effects).

(feeling optimistic, if at least we agree on what we're talking about, even if it took so much time and effort, that's probably my fault and due to how I express myself, sorry about that.

So question : now that you "get it", what do you think? :mrgreen:
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Donnageddon » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:36 am

Inzababa wrote:Assuming the battery idea :
How would you explain (scientifically) that ink and paper (or 1s and 0s online, (or morse code, or whatever) serves as a battery? How is the energy transferred from one to the other and then to me?


We discussed how energy is required to think of the idea, and how energy is required to commit it to paper.

At that point the "idea" is encoded as (presumably) ordered information. It took energy to get it to that state.

Then you stub your toe on the piece of paper, with the encoded information, and expend energy to decypher, and understand it. The stored potential energy (in the form of ordered information) in the paper is released.

Next you can discard, or destroy the paper. Or you can act on it, but that is at your energy expense, not Da Vinci's.

As for how an email (or other mass communication of the idea) can spread rapidly world-wide, that is just an example of increased efficiency of communication. Still requires energy, but much less than writing onto a zillion pieces of paper and mailing it in a zillion envelopes.

If I bothered to think harder (expend more energy) on devising a scientific explanation for this energy transfer, it likely involve entropy, and the energy input required to fight it.
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:49 am

Donnageddon,

I can't see how that addresses the questions or discussions. Sorry ...;

You might want to read through the "walls of text" recently exchanged with Dimebag ?
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Donnageddon » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:38 am

No thanks, I've expended enough energy on the idea.
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:48 am

shame

would have saved you a lot of wasted energy to read that before posting

(and I'm not about to waste energy addressing issues which have been resolved already in this very thread)
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:05 am

Inzababa wrote:To put it simply, I'm happy to "assume" that when an idea is in the brain, it exists "physically" (I don't agree with that, but then am not qualified to dispute it either.

So assuming that's an established fact...

Inzababa, you are saying that I am assuming that an idea exists "physically", and within the brain, yes it does, but outside of the brain, it does not and cannot, and I never made the claim that the idea exists physically outside of the brain. What does exist outside of the brain is a message. The message contains the patterns which represent the idea, but representations and physical realities are not one in the same. The problem you seem to be coming up against is the idea of exist. When we try and talk about anything which is comprised of parts existing outright, we are going to come up against problems when those parts are disassembled and used for something else.

Take a chair for example, it exists as pieces of wood, attached together to form a stable perch for us to rest our rears. Now if I break the legs off that chair, is it still a chair? You might say it is a chair with legs broken off that exists, and that is one way of describing the object in question. Now I might take that broken chair and its broken legs, and throw it into an incinerator, only to be left with some ash. Does the chair now exist? Arguably no, there is no chair now in existence. But, lets say I never threw the chair in the incinerator, and instead continued to disassemble it into the smallest parts I can. I now have a collection of parts which don't resemble a chair, so can't accurately be called a chair. But I can then reassemble those parts, and glue the legs back together, and now I can say a chair now exists. Now does the chair really exist? Or is the word chair just a useful symbol we attach to an object which describes how it might be used?

The same can be said of an idea. It "exists" in our minds as pieces or collections of concepts connected to one another, it can serve a purpose and therefore has a use, which is why we might assign a label to it. The label of "idea" is arbitrary, and to say that the idea "exists" is only saying that there is a collection of concepts in our brain which can be used for a specific purpose. Outside of this, there is no sense of trying to describe the existence of the idea. The pieces of the idea can do work, and achieve more transformations, which can be used to produce more ideas, which can then be communicated. The pieces themselves (the concepts in the brain) remain, and could be likened to particles of H20 which knock against each other to form waves. The waves themselves don't actually exist, they a label we assign to energy moving through a body of water. Energy also moves through the brain (neural activation and firing), and the gathering of those activations, when viewed as a group, can appear as something such as an idea, but really they are neural firings (which are really something else, which is in turn really something else, all the way down to the quantum level, where they are really nothing but probabilities; but that is another topic).

The same questions you pose of ideas could just as easily be posed to a lifeform such as a human. How can a human seemingly appear out of a womans womb, live a life, and then decompose?

how could an entity that has a defined amount of energy and/or mass not only exist simultaneously in two place, but also have the potential to be reproduced indefinitely at no cost to the idea itself).


The idea has no mass or energy, if you are referring to it outside of the brain, because the idea cannot exist anywhere other than the brain, as I previously explained. All that exists outside of the brain are messages and patterns, which are representations (only if they have been created by someone, otherwise if they occur naturally any meaning we interpret from them can never have existed in them prior to us seeing the message). A pattern can be faithfully reproduced, by human intervention, or aided by mechanical or electromechanical means (computers, photocopiers, faxes, voice recorders etc). Until that pattern is read by a person, there is no meaning, only a collection of markings, or vibrations in the air, or a plethora of assorted photons emerging from an LCD screen. When viewed like this, for what an idea outside of the head really is, it is not hard to see how it might be reproduced, and in turn, elicit a change in a person who interprets it (remember humans create meaning, which was accounted for).

My whole point is that in between the two, if "the idea" exists "materially" in the form of brain activity (that's necessary if we were to postulate that abstract concepts exists)

Because if it "exists in the brain" at one point, then "exists in the brain at the other" but doesn't exist in between the two, that is "crazy". Know what I mean?

So, how does it "exist" in other forms (for example, ink on paper or 1s and 0s in an email)?

As has now been explained, the "idea" doesn't exist materially outside of the brain. What you seem to be postulating is that an idea existing outside of the mind contains potential to do work in the brain. What I am saying is, the work elicited by the brain wasn't attained from some potential from within the initial idea which was communicated, but rather the potential resides in the brain and mind itself. The potential (ability to do work) is created by imbalances. A question or an idea (or anything which the mind interprets which elicits a response) creates an imbalance in the brain, and this therefore creates a need to return it to equilibrium, and thus thoughts occur, resulting in an output.

Not only that, but how would you explain the "physical" transformation from one state to the other (as you would when explaining velocity to heat, sound and so on in the case of a moving entity that is stopped).

Not sure which kind of physical transformation you are referring to within the brain; from where the message comes into the eye, a transduction occurs from light energy to electrochemical signals via the retina. From here the electrochemical signal goes through many transformations, and joins many streams of interlacing signals which I am not going to attempt to untangle (that is neuroscience's job, and would involve viewing maps more complex than any road map you or I have ever attempted to interpret). Eventually those signals reach the motor cortex, which are then relayed to the various parts of the body set to produce movement, and from there (although I am not versed in biomechanical transduction from nerve stimulation to the muscles), likely several transformations occur to produce movement.

ie "how the idea is physically transferred from your fingers to the keyboard and into an email or word document" (NOT the physical description of what causes that idea to be expressed symbolically, but the physical properties of that expression once it is expressed and how those physical properties relate to the original idea (ie, physical transformation of mass/energy/force field/nuclear force or whatever)


You don't seriously expect me to be able to do that do you? If you could be more specific about a single particular interaction which takes place maybe we can shed some more light on that process, although I am not really well versed in quantum mechanics.

It does require much dot connecting, but any and all of these examples share one common fundamental (I think) "dot", I think it is simply that particular "dot" that needs to be connected.

Because from then on, whether the idea is translated (which goes through the process you described in the case of a translation by a brain (but could be explained in an easier way in the case of a translation by google translate), whether it is expressed in morse code (in audio or in writing), whether it's expressed in any kind of "language" at all, it necessarily has to go through that "dot".

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea exists in a transformed form which allows ------DOT-----someone or something to interpret it and "bring it to existence"

I'd suggest that DOT is the same on both sides and the same (in principle) with regards to any transformation of that idea for whatever kind of language or symbolism in which it is transformed.

However, even connecting that dot doesn't (at least for now) explain how the idea physically exists at this stage : "idea exists in a transformed form"


You kind of lost me there fore a while, but I think maybe this was resolved by the realisation that an idea is really just a label we place on a collection of concepts within the brain, and outside of that, it makes no sense to talk of its existence.

Well this is what I'm trying to get to.... "the message itself" exists physically yes or no?

Because I'm postulating that "the message itself" is a (material / physical / none existent????) cause that can have an effect "physically" and it's doing my {!#%@} head in ;)


As I have now described, the idea does not "exist" other than within the brain, we use the term idea because it is easier to talk about an idea rather than "a collection of concepts which are connected, and which can be interpreted by the language system and produce thoughts which relate to the initial collection of concepts", because that is what is implied within the word "idea". Materially, that is what the idea is comprised of within the brain, when those concepts cease to be stimulated, the idea no longer exists physically, like the chair broken into pieces, however the physical pieces which comprised the chair still remain, as do the concepts within the mind. That might be the transformation you seek, or the DOT you are looking for?

Dimebag wrote:The amount of information contained in a message has no relation to how much energy it takes to encode it, nor how much energy the information might elicit from the brain.


Exactly my point.

This "information" only exists within the brain and mind, and when it exits the mind and body, it exists again only as a pattern, which must then be reinterpreted


yes ! now we're almost on the "same level" I think.

Additionally, we can interpret naturally occurring patterns and extract meaning. Meaning and therefore information, is created by the brain.


which would make me conclude that if it is created by the brain, then it didn't exist before it was created by the brain????


So you do think ideas are not material outside of the brain, and exist only as patterns. And yes, the idea was created by the brain, but not out of nothing, out of concepts which reside within the brain, and continue to reside within the brain after the idea diminishes. For me that is not a troublesome concept.

Would you say then that "this information" exists or not?

And if it does not exist, then how to link the causality between it's creation in one brain and it's interpretation in another (which has potentially huge "physical" effects).


We both agree the information does not exist outside of the brain, and hopefully you now see how an idea might be "created" by a pattern being interpreted by the senses, its meaning being interpreted (the meaning which exists in the knowledge of the symbols within the mind), and that meaning eliciting a web of pre-existing concepts in the brain (the point of creation of the idea). For me, nothing is added to the system of the brain other than the pattern which was interpreted by the senses, to my understanding. Would you agree? Or can you see something else which is added which is not present within the brain already?

(feeling optimistic, if at least we agree on what we're talking about, even if it took so much time and effort, that's probably my fault and due to how I express myself, sorry about that.

So question : now that you "get it", what do you think? :mrgreen:


I think its time to lay down for a bit. :dizzy:

EDIT: And sorry for the walls of text, but due to the subject matter and the very specific answers you are seeking, and because I want to address as many of your points as possible a wall was required.. :lol:

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Donnageddon » Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:29 am

Inzababa wrote:shame

would have saved you a lot of wasted energy to read that before posting

(and I'm not about to waste energy addressing issues which have been resolved already in this very thread)


Wow, you've already resolved issues. I admire your self proclaimed progress.
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:16 am

Inzababa, you are saying that I am assuming that an idea exists "physically", and within the brain, yes it does, but outside of the brain, it does not and cannot, and I never made the claim that the idea exists physically outside of the brain.


yup, which is why I was trying to get to that 8-)

What does exist outside of the brain is a message. The message contains the patterns which represent the idea, but representations and physical realities are not one in the same.


ok then, let's agree (and assume) that :

the idea exists in the brain
the idea does not exist when it is transformed into a message
the idea exists again in the second brain which reads the message


if
the idea is a cause that can have a physical, material effect

(which is what I am attempting to demonstrate)

then what do you conclude?


Now I might take that broken chair and its broken legs, and throw it into an incinerator, only to be left with some ash. Does the chair now exist?


Nope, said chair has been destroyed hasn't it?

Arguably no, there is no chair now in existence. But, lets say I never threw the chair in the incinerator, and instead continued to disassemble it into the smallest parts I can. I now have a collection of parts which don't resemble a chair, so can't accurately be called a chair. But I can then reassemble those parts, and glue the legs back together, and now I can say a chair now exists.


Yes but when that chair is in the form of "parts which don't resemble a chair" it's not a chair, it's "parts which don't resemble a chair". It's only a "chair" when it's glued back together (when the definition fits).

Now does the chair really exist? Or is the word chair just a useful symbol we attach to an object which describes how it might be used?


Are you asking if the chair exists or if the word chair exists? Because in my view that is 2 different things.

Example (and correcting your phrase) : does santa claus exist? Or is the word "santa claus" just a useful symbol we attach to (anything) which describes how it might be (period)?

The same can be said of an idea. It "exists" in our minds as pieces or collections of concepts connected to one another, it can serve a purpose and therefore has a use, which is why we might assign a label to it. The label of "idea" is arbitrary, and to say that the idea "exists" is only saying that there is a collection of concepts in our brain which can be used for a specific purpose. Outside of this, there is no sense of trying to describe the existence of the idea.


Regardless, let's avoid that debate and assume we agree that ideas don't exist.(you seem to agree :
but that is another topic).
)

Can you (or anyone) explain "scientifically) how something that does not exist can have a "real" effect on material things?

(quoting from my first post) :

Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.
Spoiler:


That sentence essentially says that physical (=material) forces cause all other events in the universe.

On that basis : how can immaterial information cause physical (=material) events?


The pieces themselves (the concepts in the brain) remain, and could be likened to particles of H20 which knock against each other to form waves. The waves themselves don't actually exist, they a label we assign to energy moving through a body of water.


sorry mate, "0 mass" "things" do exist and are part of how physicists define "the physical universe".

Again, not that I'm a physician, but this was clearly included in my first post (in the wall of text below the
I will provide a short summary and details below. (I don't think you need to read any of this in order to answer the question, it's just for those who "don't understand").
).

Light for example is composed of waves which "exist" and which cause and effect can "physicially" be traced. My point is it's not only a question of "matter", it's a question of "anything as defined by physicians".

The same questions you pose of ideas could just as easily be posed to a lifeform such as a human. How can a human seemingly appear out of a womans womb, live a life, and then decompose?


Striking question which I never thought of relating to this subject.

Which might explain why religious people call it "the miracle of life"?

The idea has no mass or energy, if you are referring to it outside of the brain, because the idea cannot exist anywhere other than the brain, as I previously explained.


I was referring to it in the brain and outside the brain and wherever it "exists" because I was trying to use your framework with the added "presumption" that something that exists can not stop existing only to start existing in an identical form else where and have an impact :

exists in Socrates' brain
stops existing
exists in my brain
and has an impact

that chain of event is "crazy" or am I missing something?

All that exists outside of the brain are messages and patterns, which are representations


got that the first time ;)

Until that pattern is read by a person,


think that is true, if you replace "person" by "entity that is able to interprete that pattent" because I'd say "persons" are not the only "entities" that are able to use abstract information (computers for a start, but I was also thinking of the human body and could probably come up with lots of other examples).

What you seem to be postulating is that an idea existing outside of the mind contains potential to do work in the brain. What I am saying is, the work elicited by the brain wasn't attained from some potential from within the initial idea which was communicated, but rather the potential resides in the brain and mind itself.


All right, that's an interesting perspective. Could you elaborate on that, and in particular, on how you would conceptualise that in my examples, it is not the idea which is the cause of the effect, but "the brain" (at each interpretation)?

Because if there was nothing to interpret in the first place, the brain wouldn't be doing any kind of interpretation would it? The chain goes like this (on a time line)

1. idea
2. interpretation
3. effect

which is why I'm thinking the idea is the cause.

How is it possible to argue that "the interpretation" is the cause when it happens after the idea?

Not only that, but how would you explain the "physical" transformation from one state to the other (as you would when explaining velocity to heat, sound and so on in the case of a moving entity that is stopped).


Not sure which kind of physical transformation you are referring to within the brain; from where the message comes into the eye, a transduction occurs from light energy to electrochemical signals via the retina. From here the electrochemical signal goes through many transformations, and joins many streams of interlacing signals which I am not going to attempt to untangle (that is neuroscience's job, and would involve viewing maps more complex than any road map you or I have ever attempted to interpret). Eventually those signals reach the motor cortex, which are then relayed to the various parts of the body set to produce movement, and from there (although I am not versed in biomechanical transduction from nerve stimulation to the muscles), likely several transformations occur to produce movement.


ok that's good, which would mean the "key" factor is "light" (which allows the brain to read symbolism). Yet how is it possible that the exact same brain interpretation and following effect happens when you "hear" it (for example, morse code, or through someone's voice)?

You don't seriously expect me to be able to do that do you?


hah :)

I'm seriously expecting "some kind of science specialists" to be able to do that. Because it's not something new, it's not something that's been happening "only recently".

It's something that happens every day, you might say every hour, in the lives of everyone, and (in the case of human consciousness) has been happening ever since human beings have been able to express themselves.

You'd think "someone" would have looked at this scientifically, and "someone else" would know about it?????

EDIT : we're not talking about the BIG BANG here are we?

If you could be more specific about a single particular interaction which takes place maybe we can shed some more light on that process, although I am not really well versed in quantum mechanics.


I tried doing so in the "lab" example, in the "controlled environment", although maybe the "dot" illustration that I gave is good enough (haven't read your reply to that yet).

It does require much dot connecting, but any and all of these examples share one common fundamental (I think) "dot", I think it is simply that particular "dot" that needs to be connected.

Because from then on, whether the idea is translated (which goes through the process you described in the case of a translation by a brain (but could be explained in an easier way in the case of a translation by google translate), whether it is expressed in morse code (in audio or in writing), whether it's expressed in any kind of "language" at all, it necessarily has to go through that "dot".

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea exists in a transformed form which allows ------DOT-----someone or something to interpret it and "bring it to existence"

I'd suggest that DOT is the same on both sides and the same (in principle) with regards to any transformation of that idea for whatever kind of language or symbolism in which it is transformed.

However, even connecting that dot doesn't (at least for now) explain how the idea physically exists at this stage : "idea exists in a transformed form"


You kind of lost me there fore a while, but I think maybe this was resolved by the realisation that an idea is really just a label we place on a collection of concepts within the brain, and outside of that, it makes no sense to talk of its existence
.


well.. if we are now saying that the "idea exists in a transformed form which allows" is wrong and replacing that phrase with "idea does not exist"

this {!#%@} my mind even more :

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea does not exist anymore ------DOT-----someone or something (irrespective of the time lapse and space) is able to interpret a none existing entity and "bring it to existence" where that none existent entity has a material effect.

s I have now described, the idea does not "exist" other than within the brain, we use the term idea because it is easier to talk about an idea rather than "a collection of concepts which are connected, and which can be interpreted by the language system and produce thoughts which relate to the initial collection of concepts", because that is what is implied within the word "idea". Materially, that is what the idea is comprised of within the brain, when those concepts cease to be stimulated, the idea no longer exists physically, like the chair broken into pieces, however the physical pieces which comprised the chair still remain, as do the concepts within the mind. That might be the transformation you seek, or the DOT you are looking for?


I know I know I know, not only did you repeat that a few times in this post, but I assumed you'd write that in advance (which is why I included "none existent" in the description of the "message" and also why I'm asking this (which you did not answer) :

I'm postulating that "the message itself" is a (material / physical / none existent????) cause that can have an effect "physically" and it's doing my {!#%@} head in


So you do think ideas are not material outside of the brain, and exist only as patterns.


I'm thinking that's a possibility, however I have yet to explain how something which does not exist can have an impact on things that do exist.

We both agree the information does not exist outside of the brain, and hopefully you now see how an idea might be "created" by a pattern being interpreted by the senses, its meaning being interpreted (the meaning which exists in the knowledge of the symbols within the mind), and that meaning eliciting a web of pre-existing concepts in the brain (the point of creation of the idea). For me, nothing is added to the system of the brain other than the pattern which was interpreted by the senses, to my understanding. Would you agree? Or can you see something else which is added which is not present within the brain already?


I don't agree, but I'm happy to assume that it does not exist outside of the brain, but if that's true then (as concluded in my first post :

Which, if it is true, proves (unless I am mistaken) that to define reality with regards to “physical” terms is false since how could anyone argue that something which is influencing reality “does not exist”?


(feeling optimistic, if at least we agree on what we're talking about, even if it took so much time and effort, that's probably my fault and due to how I express myself, sorry about that.

So question : now that you "get it", what do you think?



I think its time to lay down for a bit.

EDIT: And sorry for the walls of text, but due to the subject matter and the very specific answers you are seeking, and because I want to address as many of your points as possible a wall was required..


LOL you kill me :)

I don't mind the walls of text at all (I write a lot myself).

But jesus {!#%@} christ, all of this simply to, when it comes down to answering the original question and say "I think it's time to lay down for a bit" makes me laugh (not mocking, simply like "OMG !!)")

:)

No worries, we got time :)
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:36 am

Donnageddon wrote:
Inzababa wrote:shame

would have saved you a lot of wasted energy to read that before posting

(and I'm not about to waste energy addressing issues which have been resolved already in this very thread)


Wow, you've already resolved issues. I admire your self proclaimed progress.


no, but we "understand" the issue and have covered the points that you brought up.

Since you got no energy to waste I'll try and point this out to you (without providing the explanation since as I said, it's covered already).

At that point the "idea" is encoded as (presumably) ordered information. It took energy to get it to that state.


covered

Then you stub your toe on the piece of paper, with the encoded information, and expend energy to decypher, and understand it. The stored potential energy (in the form of ordered information) in the paper is released.


covered

Next you can discard, or destroy the paper. Or you can act on it, but that is at your energy expense, not Da Vinci's.


covered

As for how an email (or other mass communication of the idea) can spread rapidly world-wide, that is just an example of increased efficiency of communication. Still requires energy, but much less than writing onto a zillion pieces of paper and mailing it in a zillion envelopes.


covered

If I bothered to think harder (expend more energy) on devising a scientific explanation for this energy transfer, it likely involve entropy, and the energy input required to fight it.


But I will try to sum up what we've conclude so far.

There are 2 case scenarios.

1. "ideas" exist

a) Idea exists in Socrates' (or Da Vinci if you prefer) brain
b) Idea is transformed and still exists but in a different form
c) idea exists in my brain once I've understood it

summed up (and the question is : connect the dots physically, using scientific (physician) explanation) :

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea exists in a transformed form which allows ------DOT-----someone or something to interpret it and "bring it to existence"

2. "ideas don't exist".

a) idea exists (or not, who cares) in Socrates' brain
b) Idea does not exist when it is represented by language or code or any kind of symbolism
c) Idea exists again (or not) in my brain once I've read it

summed up (and the question is : explain how something which does not exist can have an effect on reality) :

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea does not exist anymore ------DOT-----someone or something (irrespective of the time lapse and space) is able to interpret a none existing entity and "bring it to existence" where that none existent entity has a material effect.

simple 4 step summary on a time line in which
X = anyone or anything who creates the idea
and
Y = "the idea"

and where the time is not specified because it is irrelevant

According to scenario 1

Y exists in X brain (or system)
Y is expressed and therefore transformed into a potentially infinite type and number of forms
Y is interpreted by X2
Y has a "real" impact

According to scenario 2

Y exists (or not, who cares?) in X brain
Y is expressed and stops existing
Y is interpreted and Y exists (or not, who cares)
Y has an impact

Connect the dots using not "description" but "explanation" in a sicentific way that involves how scientists (according to peer reviewed definition of "reality") would explain the cause and effect between any two kinds of existing entities.

(example : the theory of relativity)

Because IF (big if) it is true that in the transformed form (symbolic, coded, or language) it can be said that the idea does NOT exist THEN the question is :

how can something which does not exist have an impact on something that does?
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:44 am

Donnageddon wrote:
Inzababa wrote:shame

would have saved you a lot of wasted energy to read that before posting

(and I'm not about to waste energy addressing issues which have been resolved already in this very thread)


Wow, you've already resolved issues. I admire your self proclaimed progress.



PS

If a question in the first post of a thread of a forum was intended to be addressed in two way conversations (as opposed to a joint approach of the question) then it would be locked and you could only reply by Private Message.
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:56 am

Inzababa wrote:
What does exist outside of the brain is a message. The message contains the patterns which represent the idea, but representations and physical realities are not one in the same.


ok then, let's agree (and assume) that :

the idea exists in the brain
the idea does not exist when it is transformed into a message
the idea exists again in the second brain which reads the message


if
the idea is a cause that can have a physical, material effect

(which is what I am attempting to demonstrate)

then what do you conclude?

The Idea, existing as a web of concepts in the brain, has a material physical effect, and the ability to create thoughtful ideas relating to that "idea", that is the limit of it's causality. Once the web of concepts dissipates in the brain, it's causality is removed. I feel like you are forcing me to keep repeating this, do you have any problem with the ideas here so far?

...lets say I never threw the chair in the incinerator, and instead continued to disassemble it into the smallest parts I can. I now have a collection of parts which don't resemble a chair, so can't accurately be called a chair. But I can then reassemble those parts, and glue the legs back together, and now I can say a chair now exists.


Yes but when that chair is in the form of "parts which don't resemble a chair" it's not a chair, it's "parts which don't resemble a chair". It's only a "chair" when it's glued back together (when the definition fits).

My point exactly, and the "parts which don't resemble a chair" don't have the same (possible) causal powers as the chair did, functionally, it is completely different.

Are you asking if the chair exists or if the word chair exists? Because in my view that is 2 different things.

Example (and correcting your phrase) : does santa claus exist? Or is the word "santa claus" just a useful symbol we attach to (anything) which describes how it might be (period)?

I was asking if what we think of as a chair exists, so the idea of the chair, is what we deem to be a chair, now present in reality? If not, you could say it was destroyed, or you could say the "parts which don't resemble a chair" assembled from the chair state to a non chair state. This is what I am saying the concepts in our brain do to "form" an idea, and then seemingly have it "destroyed" (more accurately the parts which form it are transformed, they are no longer causally connected to have the functional capability of the original idea). Did the idea ever exist then? Yes, however the term "idea" was a label we assigned to the web of ideas, just like the chair.

Regardless, let's avoid that debate and assume we agree that ideas don't exist.(you seem to agree :


If you avoid that debate, you avoid that which this debate is pivoted on. That very point is what separates an idea from being either:
1. real, existing outside of the mind.
2. not real, comprised of component parts, but the idea is destroyed and then created, seemingly violating the laws of physics, or
3. Not real, comprised of component parts, but the idea is "assembled" and then "disassembled" when in the mind, therefore not violating the laws of physics.

The most rational choice to me is 3, which is what I have been trying to explain, the other two options, being 1 as the next most rational, and 2 being the least rational. I am not an platonian idealist, and therefore can not entertain the idea of "ideas" existing outside of the mind, nonmaterially.

Can you (or anyone) explain "scientifically) how something that does not exist can have a "real" effect on material things?


Ok, maybe I should not have said "doesn't exist, the idea (a web of concepts activated in the mind), does exist, and therefore can have an effect on material things. And there is no problem in having that web of concepts then deactivate or cease to be stimulated, therefore having the "idea", dissipate and disassembled into something which is no longer an idea. Pieces can be used to create something, then have them disassembled to have it no longer be present, no physics violated, and causally that thing had power.

Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.
Spoiler:


That sentence essentially says that physical (=material) forces cause all other events in the universe.

On that basis : how can immaterial information cause physical (=material) events?



I believe that argument is redundant if you accept that what I have deemed to be an idea (a web of concepts existing in the brain) is material, and therefore can cause physical events.

Light for example is composed of waves which "exist" and which cause and effect can "physicially" be traced. My point is it's not only a question of "matter", it's a question of "anything as defined by physicians".


I'm not sure its fair to say that light waves exist, they exist probabilistically, depending on the collapse of the wave function due to measurement. Additionally, to compare a wave in an ocean (composed of H2O particles, which have mass and electric charge, and existing in a state of matter), and a photon (an elementary particle, being fundamental, having no mass or electric charge, and existing as pure energy, travelling at the speed of light) is not really useful or accurate. The wave nature of photons exists outright, without relying on any more fundamental level to my knowledge.

think that is true, if you replace "person" by "entity that is able to interprete that pattent" because I'd say "persons" are not the only "entities" that are able to use abstract information (computers for a start, but I was also thinking of the human body and could probably come up with lots of other examples).


If you allow computers to abstract information and use it for a specific means, under my definition of an idea you allow that computer to have ideas. I think using the word "abstract information" is inaccurate regarding most computer processes, as no perception is required to attain the information, and as the computer has no webs of concepts in its memory or processor, it can't perceive the idea as we do.

All right, that's an interesting perspective. Could you elaborate on that, and in particular, on how you would conceptualise that in my examples, it is not the idea which is the cause of the effect, but "the brain" (at each interpretation)?


The message, outside of the brain, causally leads to the activation of a web of concepts representing that message, but containing not just the message itself, but meaning as well. That web of concepts now has the causal power to do... well everything i described it could do (don't want to repeat myself).

Because if there was nothing to interpret in the first place, the brain wouldn't be doing any kind of interpretation would it? The chain goes like this (on a time line)

1. idea
2. interpretation
3. effect

which is why I'm thinking the idea is the cause.

How is it possible to argue that "the interpretation" is the cause when it happens after the idea?


There is something to interpret.... the message, existing outside of the brain. Causal chain intact. Therefore the "idea" existing within the brain as a web of concepts, which was caused by the message, doesn't need to be the cause of itself. You seem to be forgetting about the message which exists outside of the brain.

ok that's good, which would mean the "key" factor is "light" (which allows the brain to read symbolism). Yet how is it possible that the exact same brain interpretation and following effect happens when you "hear" it (for example, morse code, or through someone's voice)?


No, the key factor is not light, however I have been using visual messages as an example here. Alternatively the message can be audible, composed of sound. The "message" then would exist of vibrating sound waves (coded in a particular way), which our audible cortex recognises, and this recognition of the word activates the web of concepts in the brain (each individual concept relating somehow to the word), forming the idea (this is the layman's explanation, as I don't have my psychology textbooks with me).

I'm seriously expecting "some kind of science specialists" to be able to do that. Because it's not something new, it's not something that's been happening "only recently".

It's something that happens every day, you might say every hour, in the lives of everyone, and (in the case of human consciousness) has been happening ever since human beings have been able to express themselves.

You'd think "someone" would have looked at this scientifically, and "someone else" would know about it?????


No actually, to my knowledge, noone has tried to do that, and the closest anyone has gotten to that is neuroscience, which researches the brain and its vast array of neurons, how they connect, when they activate, etc. That is as good as you will get for now, and to ask for a specific instance of the web of neurons which are responsible for interpreting a message, and forming a meaningful response, followed by executing it on a keyboard, is just plain ridiculous. Neuroscientists have better things to do.

I tried doing so in the "lab" example, in the "controlled environment", although maybe the "dot" illustration that I gave is good enough (haven't read your reply to that yet).


My reply was that the "dot" had been explained away by the idea that a message has the causal power to lead to a web of concepts resembling that message being activated in the brain. No more dot.

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea does not exist anymore ------DOT-----someone or something (irrespective of the time lapse and space) is able to interpret a none existing entity and "bring it to existence" where that none existent entity has a material effect.


This difficulty you have here should now be resolved, due to the dot being explained away.

I'm thinking that's a possibility, however I have yet to explain how something which does not exist can have an impact on things that do exist.


Ok, maybe I was wrong in saying the idea didn't exist. But i only ever said that the idea can have an impact on things when it does exist. And remembering that the message was the cause of the idea, the causal chain remains intact, and therefore all is well. An idea is constructed, or assembled. To me that sounds more accurate.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:38 am

I feel like you are forcing me to keep repeating this, do you have any problem with the ideas here so far?


I told you already...

No problems with whatever assumptions and so on as should be deduced from my summary :

ok then, let's agree (and assume) that :

the idea exists in the brain
the idea does not exist when it is transformed into a message
the idea exists again in the second brain which reads the message


And I do have a problem now that you're turning around and saying it does exist.

I also have a problem with the (seemingly ever lasting) condition in which the original and only question I care about seems to be the only one yet to be answered (here or anywhere else).

Can we forget the brain please? And focus on connecting the dots? I thought we were on the same level :shock:

Try this then....

Forget Socrates, forget the original brain that came up with the idea and all that comes with it.

I pick up a bottle on the sea shore, open it, and inside is an idea. ok?

You might say I'm trying to force you to answer the question, or being aggressive, or whatever, but this was and is the only question I'm asking....

My point exactly, and the "parts which don't resemble a chair" don't have the same (possible) causal powers as the chair did, functionally, it is completely different.


I think you're confusing the "concept" and what "the concept is pointing to" (the meaning of the concept).

(as I illustrated with the Santa Claus idea which you didn't respond to)

I was asking if what we think of as a chair exists, so the idea of the chair, is what we deem to be a chair, now present in reality?


What is described by the abstract concept "chair" is destroyed when the chair is destroyed.

The abstract concept "chair" is not destroyed until you forget what a chair is.

You could destroy all chairs in the world and any trace of them, as long as you remember what a chair "is" (means) that concept and idea exists in your mind.

Now if you write "chair" down on a piece of paper, and describe how to make a chair, and explain what a chair is, and what it's for, and stick that piece of paper in a bottle and throw out in the ocean.

And if 400 years after your death, and 400 years after all chairs in the world have been destroyed and ceased to exist, someone opens that bottle, reads the text, and builds a chair, then did "the concept" of chair exist after your death? And if so, what are its physicial properties? Not only that, but what is the causality (scientifc, ie using the laws of science, and in particular physics, that demonstrate how that works?)

(I haven't counted, but this could be the 29th time I ask that same exact question.......

If you avoid that debate, you avoid that which this debate is pivoted on.


No, as demonstrated with the message in the bottle example.

you say :
The same can be said of an idea. It "exists" in our minds as pieces or collections of concepts connected to one another,


I say : forget the {!#%@} mind for a minute please, the mind is dead, since 400 years, the idea is on a piece of paper in a bottle washed up on the shore of the ocean.

3. Not real, comprised of component parts, but the idea is "assembled" and then "disassembled" when in the mind, therefore not violating the laws of physics.

The most rational choice to me is 3, which is what I have been trying to explain, the other two options, being 1 as the next most rational, and 2 being the least rational.


Fine, if you choose 3, how do you explain that something that is not real (AND something which is made of things that are not real) can be assembled?

Because the idea on a piece of paper is :

a) words
b) letters

which all are not "real".

And if you tell me that they are real, then how is it possible to explain their "existence" irrespective of whatever form (language, code, symbolism) they have?

Ok, maybe I should not have said "doesn't exist, the idea (a web of concepts activated in the mind), does exist,


Right, so if I understand you correctly, your hypothesis is that the idea exists in everyone's mind (or at least the components of it). It's just that we don't know it, are not aware of it, don't know how to build it in our minds, but if we read something, this allows us to do so?

Because if that's what you're saying, I think it could make sense, is reasonable, but is wrong. And I also think I can demonstrate why that's wrong.

In addition, it still doesn't reply to the causality question (in scientific questions).

To be honest, if you don't know and/or can't answer, why don't you say so and we leave it at that? :p

Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.
Spoiler:


That sentence essentially says that physical (=material) forces cause all other events in the universe.

On that basis : how can immaterial information cause physical (=material) events?




I believe that argument is redundant if you accept that what I have deemed to be an idea (a web of concepts existing in the brain) is material, and therefore can cause physical events.


I'm happy to accept also (I'm doing a lot of accepting in this thread) that the idea exists in your brain before you even know it, even if in the form of "components". (though that would mean the answers to all the questions and all the ideas in the world and universe, and all that can possibly be imagined, including everyone's memories, everyone's ideas and any concept that can potentially exist already exist in your brain if only in the form of components that can be assembled if said brain simply "knew" how to assemble them).

(As I wrote above, I think I can demonstrate that that is wrong without asking you to justify and "prove" it though, for example, how would "2 airplanes crashed in the twin towers" be information that is already present in your brain even in the forms of "components?)

Anyway, let's assume it's right (like all the other assumptions).

Next question (because this is really my focus right now) : what is the physical causality between a web of concepts that is outside and objective and symbolised and the interpretation of it by your brain which allows you to (as you say) "build the idea and make it exist"?

Is there any kind of transformation of energy from one cause to the effect?
Is there any kind of "force field" (like gravity) that transforms from one state to another?
Is there any kind of "nuclear force" (weak or strong)?
Is there any kind of "electromagnetism?

In short does this "web of concepts", when expressed objectively, have any specific a) energy b) mass c) force field d) nuclear force e) electromagnetic force

(which are (according to wikipedia) the source of anything and/or any event that happens in the universe.)

I'm not sure its fair to say that light waves exist, they exist probabilistically, depending on the collapse of the wave function due to measurement.


oh my {!#%@} god...;

then maybe it is my fault because I did not define "exist" properly.

I thought it was obvious that "exist" in "reality" meant that anything that "existed" had "real" properties as described by science (ie not only mass)......

Light or visible light is electromagnetic radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Now remember this?
Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.


I'll spell it out :

Because light is an electromagnetic radiation, and electromagnetic radiation is one of the forces defined by scientists that is one of the "causes of all other events in the universe" it exists as defined by those scientists.

So yes, it is fair to say that light exists. And I hope that's the end of that off topic discussion....

If you allow computers to abstract information and use it for a specific means, under my definition of an idea you allow that computer to have ideas. I think using the word "abstract information" is inaccurate regarding most computer processes, as no perception is required to attain the information, and as the computer has no webs of concepts in its memory or processor, it can't perceive the idea as we do.


Which then contradicts your own argument.

Because a computer can read and can act on what it reads therefore, a computer's actions are an effect of what it reads. And the cause ("whatever it reads") is the same as an idea or any piece of information, or any kind of abstract concept.

The message, outside of the brain, causally leads to the activation of a web of concepts representing that message, but containing not just the message itself, but meaning as well. That web of concepts now has the causal power to do... well everything i described it could do (don't want to repeat myself).


But you did, and don't worry, I understood that and addressed that argument at various points in this post. Last time was just above this paragraph. (showing the flaw in your argument because a "computer has no webs of concepts in its memory or processor" then it shouldn't be able to make an idea exist (yet they do act because of them in exactly the same way : cause = idea has an effect : computer reads the idea and acts upon it)

There is something to interpret.... the message, existing outside of the brain. Causal chain intact. Therefore the "idea" existing within the brain as a web of concepts, which was caused by the message, doesn't need to be the cause of itself. You seem to be forgetting about the message which exists outside of the brain.


The whole point of this thread is about "the message outside the brain"........ and how that message causes an effect.

If the message is an idea, then the idea (according to you) is constructed in the brain according to components that existed before the message was read.

If the message is information that the brain did not have before it read the message then what?

No, the key factor is not light, however I have been using visual messages as an example here. Alternatively the message can be audible, composed of sound. The "message" then would exist of vibrating sound waves (coded in a particular way), which our audible cortex recognises, and this recognition of the word activates the web of concepts in the brain (each individual concept relating somehow to the word), forming the idea (this is the layman's explanation, as I don't have my psychology textbooks with me).


Do you have your "physics" text books? Cause that's what I'm hoping to get an answer from....

o actually, to my knowledge, noone has tried to do that, and the closest anyone has gotten to that is neuroscience, which researches the brain and its vast array of neurons, how they connect, when they activate, etc. That is as good as you will get for now, and to ask for a specific instance of the web of neurons which are responsible for interpreting a message, and forming a meaningful response, followed by executing it on a keyboard, is just plain ridiculous. Neuroscientists have better things to do.


Then {!#%@} it, I go to the church then. Or maybe I'll ask the Iching.

If "science" can't answer such a simple question, that doesn't have to do with "the big bang" which happened 13 billions years ago, or the origins of life on this planet then I would suggest our friendly "scientists" have got their priorites wrong.

Because this question is fundamental.

Not only that, but it also is one that affects our every day lives. It's also one that can be reproduced. It's also one that "happens" all the time every day every where.

So what the hell are people studying the origins of life and the big bang when this kind of question isn't answered?

My reply was that the "dot" had been explained away by the idea that a message has the causal power to lead to a web of concepts resembling that message being activated in the brain. No more dot.


yes there is a dot....

the dot between the message and the "web of concepts"

argh it's so bloody frustrating going round in circles like this, repeating myself over and over again. I know it's probably my fault (as was shown in lots of cases on these boards and on other forums) but it seems me and other people don't speak the same language.

It takes 9 pages of long posts to simply understand what the hell I'm asking, then another 3 pages to prove that what I'm asking still hasn't been understood.

But honestly, I've tried all kinds of ways, from examples to math method, to literary arguments, I honestly don't understand the problem..

idea exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- idea does not exist anymore ------DOT-----someone or something (irrespective of the time lapse and space) is able to interpret a none existing entity and "bring it to existence" where that none existent entity has a material effect.



This difficulty you have here should now be resolved, due to the dot being explained away.


No no no no and NO.

You simply separated message from idea. Which means now that the question is about the message....

Look :

MESSAGE exists physically ------------ DOT ----------- MESSAGE does not exist anymore ------DOT-----someone or something (irrespective of the time lapse and space) is able to interpret a none existing entity and "bring it to existence" where that none existent entity has a material effect.


Ok, maybe I was wrong in saying the idea didn't exist. But i only ever said that the idea can have an impact on things when it does exist. And remembering that the message was the cause of the idea, the causal chain remains intact, and therefore all is well. An idea is constructed, or assembled. To me that sounds more accurate.


I'll just copy paste what I wrote above to respond to this comment :

No no no no and NO.

You simply separated message from idea. Which means now that the question is about the message....


the cause is the message now (because you separated it from "idea").

So now the question is exactly the same, just with message instead of idea.

1. does the message exist?
2. how to explain the causality between a message (cause) and its effect?
3. if the message exists then what are its specific physical properties?
3. if the message exists then what is the scientific causality (and/or transformation of one and/or any of the 4 forces that "cause everything in the universe") between one form in which it exists and the effect that it has?
4. if the message does not exist then what the {!#%@} is something that does not exist having an effect on things that do exist?

I need a shot of whiskey...

*wipes forehead*
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:45 pm

This thread is evidence to me that a message can easily be misinterpreted, and therefore when it enters the mind it can't be said to be the same thing, only an interpretation, a best guess. Meaning is lost somewhere between the formation of the idea and it's eventual reassembly in the brain. I propose the meaning never actually leaves the brain as the idea is recorded physically as a message. Your lack of consideration for of all things brain and mind is troubling to me, and I fear it may pose as a brick wall in our moving any further forward in understanding each other. Maybe an objective third party could shed some light on the issues we both face to understanding each other (though I wouldn't envy them sifting through these walls of text).

I will respond to your points tomorrow if I have time, but now I must sleep.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:57 pm

Dimebag wrote:This thread is evidence to me that a message can easily be misinterpreted, and therefore when it enters the mind it can't be said to be the same thing, only an interpretation, a best guess. Meaning is lost somewhere between the formation of the idea and it's eventual reassembly in the brain. I propose the meaning never actually leaves the brain as the idea is recorded physically as a message. Your lack of consideration for of all things brain and mind is troubling to me, and I fear it may pose as a brick wall in our moving any further forward in understanding each other. Maybe an objective third party could shed some light on the issues we both face to understanding each other (though I wouldn't envy them sifting through these walls of text).

I will respond to your points tomorrow if I have time, but now I must sleep.



Your lack of consideration for of all things brain and mind is troubling to me, and I fear it may pose as a brick wall in our moving any further forward in understanding each other.


I considered it (you need me to quote myself to prove it?) But the "issue" is what happens outside the brain (ie when the message (or idea) is ink on paper or 1s and 0s...

Anyways, the same question could be asked without "brain" in a different form. :

1. "live cam" in New York films two planes smashing into the twin towers

2. feed is automatically sent to online website

3. news ai robot notes it and publishes it on its news website

4. person receives message and is shocked because he or she got familly in twin towers

cause : information / message in live cam feed
effect : increased heart beat, sweat, tears, anger etc

Maybe an objective third party could shed some light on the issues we both face to understanding each other (though I wouldn't envy them sifting through these walls of text).


Maybe you could ask your physics professor?

(and you wouldn't need to read all these walls of text since all these walls of text are only "trying to understand each other").

Provided the person understood, all he or she would need to reply is my first post.
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:30 pm

Inzababa, as you seem adamant to bring my attention back to the op, rather than where the conversation has taken us, I will do so. I am however, not a physicist, nor a physician, and therefore I may be completely wrong about certain fundamental particulars concerning the universe. Additionally, I have chosen to change my posting style due to the various quotes and unquoted which are required. Sorry if this makes it difficult for you to reply.
Inzababa wrote:How to explain and/or describe the causality in this example (scientifically?)

Socrates has an idea (that if applied has a strong impact, influence)
Plato writes it down in a book.

Both die.

2400 years pass.

I find the book, manage to understand what is written, read it.

That idea has a strong impact on me and I apply the idea which then has a strong impact, influence.


How to explain the different causality links between the original “cause” (Socrates has an idea) and the final effect (in this example, which stops at:) which is that my “application” of the idea has?

The idea of socrates might have a strong impact on you, however it might not have such a strong impact on another person. Why do you think that could be? For me the explanation is the impact is dependent on what is inside the person, not what is contained in the idea. Though the idea may lead to the impact, it is not the only cause of what results. You must also consider what the person already knows. Surely this knowledge also plays a part in whatever conclusions they draw in relation to Socrates idea. The variation in what is known inside all people can also account for the wide variability a single idea can have on a wide array of people. If this were not the case, debates would not occur over ideas, as the idea would be instantly understood due to its "intrinsic" information it would supposedly carry. But I am arguing there is no intrinsic information stored within a message, therefore allowing for variability in understanding.

I will provide a short summary and details below. (I don't think you need to read any of this in order to answer the question, it's just for those who "don't understand").




1. Short summary in very simple straight forward English :

Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.
Spoiler:
Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe. The notion of causality that appears in many different physical theories is hard to interpret in ordinary language. One problem is typified by earth's interaction with the moon. It is inaccurate to say, "the moon exerts a gravitic pull and then the tides rise." In Newtonian mechanics gravity, rather, is a constant observable relationship among masses, and the movement of the tides is an example of that relationship. There are no discrete events or "pulls" that can be said to precede the rising of tides. Interpreting gravity causally is even more complicated in general relativity. Similarly, quantum mechanics is another branch of physics in which the concept of causality is challenged by paradoxes. For statistical generalization, causality has further implications due to its intimate connection with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see the fluctuation theorem).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause#Physics


That sentence essentially says that physical (=material) forces cause all other events in the universe.

On that basis : how can immaterial information cause physical (=material) events?


The information is not immaterial, is it. This has been explained as the message, which is purely material. Now you might take exception to a single idea being able to cause many different things, almost that idea has unlimited potential. The same could be said of all experience. I can see the same moon as you see, and feel completely different things about it. Does this mean something immaterial is sent from the moon to both of us, which empowers us to feel those different things? I would argue that the moon only reflects light, which we then see, and which then can remind us of different associations we have of the moon in our minds, from our past experiences.

You might say, but how can this one message, lead to a thousand ideas in my own head? Think of an amplifier. It takes a signal, and adds power to it, boosting the original signal to be the same signal, yet more powerful, able to do more work. Our brain can perform similar actions with ideas, and messages. It can take an idea, use the many other ideas contained in our mind to boost the signal, and even change or warp the signal into something else. It is using pre existing ideas in the brain to manipulate the incoming message, boost it, change it, into something useful.


note : it could be that my initial statement about what Physics concludes is wrong (that Physics concludes more than this). Which (I'd like to point out) only matters if any other "thing" that Physics concludes "causes events" in the Universe is either not "material" (since that kills the question from the start) or is not necessarily linked materially (thinking of QM?)

Disclaimer : I am not a physician, do not have a degree in physics, and certainly do not claim to be qualified in Physics. I am asking the question, not suggesting or claiming anything except that when Socrates has an idea 2.4k years ago, that is a cause which has an effect on me today if I read his idea.

2. Details :

The 2.4k years isn’t the focus of my question, rather it is an illustration of how the cause and effect in this specific case is independent from time.

(apart from the physical decay of the ink and paper, there is no “loss” of whatever influential potential Socrates’ idea has through time. Not only that, but whatever the state of decay of the ink and the paper, provided the idea can still be read and understood, is irrelevant isn’t it?)

It is irrelevant, the condition of the message is irrelevant if it remains legible. But if the message were a digital message, every bit would count. A digital message is less redundant than a written or printed message. This is because the shape and form of letters can be interpreted, and in fact I can leave out letters, misspell words, and the message will still have the same meaning. This is because all that is required of the message is to convey that which it stands for. That which it stands for is not encoded in the words themselves, it is interpreted and effectively assembled, and checked for validity in our minds. The ltteers in wrods can aslo be jmubeled, yet teh ifnormaotin can sitll be cnovyeed. This is a testament to the power of our minds to find meaning within patterns.

I don't think time has anything to do with it, the amount of time it takes for a message to reach its destination doesn't affect the quality of the message, apart from say, half life, and environmental effects. If a message is sheltered, it's information does not have a half life. This should tell you something about the information, that it is not actually contained in the message, and any information which is garnered from a message is due to the information contained In the system which is extracting it.


I would add, whatever the state of the words on paper (in absolute terms, whether they are physically ink on paper, a sound recording, a recording on a magnetic tape, numeric 1s and 0s or any other “medium”) is irrelevant provided the words and idea are understood.

In addition, were the idea to be copied regularly, thus changing form again and again, the actual source of influence (as I imagine it because it is abstract in my mind) would remain intact.

If I had read that book 1 year after Socrates had written it or 30k years after, the effect would have been (relatively) the same.

(relatively because I’m presuming context would influence the application of the idea a lot, but “all other things being the same”, it would have been identical).

The “material” form mutates from whatever form an idea has (wouldn’t know to be honest, I might suggest whatever form Socrates’ brain activity has at the particular time when the idea “appears” in his brain) to “ink on paper” (which potentially could have an almost infinite number of other forms since this can be scanned on computer, numerised, translated and so on) to whatever form that idea has once it’s in my brain which then “moves” me to apply it and have an effect (worth noting that how I apply the idea is also a huge variable that varies “independently” from most things on which Socrates’ idea affects since how it turns out “in reality” is unpredictable from Socrates’ point of view if my “free will” has anything to do with it).

I said it before but it is relevant here. The unpredictability of how an idea might affect a subject must surely be explained by the differences contained within the person, and therefore their mind and brain.

I can’t see how it could be explained in terms of :

a) gravity
b) strong or weak nuclear forces
c) electromagnetism

These are not the only way to understand the world, and I would argue, we can't understand all that the world entails using these three forces. We might describe something entirely in terms of those three forces yet might never understand the emergent phenomena which the system gives rise to. These properties are easier recognized when viewing the system as a whole. An example would be how pressure systems give rise to complex weather events. The weather events are only understandable when viewed using a wider frame of reference. Does this mean that there is something immaterial within the weather system? I guess that depends on what you mean by "something". That something is the results of a combination of different parts interacting. If resultant effects upon a system are are immaterial, then virtually anything which interacts as part of a system could be argued to be immaterial, such as the ticking of a clock, the operation of a computer, and maybe even, an idea. But of course the "something" ceaces to be that something unless it is part of the system.

And with regards to anything else I know of (the relation between mass and energy for example) there’s nothing that I know that I can use to explain this either.

When an object is travelling at a certain speed and is obstructed, the energy is transformed, transferred into various things, heat, noise, destruction or division of the object and so on.

When you clap your hands, there is a physical causality link that can be traced between the movement of your hands and the resulting sound.

Energy is never lost, it is only transformed (the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, mass is a property of all energy and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant.) (((E=mc2)))
Spoiler:
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistent and does not depend on any specific system of measurement units. The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits relativistic mass in whatever form the energy takes.[2] Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass.
A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.
Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).[15]
A spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For example, the Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents 2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[16]
Note that no net mass or energy is really created or lost in any of these examples and scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are some examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principle of mass–energy conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2


In relativity, all of the energy that moves along with an object (that is, all the energy which is present in the object’s rest frame) contributes to the total mass of the body, which measures how much it resists acceleration. Each potential and kinetic energy makes a proportional contribution to the mass. As noted above, even if a box of ideal mirrors “contains” light, then the individually massless photons still contribute to the total mass of the box, by the amount of their energy divided by c2.

(source :
Spoiler:
^ Hans, H. S.; Puri, S. P. (2003). Mechanics (2 ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill. p. 433. ISBN 0-070-47360-9., Chapter 12 page 433 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2#cite_note-5
)

Right?

So how does the energy and/or mass of an idea (assuming an idea has energy) transform without losing any of its potential, again, irrespective of the time scale, potentially an infinite amount of times, only to result in a specific “effect” ( “effect” that would be equal irrespective of time and the form in which the idea is communicated assuming “all other things remain the same” and the idea itself is read and understood) ?

Because if the above is true AND if the hypothesis that an idea can be the cause of an effect, then it seems to me that
  this necessarily means that “an idea” has no mass, no energy, is not composed of matter. In fact, in physician terms, it literally does not exist.  


Yet it can have an important influence on matter/energy/mass.

  Which, if it is true, proves (unless I am mistaken) that to define reality with regards to “physical” terms is false since how could anyone argue that something which is influencing reality “does not exist”?  


Defining reality purely in physical terms will not alway help you completely understand reality, in the ways you want to understand it. This is why you need to look at things from several perspectives rather than a single fundamental one. Physics is great at describing the operation of quantum mechanical events, but not so great at describing events in the brain and of the brain.

EDIT: when will this darn page end??

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:28 pm

The information is not immaterial, is it. This has been explained as the message, which is purely material


Can you demonstrate that please?

Not only that, but can you explain why :

It's effect can be identical irrespective of whichever form it is expressed in?

Can you provide what the specific physical (in physicist terms) it has? (mass, energy, etc)

If so, can you explain how these attributes are transformed into the effect that it is the cause of?

The same could be said of all experience. I can see the same moon as you see, and feel completely different things about it. Does this mean something immaterial is sent from the moon to both of us, which empowers us to feel those different things?


I'm not talking about experience, I'm talking about interpreting information which can be done by a computer, a camera, your fingers, your ears, anything at all.

Now when you see the moon and see something in the moon that "moves" you, what is it?

And if you (as others have argued) that it is not what you see that has an effect (ie it is not the cause) then how do you explain that if you did not see the moon, you would not be moved in that way?

You might say, but how can this one message, lead to a thousand ideas in my own head?


Nope, that's not the question is at all.

The question is how can this one message be read by anyone irrespective of how it is expressed, irrespective of time and space, and irrespective of how much energy is used to express it and how much energy is used to read it.

It is irrelevant, the condition of the message is irrelevant if it remains legible.


Exactly.

Which means what? That the "condition" of the message (your word) is irrelevant to defining its existence. Therefore, whatever physical properties that "condition" has is also irrelevant.

Point being : where is the "message" itself and where /. how to define it? What is it composed of? How to measure its properties? (we could start to do that before even looking at causality)

But if the message were a digital message, every bit would count. A digital message is less redundant than a written or printed message


Not even, look :

can you undretsnad tihs?

or undetand tis?

I don't think time has anything to do with it,


me neither (which is why I used that particular example of 2.4 years with Socrates, I could just as well used any other example :

you write something 5 minutes ago, I read it now.

apart from say, half life, and environmental effects.


No, as you said, that only affects the condition, which (as you say and I agreed) is irrelevant.

Irrelevant in as much as the message can at least be read.

This should tell you something about the information, that it is not actually contained in the message, and any information which is garnered from a message is due to the information contained In the system which is extracting it.


How?

If the system extracting it started existing AFTER the message was created?

Not only that, but in the Socrates example, the message has probably been translated a thousand times from Ancient Greek to English.

And whether it arrives in front of you in Italian, English, French, or Ancient Greek, it's the same message.

If a message is translated by a "system" then translated again by another, the 3rd system reading it only needs to know how to read and understand English.

The translation by other systems therefore

a) breaks the causality "physical" chain
b) proves that whatever "requirements" to read the message may come from outside the system that is doing reading.

example : copy paste in google translate.

Yet before AND after the copy paste, the message exists irrespective of whether "you" or "the system" exists or not, has any specific properties or not etc..

I said it before but it is relevant here. The unpredictability of how an idea might affect a subject must surely be explained by the differences contained within the person, and therefore their mind and brain


That's a question that is relevant to "free will" which is a) very complexe (indeed unresolved as far as I know) and b) off topic anyway, so let's ignore it :)

These are not the only way to understand the world


Maybe, but my question is "absolutely" within that framework.

Which is why

a) I used the term "scientifically" in the question title itself
b) Provided a definition of the framework as understood by "the scientific community" which has been peer reviewed and published. I quoted this from Wikipedia and can provide the source:

Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces (gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) are the four fundamental forces that cause all other events in the universe.


So if you're disputing that, I don't mind, but that means we move away from the "physicist" framework.

we can't understand all that the world entails using these three forces.


not 3, 4.

And my point is that said "physicists" usually do claim this.

Also, careful, when I say "immaterial", I don't mean "without mass" (light is composed of photons which do not have mass yet they exist according to those laws).

Defining reality purely in physical terms will not alway help you completely understand reality, in the ways you want to understand it. This is why you need to look at things from several perspectives rather than a single fundamental one. Physics is great at describing the operation of quantum mechanical events, but not so great at describing events in the brain and of the brain.

EDIT: when will this darn page end??


Either it's good and it can either there's something wrong with it and it can't.

It claims that "those 4 events are the cause of all events that happen in the universe".

ALL EVENTS

which translates to "everything" which also basically means that those 4 forces define reality.

So if they can't explain certain aspects of reality, then that is wrong.
PS the thread ends when you stop posting, I'm only answering.
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:11 pm

101 = 5 in digital...

10= 2 in digital... The dropping of one seemingly insignificant bit, the LEAST SIGNIFICANT BIT I might add makes all the difference.

I will argue the rest when I have time.

User avatar
Inzababa
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:51 pm
Custom Title: Sir
Location: Lyon, France
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Inzababa » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:13 pm

it ain't about arguing.

Well my intention isn't anyway.

It's about figuring it out.
You have enemies? Good ! That means that you stood up for something, at some time in your life.
Churchill

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Austin Harper » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:18 pm

By digital do you mean binary? Both binary (using two digits, 0-1) and decimal (using 10 digits, 0-9) are digital systems.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Could some "scientist" please explain this to me?

Postby Dimebag » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:29 pm

Austin Harper wrote:By digital do you mean binary? Both binary (using two digits, 0-1) and decimal (using 10 digits, 0-9) are digital systems.

By digital yes I meant binary, as per my examples, apologies for any confusion.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest