Mr_Anony:

Hmm, it seems I've been gone a bit too long and there's a lot I may have replied but for the most part, Deep Sight echoes my thoughts. i think the thread has long moved past this reply.
Something I have noticed however is that you seem (or rather it seems to me that you are)convinced that no matter what, the physical is all that there is or can possibly be and you reject anything that might transcend space-time no matter how it is presented, you call it meaningless and defend your stance much like one would his faith.

Herein lies the problem of non/extra-physical claims. You are the ones claiming that there is more to the Universe than the physical. That very well may be the case. Yet when anyone proceeds to ask you what it is, you immediately begin borrowing concepts from the physical Universe(like minds). You cannot have your cake and eat it. If something is not/above/below/outside the physical, then why is it that the only way you can/ever describe/define it is using/borrowing from the physical universe?

Mr_Anony:
The fact that you even go as far as to physicalize* things such as a mind and intelligence and then conceptualize finite things that can be measured such as space and Nigeria's boundaries makes it hard to properly discuss with you.

Of course it does, although "properly" is not the word I would use. You have never thought about the mind/concepts as anything else and it seems you do not want to either. Before, you could just enter into conversations with people and have them accept(without thinking) that non-physical things can be meaningfully said to exist. That is why you focused on claiming a things is extra-physical is it not? So you can avoid having to actually account for what it means to exist non/extra physically. Before people would blithely say "yes minds/concepts are not physical", and so you could just skip having to actually account for that part. The reason these physical definitions frustrate you guys, is because you cannot use this mind trick anymore.

Mr_Anony:
It's a bit like saying red green and purple are the only colors I know, that must exist and hence to tell me about color blue, you must define it in terms of red green and purple or else blue is meaningless.

No. It is more like saying that you know a color(minds), but it is not any color on the color spectrum(extra-physical). If I ask you what it "IS", all you can tell me is that it is not green, not purple, not blue etc. . .. You then proceed to say it looks just like pink(mind) but it is also invisible(extra physical). Under such conditions, could it even be said to be a color at all? Denying that the mind(the human one) is physically composed of the brain/nervous system is the same as denying that light is composed of physical objects called photons.

Mr_Anony:
You see how tedious discussing with you becomes? Hence, I leave you to continue.

No I do not. If you cannot account for what extra-physical actually "IS", than just say so.

Only-Rebel:
^^^ Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things,including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is the fact that all living things were created by the All-Wise and Almighty God. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which claims that living things are the products of coincidental causes and natural processes.

You are right. The biblical story of mankind being created when a bored deity blew air into sand and we all came being makes ABSOLUTE sense!!! I have a bowl of sand here. Perhaps after blowing hot air into it for the next 2 hours, i might create a rabbit.

Good luck to me!

Only-Rebel:
^^^ Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things,including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is the fact that all living things were created by the All-Wise and Almighty God. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which claims that living things are the products of coincidental causes and natural processes.

Justify your presumption, that all life comes into existence, especially when the almighty is life.

Idehn:
Herein lies the problem of non/extra-physical claims. You are the ones claiming that there is more to the Universe than the physical. That very well may be the case. Yet when anyone proceeds to ask you what it is, you immediately begin borrowing concepts from the physical Universe(like minds). You cannot have your cake and eat it. If something is not/above/below/outside the physical, then why is it that the only way you can/ever describe/define it is using/borrowing from the physical universe?



Of course it does, although "properly" is not the word I would use. You have never thought about the mind/concepts as anything else and it seems you do not want to either. Before, you could just enter into conversations with people and have them accept(without thinking) that non-physical things can be meaningfully said to exist. That is why you focused on claiming a things is extra-physical is it not? So you can avoid having to actually account for what it means to exist non/extra physically. Before people would blithely say "yes minds/concepts are not physical", and so you could just skip having to actually account for that part. The reason these physical definitions frustrate you guys, is because you cannot use this mind trick anymore.



No. It is more like saying that you know a color(minds), but it is not any color on the color spectrum(extra-physical). If I ask you what it "IS", all you can tell me is that it is not green, not purple, not blue etc. . .. You then proceed to say it looks just like pink(mind) but it is also invisible(extra physical). Under such conditions, could it even be said to be a color at all? Denying that the mind(the human one) is physically composed of the brain/nervous system is the same as denying that light is composed of physical objects called photons.


No I do not. If you cannot account for what extra-physical actually "IS", than just say so.

I will focus on how you describe the mind because I believe herein lies your problem with physical and spiritual/non-physical things. comparing physical light to the mind is wrong. Photons are objects that compose light. the nervous system is used to access information i.e. the mind and is not the mind itself. Much like software and hardware, you do not describe the information held on a device by observing the physical components of the device.

Mr_Anony:

I will focus on how you describe the mind because I believe herein lies your problem with physical and spiritual/non-physical things. comparing physical light to the mind is wrong. Photons are objects that compose light. the nervous system is used to access information i.e. the mind and is not the mind itself. Much like software and hardware, you do not describe the information held on a device by observing the physical components of the device.

That is precisely how you describe information held on a device. The information exist physically. It is physically stored within the computing system and accessed physically by the computing system. The metric for the information aspect of software is whether the CPU(read brain) accesses the information stored in the the hard drive(read neurons) and correctly interprets/responds(again all physical) to it. Where exactly does the non-physical come in?

Idehn:

That is precisely how you describe information held on a device. The information exist physically. It is physically stored within the computing system and accessed physically by the computing system. The metric for the information aspect of software is whether the CPU(read brain) accesses the information stored in the the hard drive(read neurons) and correctly interprets/responds(again all physical) to it. Where exactly does the non-physical come in?

No my friend the information is in virtual reality. It is stored virtually in a computing system but may be accessed by physically operating this the computer i.e. the harddrive/CPU/Brain/neurons may all be physical but the information itself is non-physical

Mr_Anony:

No my friend the information is in virtual reality. It is stored virtually in a computing system but may be accessed by physically operating this the computer i.e. the harddrive/CPU/Brain/neurons may all be physical but the information itself is non-physical

What in the world are you talking about with "virtual reality"? It is not "virtually" stored. It is physically stored. What does it even mean to virtually store information(or anything for that matter)? If information was not physical, then you could never access it physically. You are not making any sense.

Idehn:

What in the world are you talking about with "virtual reality"? It is not "virtually" stored. It is physically stored. What does it even mean to virtually store information? If information was not physical, then you could never access it physically. You are not making any sense.

The information is virtual. You can not exactly hold it and what you see on a computer screen is just a representation.

However, the information is PHYSICAL because
1) You can see it

2) Even if it is virtual, all that means is that it is all codes and programming which is physical

logicboy:


The information is virtual. You can not exactly hold it and what you see on a computer screen is just a representation.

However, the information is PHYSICAL because
1) You can see it

2) Even if it is virtual, all that means is that it is all codes and programming which is physical

That definition is fine by me, though I am not sure if that is what Mr. Anony meant. He seemed be using virtual as a by word for not physical which makes no sense. He seemed to imply that "information" was something entirely separate from the state of the hardware(electrons in the transistors).

Idehn:

That definition is fine by me, though I am not sure if that is what Mr. Anony meant. He seemed be using virtual as a by word for not physical which makes no sense. He seemed to imply that "information" was something entirely separate from the state of the hardware(electrons in the transistors).

You are right; it depends on how you define virtual. A videogame character is virtual. The character is in virtual world. The world itself is not real but it is a physical represntation of codes and programming. It is physical.


What Anony was trying to ndo was decietfully say that it is virtual in the sense that there is real life and virtual reality is not real just like a spirit world

Idehn:

That definition is fine by me, though I am not sure if that is what Mr. Anony meant. He seemed be using virtual as a by word for not physical which makes no sense. He seemed to imply that "information" was something entirely separate from the state of the hardware(electrons in the transistors).

Forgive my use of words but my point is; The information you can access is not the electrons themselves rather they are an interpretation of the sequence created by these electrons.
For instance when I write the words "A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" the words cannot be solely defined in terms of ink in a pattern on a pace of paper. The information derived is far more than that and is abstract.
What you seem to be doing is trying to define it simply as ink on the paper and claiming that it is the only thing it can be and hence no other meaning should be read into it.
The question about the origin of all things is not much a question of How? as it is a question of Why?

Idehn and Anony.

I have been following this argument and I am wondering why there is an argument on "physicality".It has been settled for a long time that God is not physical (No physical proof) and this world is entirely physical.


My two cents....sorry, I am a bit bored so I just jump into arguments

Mr_Anony:

Forgive my use of words but my point is; The information you can access is not the electrons themselves rather they are an interpretation of the sequence created by these electrons.
For instance when I write the words "A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" the words cannot be solely defined in terms of ink in a pattern on a pace of paper. The information derived is far more than that and is abstract.
What you seem to be doing is trying to define it simply as ink on the paper and claiming that it is the only thing it can be and hence no other meaning should be read into it.
The question about the origin of all things is not much a question of How? as it is a question of Why?

When you convey information in any form, you illicit a physical response in the recipient. You desire a particular response in someone. So you physically produce a pattern that will, hopefully initiate the desired physical response. That is the core of communication. Even the act of interpretation is entirely physical. You are failing to recognize is that what is meant by information, is in fact a physical response. For example, if I leave a note "out to lunch at X" for a friend there are certain response I wish to trigger. I want there brain to respond in a certain way in certain circumstances. For example, if they are asked where I am, I want them to say "out to lunch at X". If they really needed to come find me, I want them to be able to go to "X" to get me. All these things are a part the meaning of information. However, all of it is tied to the physical response in there brain.

logicboy: Idehn and Anony.

I have been following this argument and I am wondering why there is an argument on "physicality".It has been settled for a long time that God is not physical (No physical proof) and this world is entirely physical.


My two cents....sorry, I am a bit bored so I just jump into arguments

As far as we can tell, this is the case. Under such a definition you gave for God, there is no possible way of ever relating a physical Universe to something that is entirely not physical. But of course people want to still be able to say God does "X", and "Y", talks to me, has a son etc. . .. In an attempt to avoid this problem phrases like outside/above/below the physical, transcendental, or meta/extra physical are used. But in the end they are the same as saying not-physical which is back at square one.

As I said before, claiming things like the mind/concepts/information are not physical is useful in debates. These are things people(without thinking), will agree are not physical, even if they in fact are.
So then you can turn around and say God is the same "kind" of not physical as the mind/concepts/information. But the problem of how you can relate something with something it is not in every possible sense remains unresolved.

Idehn:

When you convey information in any form, you illicit a physical response in the recipient. You desire a particular response in someone. So you physically produce a pattern that will, hopefully initiate the desired physical response. That is the core of communication. Even the act of interpretation is entirely physical. You are failing to recognize is that what is meant by information, is in fact a physical response. For example, if I leave a note "out to lunch at X" for a friend there are certain response I wish to trigger. I want there brain to respond in a certain way in certain circumstances. For example, if they are asked where I am, I want them to say "out to lunch at X". If they really needed to come find me, I want them to be able to go to "X" to get me. All these things are a part the meaning of information. However, all of it is tied to the physical response in there brain.

No my friend you keep getting it wrong, information and the physical response are two different things entirely. The information itself is abstract. You may describe information as the cause and the physical response as the effect. The physical response is only an interpretation of the information (and it can be interpreted in many different ways) but the true nature of that information is abstract and not physical.

In other news, I would suggest you look into the idea behind Plato's theory of forms if you are not familiar with it already.

Mr_Anony:

No my friend you keep getting it wrong, information and the physical response are two different things entirely. The information itself is abstract. You may describe information as the cause and the physical response as the effect. The physical response is only an interpretation of the information (and it can be interpreted in many different ways) but the true nature of that information is abstract and not physical.

In other news, I would suggest you look into the idea behind Plato's theory of forms if you are not familiar with it already.

Anony, you're a smart guy but your twisting of common sense to set up a basis for God doesnt help. The information is physical. It is either written or heard. Whatever it conveys is irrelevant because we are not talking about the communication process. The inof itself is physical.

Even the communication process is physical because your brain is active and your brain is imagining the abstract interpretation from the info.

If I wrote "the boy is good", you would imagine the interpretation in your head- you would visualise a small boy in your head and that visualization is from your memory of what boys look like.

Mr_Anony:

No my friend you keep getting it wrong, information and the physical response are two different things entirely. The information itself is abstract. You may describe information as the cause and the physical response as the effect. The physical response is only an interpretation of the information (and it can be interpreted in many different ways) but the true nature of that information is abstract and not physical.

In other news, I would suggest you look into the idea behind Plato's theory of forms if you are not familiar with it already.

I am already aware that you are basing your argument off Plato's philosophy, even though it is incorrect. Information is physical. That is the only, way I know that it can be physically interpreted. It is like you are saying I am physically holding "X" in my hand but at the same time saying "X" is not physical. You acknowledge that holding is a physical process. You acknowledge that my hand is physical. Why would you turn around and then insist "X" itself is not physical? How do you physically interact with something that is NOT physical? That does not make any sense. You cannot physically access/store information, without information also being physical.

logicboy:




Anony, you're a smart guy but your twisting of common sense to set up a basis for God doesnt help. The information is physical. It is either written or heard. Whatever it conveys is irrelevant because we are not talking about the communication process. The inof itself is physical.

Even the communication process is physical because your brain is active and your brain is imagining the abstract interpretation from the info.

If I wrote "the boy is good", you would imagine the interpretation in your head- you would visualise a small boy in your head and that visualization is from your memory of what boys look like.

Yes but can you measure that thought process, how do you go about quantifying it? It is abstract that is my point. Of course i am using my brain to think but the thinking itself cannot be quantified. How do you go about measuring a mind in physical terms?

Idehn:

I am already aware that you are basing your argument off Plato's philosophy, even though it is incorrect. Information is physical. That is the only, way I know that it can be physically interpreted. It is like you are saying I am physically holding "X" in my hand but at the same time saying "X" is not physical. You acknowledge that holding is a physical process. You acknowledge that my hand is physical. Why would you turn around and then insist "X" itself is not physical? How do you physically interact with something that is NOT physical? That does not make any sense. You cannot physically access/store information, without information also being physical.

Sorry, but your above analogy does not describe the what we are discussing at all. Information doesn't obey any laws of physics and yet you are trying to physicalize* it just so that your standpoint that everything must be physical stubbornly remains.
I am interested in knowing how you would physically define things like numbers, ideas, color, emotion etc. mind you the effects are not the definition. For something to be physical, it must be able to be measured. How do you measure color or shape e.t.c. These are abstracts and they may be called the building blocks of the mind. It is these abstracts that we apply to physical things so that we can communicate them. How do you measure a mind?

It seems to me that the reason you insist that a mind is physical is just so that it allows you further down the line to say "God does not exist". If there was no "God" lurking around on the horizon, we would not even question that a mind is not physical.

Mr_Anony:

Yes but can you measure that thought process, how do you go about quantifying it? It is abstract that is my point. Of course i am using my brain to think but the thinking itself cannot be quantified. How do you go about measuring a mind in physical terms?

It depends on what exactly you are trying to physically measure. Is the brain activity, memory loss, sex.ual arousal? The average human brain weighs about 3lbs. Jocularity aside, you need to be more specific. I hope abstract is not yet another word for virtual, which is yet another word for not physical?

Mr_Anony:

Sorry, but your above analogy does not describe the what we are discussing at all. Information doesn't obey any laws of physics and yet you are trying to physicalize* it just so that your standpoint that everything must be physical stubbornly remains.

I have explained the communication process and how it is physical. I have shown that ALL the steps from transmission, to reception, to interpretation, to response is a physical process. It is you who stubbornly insist that even though every other aspect of the communication process is physical, this one thing is not. Either it is entirely physical or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. The physical mutually exclusive to the non physical.

Mr_Anony:
I am interested in knowing how you would physically define things like numbers, ideas, color, emotion etc. mind you the effects are not the definition. For something to be physical, it must be able to be measured. How do you measure color or shape e.t.c. These are abstracts and they may be called the building blocks of the mind. It is these abstracts that we apply to physical things so that we can communicate them. How do you measure a mind?

I am hoping that you do not expect me to account for every physical process in the Universe in great detail. I am not all knowing. Concepts(like numbers) and ideas are akin to memory in that they are aspects of the biological entity known as the nervous system. They physically exist in the brain. Some concepts/ideas/memories map to objects that physically exist. Their physical manifestation are basically described as groupings and interactions of neurons in the brain along with the rest of the nervous system. For more on the physiology of memory go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Physiology. For more on the physiology of thought go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought#Biology


Color is biological response to electromagnetic radiation received by photosensitive organs(like eyes). It involves several organs including the brain. For more look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color. As someone who works specifically with opto-electronics trust me when I say you can measure color.

For emotions I subscribe to neurological/evolutionary theories. Here is a good description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Neurobiological_theories.

It seems more like the things you consider not-physical are simply the things you do not yet understand.

Mr_Anony:
It seems to me that the reason you insist that a mind is physical is just so that it allows you further down the line to say "God does not exist". If there was no "God" lurking around on the horizon, we would not even question that a mind is not physical.

Oh, and the reason you are insisting that it is NOT physical, is not just so you can say that God is NOT physical in the same way. The difference between our positions is that I am backing my claims up empirically. You cannot. I am not just holding this position because I really do not like God concepts. This is what I actually believe.

.

Idehn:
I am hoping that you do not expect me to account for every physical process in the Universe in great detail. I am not all knowing. Concepts(like numbers) and ideas are akin to memory in that they are aspects of the biological entity known as the nervous system. They physically exist in the brain. Some concepts/ideas/memories map to objects that physically exist. Their physical manifestation are basically described as groupings and interactions of neurons in the brain along with the rest of the nervous system. For more on the physiology of memory go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Physiology. For more on the physiology of thought go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought#Biology

Using this argument, one could say that god exists because there is a physical manifestation in the groupings of neurons in the brain; unless there is a criteria to determine which groupings represent physical things and which ones represent ideas about those physical things, how will one tell the difference.
maybe those groupings just store information about things that physically exist and abstractions of those physical things.
I don't know..

Martian:

Using this argument, one could say that god exists because there is a physical manifestation in the groupings of neurons in the brain; unles there is a criteria to determine which groupings represent physical things and which ones represent ideas about those physical things.
maybe those groupings just store information about things that physically exists and abstractions of those physical things.

This was the mistake deepsights was making earlier in his understanding of concepts. The concept of God can be said to exist, but it was not clear if it mapped to anything that physically exist. If he defined God as a specific concept that existed in his brain, then yes you could say God exists. But that was not his definition of God.

Not only that, but you can have concepts that are invalid. This of course goes without saying, because everyone can be wrong. For example take the invisible pink unicorn. Even though I know such a thing is self contradictory every time I think/or hear it it triggers an image of a horse with a horn on its head, whose upper half is pink but lower half is not visible. Even though the unicorn is defined as being entirely pink AND invisible I still have this erroneous concept of what an invisible pink unicorn is even though I know it cannot possibly exist.

IMO, information is physical but immaterial. Its not physcial in the sense that its composed of matter and energy but in that its readily interpretable and held by the mind and that its qualitative of objects.

The pursuit of a negatively defined God will lead no way!

Idehn:

It depends on what exactly you are trying to physically measure. Is the brain activity, memory loss, sex.ual arousal? The average human brain weighs about 3lbs. Jocularity aside, you need to be more specific. I hope abstract is not yet another word for virtual, which is yet another word for not physical?

You keep pointing to the effects of a mind and passing them of as the same thing as the mind. No they are not the same. If I am happy, a part of my brain lights up, that is an effect of my happiness and not happiness itself.

I have explained the communication process and how it is physical. I have shown that ALL the steps from transmission, to reception, to interpretation, to response is a physical process. It is you who stubbornly insist that even though every other aspect of the communication process is physical, this one thing is not. Either it is entirely physical or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. The physical mutually exclusive to the non physical.

You are making the mistake of equating the container to the substance and that s wrong. It is a bit like saying magnetism must be a ferrous metal because ferrous metals are magnetic.

I am hoping that you do not expect me to account for every physical process in the Universe in great detail. I am not all knowing. Concepts(like numbers) and ideas are akin to memory in that they are aspects of the biological entity known as the nervous system. They physically exist in the brain. Some concepts/ideas/memories map to objects that physically exist. Their physical manifestation are basically described as groupings and interactions of neurons in the brain along with the rest of the nervous system. For more on the physiology of memory go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory#Physiology. For more on the physiology of thought go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought#Biology

Of course I don't expect you to account for every physical process, I was just trying to show you how ridiculous what you were saying is but I can see you went on to post links that so far still point to effects and not substance........and yes i actually looked them up.


Color is biological response to electromagnetic radiation received by photosensitive organs(like eyes). It involves several organs including the brain. For more look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color. As someone who works specifically with opto-electronics trust me when I say you can measure color.

Please what is color's unit of measurement and how is it derived mathematically

For emotions I subscribe to neurological/evolutionary theories. Here is a good description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Neurobiological_theories.

It seems more like the things you consider not-physical are simply the things you do not yet understand.

Really? because I am yet to be convinced of your "superior" understanding

Oh, and the reason you are insisting that it is NOT physical, is not just so you can say that God is NOT physical in the same way. The difference between our positions is that I am backing my claims up empirically. You cannot. I am not just holding this position because I really do not like God concepts. This is what I actually believe.
Backing up your claim empirically? not exactly because you are deriving the wrong conclusions, Yes we have evidence of a mind which we both agree on but you claim that the mind is the same as as it's effects. No sir.

My friend, each time I ask you to tell me how the mind is physical, you keep pointing at it's surrounding effects. I have tried to liken a mind to abstracts and yet you try to make them physical for instance please give an objective measurement of color, what unit is it measured in? how is it derived? or emotions -yes hormones are triggered when we feel certain ways but then that is an effect of the emotion or vice versa and doesn't give anyone a physical formula for objectively measuring emotions.
The mind (not the brain) is immaterial, it does not have mass, it does not occupy physical space and yet you insist it is physical. Please exactly how do you define a physical entity?

A little digress: Let me show you a bit of what we've been doing here. If I said to you that God exists and you asked me how and I said the evidence of God is the universe, it couldn't have come from nothing and God created it and you would ask me to physically define God. If I said that God is spaceless and timeless you would immediately say that God cannot exist because He is not physical and cannot be objectively measured.
Now we both agree that the mind exists; You claim it is physical. What is the mass of the mind? what is the amount of physical space it occupies? How do you come by those measurements?

Kay 17: IMO, information is physical but immaterial. Its not physcial in the sense that its composed of matter and energy but in that its readily interpretable and held by the mind and that its qualitative of objects.

The pursuit of a negatively defined God will lead no way!

Funny enough if I defined God in exactly the same way as you have defined information, you would immediately write God off as inexistent.
How exactly do you define physical? How is something physical and yet immaterial?

Mr_Anony:

Funny enough if I defined God in exactly the same way as you have defined information, you would immediately write God off as inexistent.
How exactly do you define physical? How is something physical and yet immaterial?

Nope.

Mr_Anony:

My friend, each time I ask you to tell me how the mind is physical, you keep pointing at it's surrounding effects. I have tried to liken a mind to abstracts and yet you try to make them physical for instance please give an objective measurement of color, what unit is it measured in? how is it derived? or emotions -yes hormones are triggered when we feel certain ways but then that is an effect of the emotion or vice versa and doesn't give anyone a physical formula for objectively measuring emotions.

Just come out and say that by abstract, you mean non physical. Just like virtual, what you actually mean to say is non physical. You just do not want to address the ontological implications that comes from relating something with something it is entirely not.

The activity/neurons of neurons in the brain, is always going to be an effect of either external stimuli or the activity of other neurons in the brain?

Color is a specific type of biological response to stimuli from a small region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The metric for this response is wavelength and/or frequency and intensity. The response wavelength for humans is usually limited to .45microns to roughly 800microns. Like all other forms of stimuli the brain will actively record information in the form physical form of neuronal patterns and the neuronal connections between them. The mapping of these recordings are generally dependent upon the wavelength's and intensity that is being received. Of course it is also influence by a number of other factors such as shape, arrangement, and relative location of the objects being seen. Neurons that connect to these memories, can be triggered by similar sensory stimuli or through thought(other active neurons triggering without direct sensory stimuli). You may be interested in a phenomenon(Synesthesia) where people associate color with symbols and letters. This further supports color being a neurobiological(i.e. physical) phenomenon.

Of course that is talking about one facet of color. I have not even spoken about color from an engineering/computer science standpoint.

Mr_Anony: The mind (not the brain) is immaterial, it does not have mass, it does not occupy physical space and yet you insist it is physical. Please exactly how do you define a physical entity?

If you define the mind as not physical than it cannot interact with massive bodies(including the brain). If it is not physical than it cannot interact with charged bodies(including neurons). If it is not physical, than I can say without reservation that your concept of the mind is just that. It only exist as an organization of neurons in your brain, and does not map to anything else that can be said to exist. You are just defining mind in such a way that it cannot even be related to humans much less the Universe. What exactly does the thing you call a mind do anyways?

Mr_Anony:
A little digress: Let me show you a bit of what we've been doing here. If I said to you that God exists and you asked me how and I said the evidence of God is the universe, it couldn't have come from nothing and God created it and you would ask me to physically define God.

There is physically nothing that suggest the Universe ever came from nothing. As far as we can tell the existence of matter/energy is immutable all the way up to the big b.ang. What came before that is currently just speculation.

Like I was trying to clarify from deepsight, are you saying that this thing you define as God caused the Universe to come from nothing, itself, or just reorganized a Universe that already existed. You do not need to physically define God. But the only things I know that can interact with physical objects like matter/energy(which makes up the Universe) is matter/energy. If you are saying that there are things that are NOT composed of matter/energy that can interact with matter/energy than show me. Otherwise, I can only conclude you are just making things up.

Mr_Anony:
If I said that God is spaceless and timeless you would immediately say that God cannot exist because He is not physical and cannot be objectively measured.
Now we both agree that the mind exists; You claim it is physical. What is the mass of the mind? what is the amount of physical space it occupies? How do you come by those measurements?

Again I do not know anything that exist that cannot be described using the concepts of space and time. If you do then show me. All you have done here is try to appropriate aspects of physical processes as not physical. It is a parallel of the God of the gaps argument. I have been discussing the physical aspects of thought,memory, idea conception etc. . . and nowhere can the thing you call a "mind" even be seen. It just seems like yet another vacuous concept you are trying to hide behind, because you cannot account for how NON physical things can ever be related to physical things like the Universe or the human body. It is no better and no more informative than spirit.

Idehn:

Just come out and say that by abstract, you mean non physical. Just like virtual, what you actually mean to say is non physical. You just do not want to address the ontological implications that comes from relating something with something it is entirely not.

The activity/neurons of neurons in the brain, is always going to be an effect of either external stimuli or the activity of other neurons in the brain?

Color is a specific type of biological response to stimuli from a small region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The metric for this response is wavelength and/or frequency and intensity. The response wavelength for humans is usually limited to .45microns to roughly 800microns. Like all other forms of stimuli the brain will actively record information in the form physical form of neuronal patterns and the neuronal connections between them. The mapping of these recordings are generally dependent upon the wavelength's and intensity that is being received. Of course it is also influence by a number of other factors such as shape, arrangement, and relative location of the objects being seen. Neurons that connect to these memories, can be triggered by similar sensory stimuli or through thought(other active neurons triggering without direct sensory stimuli). You may be interested in a phenomenon(Synesthesia) where people associate color with symbols and letters. This further supports color being a neurobiological(i.e. physical) phenomenon.

Of course that is talking about one facet of color. I have not even spoken about color from an engineering/computer science standpoint.



If you define the mind as not physical than it cannot interact with massive bodies(including the brain). If it is not physical than it cannot interact with charged bodies(including neurons). If it is not physical, than I can say without reservation that your concept of the mind is just that. It only exist as an organization of neurons in your brain, and does not map to anything else that can be said to exist. You are just defining mind in such a way that it cannot even be related to humans much less the Universe. What exactly does the thing you call a mind do anyways?



There is physically nothing that suggest the Universe ever came from nothing. As far as we can tell the existence of matter/energy is immutable all the way up to the big b.ang. What came before that is currently just speculation.

Like I was trying to clarify from deepsight, are you saying that this thing you define as God caused the Universe to come from nothing, itself, or just reorganized a Universe that already existed. You do not need to physically define God. But the only things I know that can interact with physical objects like matter/energy(which makes up the Universe) is matter/energy. If you are saying that there are things that are NOT composed of matter/energy that can interact with matter/energy than show me. Otherwise, I can only conclude you are just making things up.



Again I do not know anything that exist that cannot be described using the concepts of space and time. If you do then show me. All you have done here is try to appropriate aspects of physical processes as not physical. It is a parallel of the God of the gaps argument. I have been discussing the physical aspects of thought,memory, idea conception etc. . . and nowhere can the thing you call a "mind" even be seen. It just seems like yet another vacuous concept you are trying to hide behind, because you cannot account for how NON physical things can ever be related to physical things like the Universe or the human body. It is no better and no more informative than spirit.

Ok my friend we have been going round in circles - you continue to describe mechanisms instead of substance and it is becoming tiring.

For me, anything that is physical must first have a mass (I believe you agree) anything that can't be defined by a physical mass is non-physical (i.e. spiritual, virtual, abstract, extraphysical and whatever other adjective I have employed so far).

However for you (it seems to me) anything that can interact with physical things must be physical - material or immaterial. i.e for anything to exist for you it must be physical.

So that we can make some progress of sorts, let us agree with your definition and declare all things physical (not that I agree with you).

Now we know that the material and immaterial can interact with each other. we know that the realm of the immaterial can be infinite while the material cannot.

Applying this to cause and effect, we know that nothing comes from nothing therefore if all matter must have an origin, then the first cause of matter must be immaterial.

This makes it very possible for God to exist even if you insist He must be physical*. Unless you are ready to explain immaterial things like information, intelligence, ideas, will, emotions e.t.c. (A mind) to me in basic terms of mass and velocity.

P/s for the record, I believe now that colors can hypothetically be measured by observing variations in light speed (though I must reject your explanation as perception is not an objective measurement) - though this isn't really measuring as much as it is classification, it is objective enough and I withdraw it as a good example of the kind of abstract I have been talking about.

Kay 17:

Nope.

)
Sorry, you lost me there.

Mr_Anony:
However for you (it seems to me) anything that can interact with physical things must be physical - material or immaterial. i.e for anything to exist for you it must be physical.
So that we can make some progress of sorts, let us agree with your definition and declare all things physical (not that I agree with you).
Now we know that the material and immaterial can interact with each other. we know that the realm of the immaterial can be infinite while the material cannot.

We know!!! lol
Anyway,
immaterial - without material form or substance; "an incorporeal spirit, not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities".
1. of no essential consequence; unimportant.
2. not pertinent; irrelevant.
3. not material; incorporeal; spiritual.

I think you finally stumbled on the right word to the describe gods(and "God". Immaterial.

@ Idehn -

I am really tired of the long discussions eternally heading no where with endless word definition games. The fact of the matter is that if someone expresses a concept and defines it, you should proceed to discuss if such exists instead of attempting to redefine the concept for the person. If i say that fairies exist, you should debate their existence, instead of challenging the definition of the word "fairy." That really is not only beside the point, but as I have repeatedly said, exceedingly tiresome.

I really dont understand how you could make such a hash of things. The Theist asserts that the universe was created by a Creator-Being. The Atheist denies this. The discussion should be on the logic of the matter and not an endless attempt to insist that there is no definition of the word "creator". That is a very bizzare way to argue, aside from being obviously false. You cannot honestly claim that there is anything nmysterious about the words "A being said to be the creator of the universe."

Please simply let me know if you will be ready to proceed to the meat of the matter based on the definition of the concept of God as - A being said to have created the universe ex deo."

Martian:

We know!!! lol
Anyway,
immaterial - without material form or substance; "an incorporeal spirit, not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities".
1. of no essential consequence; unimportant.
2. not pertinent; irrelevant.
3. not material; incorporeal; spiritual.

I think you finally stumbled on the right word to the describe gods(and "God". Immaterial.

You can use synonyms to mock all you want, I believe that Idehn and Kay 17 both know that by immaterial, I mean not consisting of physical matter and that is what is important for this debate.
When you start showing some maturity then perhaps I'll take you seriously.

Mr_Anony:

You can use synonyms to mock all you want, I believe that Idehn and Kay 17 both know that by immaterial, I mean not consisting of physical matter and that is what is important.
Come back when you grow up.

Don't make any assumptions. Idehn might tell you that the word "immaterial" has no definition.