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!

@Kay 17, I still await your answer. How can anything be physical and yet immaterial?

@Idehn,
My last post was quite long I hope you read it and understood what I was trying to say however to make sense of it a bit - to show you what I mean by the difference between the physical and the non physical I'll ask how does one go about expressing virtual size in terms of physical size?

What is the value of 1mb expressed in meters and/or kilograms and/or seconds?

Mr_Anony:



@Kay 17, I still await your answer. How can anything be physical and yet immaterial?

I think I clearly explained myself in that post

Kay 17: I think I clearly explained myself in that post

Sorry I must have missed your explanation let me replay the conversation:

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!

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?

Kay 17:

Nope.

Is "Nope" the explanation you meant?

Mr_Anony: @Idehn,
Now your definition agrees with the dictionary definition except where you try to describe the mind solely by physical attributes. (I believe this is because prior to this debate you have ruled out the possibility of anything non-physical)

Now this is where the dictionary definition doesn't agree with you - notice you emphasize on organisms - humans and others but the dictionary uses the word "individual" which is a word that i think is key and I'll tell you why.

Again, I am not saying that the non-physical does not exist. I am saying that the I do not know what it means for the non-physical to exist. What it means for something that is not composed of matter/energy to exist? If as you say, the non-physical interacts with the physical regularly ok. But I expect that you should be able to account/explain for that in some way. The physical attributes define the mind for physical beings. When I say a human is walking for example, I proceed to describe the behavior physiologically (interactions of the brain,spinal cord,nerve endings,muscles,skin etc. . .). That physical description is what it means when we say a human is walking. Obviously no one wants to describe in full detail the walking process every time the subject comes up, so we use a short hand walking. A simple word attached to a very complex phenomenon.
The same is true,as far as I can tell, when we say a human is doing anything else. When I give a physical description, that is what we are actually talking about when we use the short hand thinking/memorizing/judging/communicating etc. . .

Mr_Anony:
To explain this, I'll use a concept I'll call levels of mind where the mind of organisms can be ranked accord to complexity. Now if the brain/nervous system is the mechanism for reasoning* in most animals, how do you explain how insects that cannot feel pain know to escape danger and seek comfort.Even the simplest of life forms will try to escape death and stay alive.

This assumes that there is only one kind of way(pain), that allows an organism to respond to a given situation (danger). This is not even true for humans. It does not take a lion gnawing at your leg(pain) before you realize that you are in danger from a lion. One of the main points that should be taken from observing nature is that there are multiple ways different organism to respond to the same/similar environments/threats. You do not need a human nervous system to respond to threats/environment. Of course it certainly helps. But to answer your question, much of insect behavior is genetic/epigenetic. For example, sudden and approaching movement will trigger a flight response independent of an actual threat. The organs were formed this way due to the insects genome. The human genome on the other hand illicits a different behavior/response. I would say the cause of this is evolutionary, but I suspect that you do not subscribe to evolution.

Furthermore, how would me not knowing how a particular organism brain/nervous system responds to danger, prove that reasoning is NOT physical. You will still need to show that/account for is NOT physical as much as I need to account for how it is physical. Ignorance is proof of nothing more than ignorance. The burden of proof for both our positions still remains with us. It strangely shows my point though. Your knowledge for a given subject is limited, and reasonably you expect me to account for my claim(that reasoning is physical). Is it unreasonable for me to expect the same of you?

Mr_Anony:
This suggests an individual consciousness in the least complex of organisms. I could argue that every human being knows himself as separate from his body.

Yet we still judge consciousness by observing physical behavior no? So how are we to judge consciousness for something that is not physical? We cannot make any observations through touch,smell,sight,taste etc. . . so what are we left with?

Mr_Anony:
It could also be argued that even if one was paralyzed such that he is without sight, hearing, taste, smell, and feel the person will still know that he is himself an individual and is different from another person or object even though he may not be able to communicate it.This would be evidenced in a brain that is still alive while a person is in a coma (the brain would still work i.e. regulate blood flow, breathing, food digestion etc to keep the person alive.

Yes, but what if they never had access to any of their senses. Would you be able to say the same then? Also, would you say this is true if the individual hypothetically had no brain and was only being kept alive with machinery?

Mr_Anony:
This would be evidenced in a brain that is still alive while a person is in a coma (the brain would still work i.e. regulate blood flow, breathing, food digestion etc to keep the person alive. The question is why would it want to stay alive if it isn't really responding to external stimuli?

Not sure if I understand your questions. First, if the brain is regulating breathing,digestion,(and to some extent) blood flow then it is necessarily responding to external stimuli from lungs,heart, stomach,mouth etc. . .. Second, why would a brain go into harakiri mode just because it does not have access to some/all the senses? It neurons/nerves can/do atrophy because they are not in use but that does not necessarily imply that the whole brain shuts down. If your brain lost access to all external stimuli you are probably either dead or dying.

Mr_Anony:
I'll put it another way assuming I was working on a computer and your task was to explain what software was on my computer by observing the processor and the memory. Yes you will notice changes but they will be meaningless in explaining what I am doing on the computer.You may even record the exact same reaction for a word document as for a short movie clip. The only way you can know for sure what is going on on my computer is if you saw my screen.

If I could physically observe every aspect of your computer use right down to the processor I would know exactly what you were doing. Heck, all I would need to do is install key logging software on your system and I would have a pretty good idea. Seeing your screen is not the only way to make that observation.

Mr_Anony:
The computer software is in virtual space and it is accessed using hardware. If as you claim, it is physically stored, then it would have to occupy physical space. This would mean that a 200mb memory stick must always be larger in physical size than a 100mb memory stick. This is not true.

The screen is just a representation of what is actually happening physically. Like the insect case, you are assuming that there is only one way to physically store information? That is the problem with this argument. If you were storing memory the same way, like a magnetic drive, yes you would need to physically increase your memory. You literally need to either buy another drive or buy a more efficient storage unit such as SSD drive. The SSD drive would be able to store the same amount of information with less physical mass. If that was not the case then the amount of information you could store on any given medium would be limitless.

Mr_Anony:
So if a mind that doesn't have a physical mass regulates the body.

You have neither demonstrated nor accounted for either of these claims.

Mr_Anony: Is it not possible in this case the precision and order in the universe be explained as evidence of it having a mind of sorts? or to borrow DeepSight's words an "unembodied mind"?

See my previous statements. You still have all your work ahead of you.

Idehn:

Again, I am not saying that the non-physical does not exist. I am saying that the I do not know what it means for the non-physical to exist. What it means for something that is not composed of matter/energy to exist? If as you say, the non-physical interacts with the physical regularly ok. But I expect that you should be able to account/explain for that in some way. The physical attributes define the mind for physical beings. When I say a human is walking for example, I proceed to describe the behavior physiologically (interactions of the brain,spinal cord,nerve endings,muscles,skin etc. . .). That physical description is what it means when we say a human is walking. Obviously no one wants to describe in full detail the walking process every time the subject comes up, so we use a short hand walking. A simple word attached to a very complex phenomenon.
The same is true,as far as I can tell, when we say a human is doing anything else. When I give a physical description, that is what we are actually talking about when we use the short hand thinking/memorizing/judging/communicating etc. . .

Here we go again, the point is that the physical shows evidence of a non-physical but that doesn't mean the non-physical is entirely described by the physical


This assumes that there is only one kind of way(pain), that allows an organism to respond to a given situation (danger). This is not even true for humans. It does not take a lion gnawing at your leg(pain) before you realize that you are in danger from a lion. One of the main points that should be taken from observing nature is that there are multiple ways different organism to respond to the same/similar environments/threats. You do not need a human nervous system to respond to threats/environment. Of course it certainly helps. But to answer your question, much of insect behavior is genetic/epigenetic. For example, sudden and approaching movement will trigger a flight response independent of an actual threat. The organs were formed this way due to the insects genome. The human genome on the other hand illicits a different behavior/response. I would say the cause of this is evolutionary, but I suspect that you do not subscribe to evolution.

I have my reservations on the evolution theory but that is a subject for another occasion

Furthermore, how would me not knowing how a particular organism brain/nervous system responds to danger, prove that reasoning is NOT physical. You will still need to show that/account for is NOT physical as much as I need to account for how it is physical. Ignorance is proof of nothing more than ignorance. The burden of proof for both our positions still remains with us. It strangely shows my point though. Your knowledge for a given subject is limited, and reasonably you expect me to account for my claim(that reasoning is physical). Is it unreasonable for me to expect the same of you?

fair enough


Yet we still judge consciousness by observing physical behavior no? So how are we to judge consciousness for something that is not physical? We cannot make any observations through touch,smell,sight,taste etc. . . so what are we left with?

That we haven't developed way to accurately observe something does not mean it does not exist

Yes, but what if they never had access to any of their senses. Would you be able to say the same then? Also, would you say this is true if the individual hypothetically had no brain and was only being kept alive with machinery?

If the person never had access to any of his five senses, we can argue that the mind would still work if he has a brain. The brain is a tool for accessing the mind much like fingers are used for grabbing Without the brain the mind cannot be accessed. A person without a human mind is simply not human


Not sure if I understand your questions. First, if the brain is regulating breathing,digestion,(and to some extent) blood flow then it is necessarily responding to external stimuli from lungs,heart, stomach,mouth etc. . .. Second, why would a brain go into harakiri mode just because it does not have access to some/all the senses? It neurons/nerves can/do atrophy because they are not in use but that does not necessarily imply that the whole brain shuts down. If your brain lost access to all external stimuli you are probably either dead or dying.

The point was that the brain will automatically try to keep one alive while it is being kept alive itself. Your argument tries to lock all organisms into simple chemical reactions that cause behavior and I say organisms are much more complex that that else we would simply be programmed logical machines and we are not, I believe we direct our behavior from the inside


If I could physically observe every aspect of your computer use right down to the processor I would know exactly what you were doing. Heck, all I would need to do is install key logging software on your system and I would have a pretty good idea. Seeing your screen is not the only way to make that observation.

no I doubt you would. key logging software is still software. you do not have access to that. All you have is hardware to observe with the exception of the screen

The screen is just a representation of what is actually happening physically. Like the insect case, you are assuming that there is only one way to physically store information? That is the problem with this argument. If you were storing memory the same way, like a magnetic drive, yes you would need to physically increase your memory. You literally need to either buy another drive or buy a more efficient storage unit such as SSD drive. The SSD drive would be able to store the same amount of information with less physical mass. If that was not the case then the amount of information you could store on any given medium would be limitless.
you miss the point. All we have done with computers is to associate cycles of a wave to bits of virtual information so that we can give it a value much like when using an abacus one stone would represent a hundred and another a thousand and another ten. if you wanted to count to a million, you will need an abacus with more columns and not necessarily a bigger abacus in physical size




You have neither demonstrated nor accounted for either of these claims.

We are getting there

See my previous statements. You still have all your work ahead of you.

I sensed you would give a reply just like this and partly I am to blame digressing and leading us back into the circle we are trying to escape.

Remember we agree on the definition of physical. What we don't agree on is the definition of non-physical you say that what I point to as non physical is actually physical. Mind you, I do not contest that the non-physical affects the physical I simply call it an effect because the non-physical is an entirely different dimension and it cannot be objectively explained physically.

If we were to measure the value of the mind or any such abstract information, we would evaluate it in bytes.

Now remember our definition of physical is matter & energy i.e. for something to be physical, it must be explained in terms of mass and velocity hence my question:

How does one go about explaining value of 1 byte in meters and/or kilograms and/or seconds?

I believe it is impossible. much like asking someone to explain meters solely in terms of seconds. They are two different dimensions even though they interact so seamlessly. However I may be wrong so if you know a way of explaining mathematically expressing one byte in terms of meters and seconds, I am all ears

Deep Sight:

As you are to yours, no matter how nonsensical.

Such as the possibility of uncaused material things, a single example of which, is beyond you - till tomorrow.

Yup, like the oneness of infinity and a bunch of ancient aliens.

What a farce !

Enigma: From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

Interesting read. I think the author will find himself in a minority though. Excerpts I found interesting.

We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don't believe. It's an assumption with a long history in western philosophy, which has been reinforced in recent years by the dull debate on atheism.


In this view belonging to a religion involves accepting a set of beliefs, which are held before the mind and assessed in terms of the evidence that exists for and against them. Religion is then not fundamentally different from science, both seem like attempts to frame true beliefs about the world. That way of thinking tends to see science and religion as rivals, and it then becomes tempting to conclude that there's no longer any need for religion.

In most religions - polytheism, Hinduism and Buddhism, Daoism and Shinto, many strands of Judaism and some Christian and Muslim traditions - belief has never been particularly important. Practice - ritual, meditation, a way of life - is what counts. What practitioners believe is secondary, if it matters at all.

The idea that religions are essentially creeds, lists of propositions that you have to accept, doesn't come from religion. It's an inheritance from Greek philosophy, which shaped much of Western Christianity and led to practitioners trying to defend their way of life as an expression of what they believe.

Science isn't actually about belief - any more than religion is about belief. If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is a repository of myth.

Myths aren't relics of childish thinking that humanity leaves behind as it marches towards a more grown-up view of things. They're stories that tell us something about ourselves that can't be captured in scientific theories.

Just as you don't have to believe that a scientific theory is true in order to use it, you don't have to believe a story for it to give meaning to your life.

Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be. But they can be more or less truthful to human experience, and I've no doubt that some of the ancient myths we inherit from religion are far more truthful than the stories the modern world tells about itself.

The idea that science can enable us to live without myths is one of these silly modern stories. There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind.

Human beings don't live by argumentation, and it's only religious fundamentalists and ignorant rationalists who think the myths we live by are literal truths.

We'd all be better off if we stopped believing in belief. Not everyone needs a religion. But if you do, you shouldn't be bothered about finding arguments for joining or practising one. Just go into the church, synagogue, mosque or temple and take it from there.

What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.

I think most christians and muslims will disagree with the writer.

jayriginal:

Yup, like the oneness of infinity and a bunch of ancient aliens.

What a farce !

These two great escapes have since become the standard response that dimwits on this forum have adopted when called out on their own absurd statements. Welcome to the club. Enjoy your stay. Hopefully you will find more escapes like such for the future, as these will soon become boring.

Deep Sight:
These two great escapes have since become the standard response that dimwits on this forum have adopted when called out on their own absurd statements. Welcome to the club. Enjoy your stay. Hopefully you will find more escapes like such for the future, as these will soon become boring.

lol, you seem upset lately. You've been in attack mode a la Daviddylan. Come on man, be still........
Afterall, it's not your fault that people can't conceive an "unembodied mind" floating outside the spacetime continuum in the "extraphysical realm" where everything is "immaterial and non physical". It makes sense!!!
I'm on your side Deepsight, to infinity and beyoooonnnnndddddddddddddd........



































































_{ancient f#cking aliens are responsible}

Martian:

lol, you seem upset lately. You've been in attack mode a la Daviddylan. Come on man, be still........
Afterall, it's not your fault that people can't conceive an "unembodied mind" floating outside the spacetime continuum in the "extraphysical realm" where everything is "immaterial and non physical". It makes sense!!!
I'm on your side Deepsight, to infinity and beyoooonnnnndddddddddddddd........

*Grumble* *Grumble* *Grumble*. . . .

_{ancient f#cking aliens are responsible}

Of course. Why dont you guys just accept that.

Deep Sight:

*Grumble* *Grumble* *Grumble*. . . .Of course. Why dont you guys just accept that.

We are waiting for Jesus to come riding down from the clouds on the back of pegasus while ET and the mothership wait in the stratosphere to take the "body of christ" to Heaven.

Hopefully, the ETA is 1630hrs GMT on December 21st.

^^^ Yes, yes, yes. . . apocalyspe this year. Hmmmmmm! Lets get all the money and strippers we can!

Deep Sight:
^^^ Yes, yes, yes. . . apocalyspe this year. Hmmmmmm! Lets get all the money and strippers we can!

Save the strippers for the finale. First, I propose we kidnap some MOGs and let them see if they like to be slapped. I promise not to do anything too.....cruel.

^^^ But men, the whole idea of an apocalypse is sooo frightening. Forget Mayan calender, etc... apocaplypses do happen and have happened on earth before, wiping out the dinosaurs, etc. What the bl.oody hell would we do if a sizable enough meteor appears on the radar too late. . . can you even imagine the scale of the palaver?

First, off, no internet. . . so no nairaland,

Sh.it, i wont even be able to say goodbye to y'all

Deep Sight:
^^^ But men, the whole idea of an apocalypse is sooo frightening. Forget Mayan calender, etc... apocaplypses do happen and have happened on earth before, wiping out the dinosaurs, etc. What the bl.oody hell would we do if a sizable enough meteor appears on the radar too late. . . can you even imagine the scale of the palaver?
First, off, no internet. . . so no nairaland,
Sh.it, i wont even be able to say goodbye to y'all

For real. Remember the volcano in Finland that grounded European flights for a few days a couple of summers ago?
Now imagine a super volcanic eruption happening in Yellowstone or a similar volcano and the disaster that will ensue. Forget nairaland, I'm calling my private spaceship I got stowed on the "darkside of the moon" and saying goodbye to you humans.

Martian:

For real. Remember the volcano in Finland that grounded European flights for a few days a couple of summers ago?
Now imagine a super volcanic eruption happening in Yellowstone or a similar volcano and the disaster that will ensue. Forget nairaland, I'm calling my private spaceship I got stowed on the "darkside of the moon" and saying goodbye to you humans.

Men, that volcano had me stranded sef o! But that turned out to be relatively small palaver. Can you just imagine if there is serious palaver like a meteor hitting the earth, one the size that hit 65 million years ago?

Meeeen.... you cant even imagine o.

I watched a documentary explaining exactly what would happen across the earth step by step

not funny sh.it at all bro

Mr_Anony:

Here we go again, the point is that the physical shows evidence of a non-physical but that doesn't mean the non-physical is entirely described by the physical

No it does not. You are just claiming asserting it does. No matter how many times I ask, you refuse to account for how the non-physical and physical interact. Even in you examples you tip toe around how this thing you claim as non physical(mind/information) has anything to do with physical (hard drives and cds). We are back to square one because ultimately this is your actual definition of information. Like I said before, it is pointless to ask me for physical descriptions when this is what you actually want me to produce.

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.

If there is something more to the mind then physical stimuli and physical responses then you must account for it. Otherwise, you are just talking about nothing.

Mr_Anony:
That we haven't developed way to accurately observe something does not mean it does not exist

Exactly. Can you fault me for saying I do not know anything about the immaterial other than it is not material?

Mr_Anony:
If the person never had access to any of his five senses, we can argue that the mind would still work if he has a brain. The brain is a tool for accessing the mind much like fingers are used for grabbing Without the brain the mind cannot be accessed. A person without a human mind is simply not human

What exactly is the brain "accessing" that is not physical? Again your analogy is poor because fingers(physical objects) are used to grab/probe other physical objects. There is nothing I know, that is like what you are trying to describe. Like I have been saying the entire time, you need to account for in someway how the physical brain does/is able to do this. Otherwise, I have no idea what this thing you are calling a mind has to do with the brain. You already seem to recognize that for humans the physical brain is inseparable from the mind. Why do you insist the are not in fact the same?

The difference between us on this point is that I think the brain/nervous system IS the mind, and you think the mind is something else entirely. I asked this before already, but what exactly IS that something else and what does it actually have to do with the brain.

Mr_Anony:
The point was that the brain will automatically try to keep one alive while it is being kept alive itself. Your argument tries to lock all organisms into simple chemical reactions that cause behavior and I say organisms are much more complex that that else we would simply be programmed logical machines and we are not, I believe we direct our behavior from the inside

The chemical reactions that underlies biology are extremely complex and all life reflects this. Underlying this chemical reactions are even more complex physical behaviors. Knowing what we are does not diminish us at all.

Mr_Anony:
no I doubt you would. key logging software is still software. you do not have access to that. All you have is hardware to observe with the exception of the screen

This is just like your mind claim. It is clear you want to conclude that the software is a separate thing from what physically exist in a computer. Like before however, you have yet to actually account for what this something else is and how it is related to the physical system. I think this notion of software being not physical is coming from the fact that your may not yet understand how a computer physically operates. This article about bits may help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit#Transmission_and_processing.

Also if I have physical access to the keyboard I can just record the signals coming from that. I am already familiar with ASCII and I can easily learn USB or PS2 communication protocols. All the key logger software does, which I repeat needs to physically exist on the system, is to force the computer to take those signals and convert it into a form I can use/understand(i.e show me the output of your keystrokes).

Mr_Anony:
you miss the point. All we have done with computers is to associate cycles of a wave to bits of virtual information so that we can give it a value much like when using an abacus one stone would represent a hundred and another a thousand and another ten. if you wanted to count to a million, you will need an abacus with more columns and not necessarily a bigger abacus in physical size

The bits ARE the information. It is just that the CPU responds to it differently than our brains. You are confusing our conceptual representations for what is actually going on. For example we may describe the internet like cars on a high way, but that is not what the internet actually/physically is. It is a representation(dare I say abstraction) of what actually occurs, as logicboy explained earlier. Another example is when you move a file to the trash. What you see on the screen is not what is actually happening. It is just a representation so you know that the part of your hard drive that physically stores information is physically being changed. That part of the physical organization of the system, which was your information/data, is no longer the same. Information is still physical.

Mr_Anony:
Remember we agree on the definition of physical. What we don't agree on is the definition of non-physical you say that what I point to as non physical is actually physical. Mind you, I do not contest that the non-physical affects the physical I simply call it an effect because the non-physical is an entirely different dimension and it cannot be objectively explained physically.

First the bolded black is in fact what you are claiming. This is what it means when you say that something physical(brain) is doing "X"(accessing) to something non-physical(the mind). You cannot avoid this issue.

The most important thing you said is in the read. This has been my problem with yours and deepsights argument from the very beginning. You are saying "X" cannot be explained physically and yet proceed/attempt to do just that. Saying that something non-physical(God) does "X"(creates) something physical(the Universe), IS invoking a physical explanation for something that is NOT physical. You are attempting to objectively explain something that is not physical, physically even when you say cannot. The same goes for your use of mind and information.

Mr_Anony:
How does one go about explaining value of 1 byte in meters and/or kilograms and/or seconds?

You may be interested to how units are applied in physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy. You really can describe bytes in terms of meters/kilograms/seconds if you absolutely had to. It is not as big a deal as you are making it out to be.

.

Idehn:
The most important thing you said is in the read. .

lol, he knows he can never explain what he's talking about. Instead of just going with the normal religious dogma describing god as a spirit, he has been searching for words to replace spirit. He admitted it like 6 pages ago.

Idehn:
First the bolded black is in fact what you are claiming. This is what it means when you say that something physical(brain) is doing "X"(accessing) to something non-physical(the mind). You cannot avoid this issue.

The most important thing you said is in the read. This has been my problem with yours and deepsights argument from the very beginning. You are saying "X" cannot be explained physically and yet proceed/attempt to do just that. Saying that something non-physical(God) does "X"(creates) something physical(the Universe), IS invoking a physical explanation for something that is NOT physical. You are attempting to objectively explain something that is not physical, physically even when you say cannot. The same goes for your use of mind and information.

There is no other way to explain to you what you don't know without using examples of what you know.

Idehn:
You may be interested to how units are applied in physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy. You really can describe bytes in terms of meters/kilograms/seconds if you absolutely had to. It is not as big a deal as you are making it out to be.

For the sake of us making progress in this debate, If you go ahead and show me then I will have no other choice than to agree that information is physical. I believe this is fair for both of us. Do you agree?

Deep Sight:

These two great escapes have since become the standard response that dimwits on this forum have adopted when called out on their own absurd statements. Welcome to the club. Enjoy your stay. Hopefully you will find more escapes like such for the future, as these will soon become boring.

As long as dimwits keep providing these 'escapes'.

Martian:

lol, he knows he can never explain what he's talking about. Instead of just going with the normal religious dogma describing god as a spirit, he has been searching for words to replace spirit. He admitted it like 6 pages ago.

I could describe God as a Spirit but since you seem to have a bias against the spiritual then I am forced to use synonyms that may not be perfect descriptions of what the spiritual is. I only do this so that we can have a meaningful conversation.

jayriginal:

As long as dimwits keep providing these 'escapes'.

Yawn. From zero examples of magically uncaused material things all the way to ancient aliens. Pathetic.

Worever bo!

Mr_Anony:

I only do this so that we can have a meaningful conversation.

Keep hoping.

Best read the writing on the wall. You cannot have any discussion, much less a meaningful one, with people who will tell you that every word has no meaning.

Deep Sight:

Keep hoping.

Best read the writing on the world. You cannot have any discussion, much less a meaningful one, with people who will tell you that every word has no meaning.

Lol, I consider myself a die-hard optimist

Deep Sight:

Yawn. From zero examples of magically uncaused material things all the way to ancient aliens. Pathetic.

Worever bo!

Awww. Go play with your ancient aliens.

Deep Sight:

Keep hoping.

Best read the writing on the wall. You cannot have any discussion, much less a meaningful one, with people who will tell you that every word has no meaning.

It is hard to find meaning in word salad and clumsily defined concepts. I just am not able to do it I am afraid. But I too am a die hard optimist, and one day you may actually produce cogent definitions. At least Mr. Anony has extended the courtesy of not expecting me to read his mind.

Mr. Anony:

For the sake of us making progress in this debate, If you go ahead and show me then I will have no other choice than to agree that information is physical. I believe this is fair for both of us. Do you agree?

I will, but I doubt that you will read all of this.

In modern computing the device fundamental to computing is the electrical transistor. It is electromagnetism,the interactions charged particle with each other via photons, that is used to manipulate the device. Electrical transistors are made from a specific organization of atoms known as semiconductorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductors. Due to energy quantization and the wave nature of all matter and energy(photons for example) the position of electrons is limited to discrete positions relative to the nucleus. Or at least they would be discrete in the electron were not perturbed (by other electrons for example) which is born from its particle nature which as you would expect particles exhibit. In stead what occurs is an bands of available for each electron to occupyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_band. The electrons need to either loose or gain energy in order to pass between these bands which as you can guess represent a range. The primary form of this energy is the photon whose energy as I explained earlier, can be known through wavelength or frequency. For an individual particle the highest energy state an electron can occupy before it is no longer bound to the atom is known as the valence band. Anymore energy and the electron will be ejected(ionized).

When you have close system of particles however, there exist yet another energy state that emerges from the organization of these atoms. Going back to semiconductors, for certain systems of atoms(such as Silicon or Germanium), you can impart enough energy so that electrons are not bound to an individual atom and instead can flow(i.e electric current), between atoms. These electrons occupy bands known as conduction bands. For for a group of atoms with neutral charges like Silicon, there exist an energy barrier between the conduction band and the valence band. So electrons do not ordinarily flow between atoms. For metals, that is not the case. For insulators, it requires a great deal of energy to get electrons into the conduction band. When an electron is free however, the atom still wants an electron to be electrically neutral. Physicist describe this using the quasi particle known as a hole. Please note that no such particle actually exists and is only a conceptual abstraction/short hand for what is actually happening. The hole is described as flowing in the same way as the electron and is given an opposite charge as the electron. As such it takes energy to separate an electron from its hole and it requires energy(or lack there of) to to keep them apart. These two particles are known as carriers.

Doping neutral silicon with atoms that have excess electrons or will readily take excess electrons is the basis of semiconductor devices. By combining regions doped with one of these types of dopants, it ensure that when energy is applied it takes far more to flow in one direction than it does in the other(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode). By generating a net positive charge on the side with the excess charge you essentially keep current from flowing between the two regions. This effect can be generated electrochemically(batteries).

I believe this should be sufficient background so that you know what the wiki-page on bits(bytes=8bits) is talking abouthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit#Storage. The paths(presence of carriers that can flow across differently doped regions) is what a bit is on programmable semiconducting computer processing units(CPUs). The presence or absence of these paths are definitely describable in term of energy/mass and subsequently using concepts of time/space. This assumes that you agree that the bit IS the unit of information.

Idehn:

It is hard to find meaning in word salad and clumsily defined concepts. I just am not able to do it I am afraid. But I too am a die hard optimist, and one day you may actually produce cogent definitions. At least Mr. Anony has extended the courtesy of not expecting me to read his mind.

You cannot honestly insist that that a definition for the purpose of discussion, which says - " being said to have created the universe ex deo* - is a "clumsy word salad" - even as you should remember that the latin end to the sentence was added at your insistence.

Is that really a clumsy word salad. Honestly, if you say it is, we can just quietly leave the matter and siddon look. Cos it doesn't get simpler than that. You know I already told you that you and I both know you are intent on rejecting any definition that is presented,and that has emerged the truth. I ask you to allow us to use the dictionary, you refuse. How on earth are we to discuss? what on earth am I to do. Even if I reduce it toa singleword such as "creator" or "cause" of the universe, you and I know you will reject that. So my dear I have tried all I can and you cannot sincerely claim that the difficulty is with me here. The difficulty is with you; you do not wish to proceed to the meat of the matter, and its as simple as that.

jayriginal:

Awww. Go play with your ancient aliens.

No amount of ad hominems will add an inch to the validity or invalidity of your claims.

Idehn:

It is hard to find meaning in word salad and clumsily defined concepts. I just am not able to do it I am afraid. But I too am a die hard optimist, and one day you may actually produce cogent definitions. At least Mr. Anony has extended the courtesy of not expecting me to read his mind.

You cannot honestly insist that that a definition for the purpose of discussion, which says - " being said to have created the universe ex deo* - is a "clumsy word salad" - even as you should remember that the latin end to the sentence was added at your insistence.

Is that really a clumsy word salad. Honestly, if you say it is, we can just quietly leave the matter and siddon look. Cos it doesn't get simpler than that. You know I already told you that you and I both know you are intent on rejecting any definition that is presented,and that has emerged the truth. I ask you to allow us to use the dictionary, you refuse. How on earth are we to discuss? what on earth am I to do. Even if I reduce it toa singleword such as "creator" or "cause" of the universe, you and I know you will reject that. So my dear I have tried all I can and you cannot sincerely claim that the difficulty is with me here. The difficulty is with you; you do not wish to proceed to the meat of the matter, and its as simple as that.

jayriginal:

Awww. Go play with your ancient aliens.

No amount of ad hominems will add an inch to the validity or invalidity of your claims.

Mr_Anony:

I could describe God as a Spirit but since you seem to have a bias against the spiritual then I am forced to use synonyms that may not be perfect descriptions of what the spiritual is. I only do this so that we can have a meaningful conversation.

Just describe God as THE GREAT LEPRECHAUN, and I'll believe anything you say and our conversation will be more neaningful than any conversation you can ever hope to have.........as long as you live.

Martian:

Just describe God as THE GREAT LEPRECHAUN, and I'll believe anything you say and our conversation will be more neaningful than any conversation you can ever hope to have.........as long as you live.

As I have told you earlier, when you are ready to have a meaningful conversation then we shall debate. As long as you continue jesting, I will keep regarding you as such a jester and one not to be taken seriously so go ahead and knock yourself out, we have nothing to discuss.