multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

Gisteron wrote: Except, of course, thoughts are still chemical states - or at least correspond to them so strongly that to make the distinction is hard to justify if we are to focus on the physical

This is a profoundly ignorant statement. Can you prove thoughts are ONLY chemical states? So what is consciousness then? Self awareness? What is the chemical state of the perception of the self?

Why are you focusing on the physical? That's not all there is even in physics. Matter pops into existence from nothing. Where did it come from then? Where is nothing and how does it produce something? What is the actual fabric of space? Is it physical? Can you touch it, examine it, put it in a bottle? No because its already in the bottle. In fact it cant be removed from the bottle.

Fyxe wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Except, of course, thoughts are still chemical states - or at least correspond to them so strongly that to make the distinction is hard to justify if we are to focus on the physical

This is a profoundly ignorant statement.

What's your objectioin to it. What about it is incorrect?

Can you prove thoughts are ONLY chemical states?

Seeing as nobody said they were, irrelevant.

So what is consciousness then? Self awareness? What is the chemical state of the perception of the self?

I don't know. What's your point?

Why are you focusing on the physical? That's not all there is even in physics.

Well, that's all I ever was made aware of in physics, but I'll happily hear what you have to teach on the subject. I listed off the areas of physics I have familiarity with earlier in this thread. Maybe the one area concerned with the non-physical is among those that I didn't learn yet. Feel free to direct me to it.

Matter pops into existence from nothing. Where did it come from then?

The vacuum. It's called uncertainty. Though something tells me you will take issue with the term, accusing it of being an embrace of ignorance. That's fine. We can call it "Unschärfe" instead, if you prefere. I find that a much more descriptive term anyway, much more representative of what it is.

Where is nothing and how does it produce something?

By having no choice.

What is the actual fabric of space?

You mean space-time? That'd be defined by its metric. Mathematically we would describe it as a manifold. Beyond that, what it "is" is more of a philosophical question anyway.

Is it physical?

Yes.

Can you touch it, ...

Irrelevant. You cannot "touch" movement either.

... examine it, ...

Yes.

... put it in a bottle?

Irrelevant. You cannot put a song into a bottle either.

No because its already in the bottle. In fact it cant be removed from the bottle.

What's with these childish criteria for physical-ness anyway? "Can you touch it? Can you put it in a bottle, or remove it from one?" It's the sort of challenge I'd hear a ten-year-old raise. Here, check this out: Now, can you remove that schooner from the bottle? No, you cannot. Not without at least disassembling the ship, possibly destroying its parts, too, or destroying the bottle. Is the schooner then also non-physical to you, just because your fingers are too short to reach in and touch it? There is any number of things you cannot investigate within the confines of a household kitchen. All that means is that booping and licking things is not the only way to examine them. It has nothing to do with them being non-physical. Why do I even have to explain this to an adult?

Its ignorant because you are implying that it is a chemical process alone and has no other potential component to it.

gist wrote: I dont know, what's your point.

Lmao you admit your ignorance and yet still try to make it seem as if chemical is all there is to consciousness. That's not only ignorant its deceptive!

Maybe you should take the time to dig deeper into what physics actually is if all you see it as is physical.

The vacuum is still something! It did not exist before space time existed so how could a vacuum even exist. A vacuum is something not nothing.

Your exactly right that space and what it even is is a philosophical question!!! That's my point! You cant say anything about it can you? Your just making up assertions about what it is without really knowing anything about it other than a few cryptic scratches on a paper you call Maths. So what, its meaningless in the face of the philosophical implications of it all!!!

And yes I can absolutely take that ship from its bottle. There was never and requirement to not destroy it in the process. I can destroy it and remove it. Same goes for air. Can you remove the vacuum that's left though? The very space between the sides? No.

Fyxe wrote: Its ignorant because you are implying that it is a chemical process alone and has no other potential component to it.

Although I did not ask why (you felt that) it was ignorant, I'll bite at this anyway. What I asked was what about it was incorrect, but apparently nothing urgent enough to point out. Be that as it may, fair enough that you admit I didn't say anything like that explicitly. But had you spent a second's worth of time actually reading what you quote, you'd have found that I implied the exact opposite. I went out of my way to make sure to say that the least there was is a correspondence, not identity. I went out of my way to make sure to say that if we were to focus on the physical, there'd be a challenge to justify the distinction, not that it would be impossible, nor that there wasn't one to be made. I did not say that the chemical process was all there was to a thought, and I left ample room for the opposite. Your unattentiveness made you lie again.

Lmao you admit your ignorance and yet still try to make it seem as if chemical is all there is to consciousness. That's not only ignorant its deceptive!

And just as I predicted, you would latch on to any admission of limitations on my part, instead of answering the question: What is your point?

And no, I never made "it seem as if chemical is all there is to consciousness". It baffles me how you can cry foul at deceptiveness in the same breath you use to lie about what your intelocutors say. In fact, I didn't even bring consciousness up at all. That was you. If anything, I only put a focus on the physical because that's what the thread was about. You seem to want to drag it off topic for some reason. That's neither my fault nor responsibility.

Maybe you should take the time to dig deeper into what physics actually is if all you see it as is physical.

Well, Master Fyxe, I did invite you to point me towards any area of physics that you felt was not dealing with the physical or went beyond it in some other way. I'm glad your big brain has seen the light already, and grateful that you waste any time with lowly peasants like myself. Perhaps one day you will come to share your vast knowledge of the subject.

The vacuum is still something! It did not exist before space time existed so how could a vacuum even exist. A vacuum is something not nothing.

Again, point being?

Your exactly right that space and what it even is is a philosophical question!!! That's my point! You cant say anything about it can you?

About space? Sure I can. About what it is? Not within physics, no. I can't say of anything what it is from within physics. It's not about what they are, it's about how they work. And I say we can say a great plenty about that, if the functionality of the semiconductor electronics that you use to bark at the internet - another thing we owe to our deep understanding of physics, by the way - is anything to go by.

Your just making up assertions about what it is without really knowing anything about it...

Really? What did I assert with regards to what it is then? I thought you were the one making big proclamations about the nature of things. You even get frustrated with me for my not giving a definitive statement about it, and laugh at me for admitting that I do not know - something you would never admit to, even if you make it blatantly obvious in other ways. Which is it now?

... other than a few cryptic scratches on a paper you call Maths. So what, its meaningless in the face of the philosophical implications of it all!!!

Eh. Meaning is subjective. I don't mind if you find it philosophically unsatisfying. This thread is about physics. Your emotional concerns in general are of secondary import here, if of any, as is particularly your desire for philosophical answers to physical questions. That being said, those "cryptic scratches" still happened to be enough to build the modern world. You'd have much different worries in life than the "true nature of the universe" if it were not for the "cryptic scratches" you only fail to recognize the impact of because of your own short-sightedness. You live in enough luxury that you never need to consider just what made it all possible. Instead you get to use the marvels of technology that are entirely owed to those "cryptic scratches" to deride them on the internet. What a time to be alive!


Anyway, do feel free to address the questions posed to you in that post you only quoted the non-question part you would proceed lying about from. You know, feel free to do the thing you said this thread was all about...

I shall answer your questions.

Your answer is not correct because you have said that chemicals is all there is to ideas but that is not the case actually. its also electrical states and process of building pathways and all sorts of other physical stuff and then it is also in the realm of consciousness where the idea exists outside the tangeable realm. What is consciousness? What is space? are they the same thing? We are not just focused on the physical here. That is the weird mistake or assertion or whatever you keep trying to bring in here that is not valid.

"My point" is that I presented an argument, you said that argument is invalid. I asked why its invalid and you said you dont know why. doesnt make much sense does it, gist, when its so clearly spelled out for you as you seem to be just ignoring basic facts.

The area not dealing with pysical is the metaphysical. Im not sure how many more times I will need to point that out. you just dont seem to be getting it.

Once again my point being that space did not exist before. then a particle popped out and then there was inflation and then there was space. It started but what was there before, not space but nothing was there. so how did nothing create something or anything? what is its purpose? why does it exist? well it becomes obvious in my model of reality.

you put such specail faith in your precious maths but its not the creator of anything nor is it the destroyer. so math is not to be worshiped as you seem to want to. so what if it was used to create all this tech? what does that have to do with anything? math was not the cause of it. all math is is a language to describe the world. however how do you describe the world that is not tangeable. well math fails there. its just as limited as your thinking when it comes to this idea. we h ave to go deeper than that but so far you are just circling the hole like a turd but refusing to follow the rabbit.

Fyxe wrote: I shall answer your questions.

Good.

... you have said that chemicals is all there is to ideas...

I did not say that. Everybody can see that I did not say that. Please, stop lying and get to the questions.

We are not just focused on the physical here. That is the weird mistake or assertion or whatever you keep trying to bring in here that is not valid.

I did not assert that we were. I only said that we might want to focus on that, seeing as it was a thread specifically about physics. Evidently, to stick with the topic was never your intent though. Fair enough.

"My point" is that I presented an argument, you said that argument is invalid.

No. I pointed out that tangibility is a silly criterion for distinguishing the physical from the non-physical, and proceeded to give examples of things that are physical but intangible.

I asked why its invalid and you said you dont know why.

I never said anything about your argument's validity. I don't even know what argument you are referring to. I was under the impression that I made an argument, about physical-ness and tangibility. I then pointed out that ideas are not entirely non-physical, to which you had nothing to say but call it ignorant before you went on to lie about what I said... again... I gave you an opportunity to explain what exactly was wrong with my argument, and you elected to lie more instead.

The area not dealing with pysical is the metaphysical. Im not sure how many more times I will need to point that out. you just dont seem to be getting it.

That's cute, seeing as you didn't latch on to that term until I brought it in, pointing out that despite pretenses for this thread to be about physics you were pushing it off topic and towards the philosophical. One wonders why, too...

Once again my point being that space did not exist before. then a particle popped out and then there was inflation and then there was space. It started but what was there before, not space but nothing was there. so how did nothing create something or anything? what is its purpose? why does it exist? well it becomes obvious in my model of reality.

It really doesn't. But more importantly, until your model makes testable predictions, it has no scientific weight to it. Until there is any demonstration of its usefulness, it's no different than any other religious doctrine, pretending to answer it all but without any measurable merit to speak of.

you put such specail faith in your precious maths...

I don't.

... but its not the creator of anything nor is it the destroyer.

I fail to see the relevance of that.

so math is not to be worshiped as you seem to want to.

Agreed. I for one find the idea of worship silly altogether. I'm glad there is one thing we can both agree doesn't need to be worshipped.

so what if it was used to create all this tech? what does that have to do with anything?

Maths wasn't used to create all this tech. Understanding was. Scientific models people didn't just pull out of their behinds, but actually derived from observations and to account for yet more observations. It's what makes all the difference between science and woo-woo. One is a means to utilize resources, the other a means to waste them.

math was not the cause of it. all math is is a language to describe the world.

Hmm at most. I'd say maths is just the formal language based in Aristotelian-like intuitionist logic. It's not about describing the world. The world could be completely different and maths wouldn't be affected. The world could even be an incosistent incoherent mess, and maths - if any were developed in such a world - would be pretty much the same we have in ours.

however how do you describe the world that is not tangeable. well math fails there. its just as limited as your thinking when it comes to this idea. we h ave to go deeper than that but so far you are just circling the hole like a turd but refusing to follow the rabbit.

"Like a turd", huh? Charming...
Anyway, no, maths is just as effective with non-tangible things as it is with the tangible ones. I gave you several examples we have very strong mathematical descriptions of - light, motion - that are entirely intangible. Why these don't matter in your conception I can only imagine is that you cannot imagine being factually in error because what I presume must be delusions of infallibility.



What I'm also noticing is that despite your announcement that you would address my questions, you did not even remotely touch upon them, electing instead to just spout old lies and new aplenty. Weird, that...

Oh wow, now whose lying! wow...

BTW every time you say "I did not say that" I just laugh now. Your dodging is just getting hilarious that you do that every time. I showed you my prediction before that you would say what you did and you fell right into it. because of that I will no longer address your dodgy replies. Just consider this a blanket statement that everytime you say that I just laugh and move on. in fact its become a personal game of mine to see how many times I can make you say that in your replies.

Tangebility is the greatest thing to tell the difference between physical and not physical. you say that ideas have a physical component. But no they dont. chemicals are not an idea, they are the result of thinking. you could think about any idea and get the same chemicals so its not an idea. ideas dont exist in the tangeable at all. You cant look in a brain, see the chemicals and go, oh thats a bus wreck or a plane with 6 wings or a new kind of sandwitch!

heres another of your weird assumptions that are wrong. this thread was NEVER about physics. even the title says MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PHYSICS! something you even pointed out as NOT being big part of physics right? I think its a bigger part than you believe but its still a part no matter what. but its not PHYSICS. is meta physics, prolla better term. sorry but metaphysics has philsophy in it as well. sorry I drug you to an area your not superior in.


And maybe if you didnt spend all your time writting nonsense and burying your weird questions somewhere in the middle and when I miss one maybe you scream foul. nice trick but its just a trick. try again if you like but I suggest you stop being so full of hot air and instead just ask a question!

Fyxe wrote: Oh wow, now whose lying! wow...

BTW every time you say "I did not say that" I just laugh now. Your dodging is just getting hilarious that you do that every time. I showed you my prediction before that you would say what you did and you fell right into it. because of that I will no longer address your dodgy replies. Just consider this a blanket statement that everytime you say that I just laugh and move on. in fact its become a personal game of mine to see how many times I can make you say that in your replies.

Well, you could quote me saying what you claim I say. You could, of course, were you not lying about it pretty much all the time. But I'm glad I can brighten your day this way. In the end it's just my own frustration and having to deal with your unwavering dishonesty and has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Tangebility is the greatest thing to tell the difference between physical and not physical.

No, it is not. I named several examples of intangible physical things mundane enough for everyone to recognize. There are more, but you have yet to address the intangible physical things I already named. No need for me to flood you with yet more.

you say that ideas have a physical component. But no they dont. chemicals are not an idea, they are the result of thinking. you could think about any idea and get the same chemicals so its not an idea.

Well, seeing as nobody said that ideas were chemicals to begin with (feel free to go back and read what was actually said), I find that a rather moot point. Moving on.

ideas dont exist in the tangeable at all. You cant look in a brain, see the chemicals and go, oh thats a bus wreck or a plane with 6 wings or a new kind of sandwitch!

Actually, yes, we can. Not quite with perfect clarity yet, but its getting better. It's another of those woo-woo gaps that keeps closing, but feel free to ignore it as you do with everything that contradicts your precious intuitions.

heres another of your weird assumptions that are wrong. this thread was NEVER about physics. even the title says MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PHYSICS! something you even pointed out as NOT being big part of physics right? I think its a bigger part than you believe but its still a part no matter what. but its not PHYSICS.

It is. If you didn't want the credibility of physics you would never have claimed that physics was in support of your woo. This thread only exists because you want the findings of physics to be on your side. Don't pretend now like it was never about that.

is meta physics, prolla better term. sorry but metaphysics has philsophy in it as well. sorry I drug you to an area your not superior in.

You didn't. I make sure to stick to physics within this thread, something you seem to have way more familiarity with than me, considering all the areas of physics you know and I don't that deal with the non-physical. If you want your bottom handed to you on matters of metaphysics, we can do that in another thread, too. I just happen to be less interested in it, but I'm sure there are philosophers around here who could do the job just fine - provided they had half the patience with you that I'm mustering. You're welcome, by the way.

And maybe if you didnt spend all your time writting nonsense and burying your weird questions somewhere in the middle and when I miss one maybe you scream foul. nice trick but its just a trick. try again if you like but I suggest you stop being so full of hot air and instead just ask a question!

Yea, no. It was a short post, I made a throwaway comment in one three-or-so line paragraph, and posed two questions to carry the discussion forward. You elected to ignore the questions, then promise to address them and ignore them again, meanwhile only focusing on lying about what I said in the comment instead. They aren't buried anywhere in the middle, and if you are too lazy to go back a page or so and look, then that's on you. Bad enough you won't go back to read what you respond to (hence all the mischaracterizations), but I'm not here to play along with this childishness. If you want to have a serious discussion, take your discussion seriously and show the slightest mark of giving a damn. If you want to troll, do it to someone even more patient...

Fine,

Gisteron wrote: No, it is not. I named several examples of intangible physical things mundane enough for everyone to recognize. There are more, but you have yet to address the intangible physical things I already named. No need for me to flood you with yet more.

Well in the first place you must have buried these examplys your talking about somewhere where in your praddle again so I don’t see them. Please clarify again… I did find one example, you spoke of movement? Is that what your talking about? Sorry but movement is not tangeable. You cant touch it and its not a person place or thing. It is energy.

Gisteron wrote: Well, seeing as nobody said that ideas were chemicals to begin with (feel free to go back and read what was actually said), I find that a rather moot point. Moving on.

Not so fast, we are not moving on because you did say this.

Gisteron wrote: Meanwhile thoughts - and so stands to reason ideas, too - do correspond to chemical conditions in the brain

BAM!

”fyxe” wrote: ideas dont exist in the tangeable at all. You cant look in a brain, see the chemicals and go, oh thats a bus wreck or a plane with 6 wings or a new kind of sandwitch!

Gisteron wrote: Actually, yes, we can. Not quite with perfect clarity yet, but its getting better. It's another of those woo-woo gaps that keeps closing, but feel free to ignore it as you do with everything that contradicts your precious intuitions.

Really?? Your gonna actually try and tell me that we can look at the chemicals in a persons brain and from that alone figure out what they are thinking about? Please provide evidence of this. I want to see the mapping between a brains chemical state and a 6 winged airplane please.

”fyxe” wrote: heres another of your weird assumptions that are wrong. this thread was NEVER about physics. even the title says MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PHYSICS! something you even pointed out as NOT being big part of physics right? I think its a bigger part than you believe but its still a part no matter what. but its not PHYSICS.

Gisteron wrote: It is. If you didn't want the credibility of physics you would never have claimed that physics was in support of your woo. This thread only exists because you want the findings of physics to be on your side. Don't pretend now like it was never about that.

Components of physics do back my theory. Im sorry you don’t understand enough to see this. besides that I love how you just assert that you can read my mind and just decide you know better what I was thinking than I do. Pretty impressive there Jedi master. But the facts remain that I wrote multi dimentional physics and when you came up with metaphysics it was an even better term that I agreed was the subject. This is a melding of the great philosophies with the knowledge of the world! oh sorry jedi master, that was a fail on your part. And your not welcome btw. You have handed noth9ing to me but sidewinder talk like a forked snake that is full of incredible contradiction, half truths and back pedal. Oh I didn’t say that. Oh I didn’t say that either,, nor did I say that.. oh well that’s not what I said… blah blah blah…. Wanna hand me my ass? Good luck since you cant find your own ass with both hands.

Gisteron wrote: ]Yea, no. It was a short post, I made a throwaway comment in one three-or-so line paragraph, and posed two questions to carry the discussion forward. You elected to ignore the questions...

NOPE. Show me the questions? I am not inclined to go searching through the garbage yet again for your pleasure. I don’t believe you wrote any questions so please prove that. If you can do that I will answer them but please be exact and not rambly.

Fyxe wrote: Well in the first place you must have buried these examplys your talking about somewhere where in your praddle again so I don’t see them.

No, the reason you don't see them is that you don't give enough of a damn to look. It was the very first post in which I made my case against tangibility as a criterion for physical-ness. The post is not even three finger widths long, and you even quote from it later in the post I'm now responding to. How am I to interpret this other than dishonesty, if you take the care to go back and to read and to copy from a message, but in the same breath claim to be oblivious to what the top of that same message says? How can this "overlooking" be accidental at this point?

I did find one example, you spoke of movement? Is that what your talking about? Sorry but movement is not tangeable. You cant touch it and its not a person place or thing. It is energy.

Movement was one of four examples. And yes, you are getting my point. Movement is physical. So are the other three things I mentioned. Physical, but not tangible. Intangible things can be physical, too. I'm glad you are catching up now that you started paying the slightest shadow of attention.

Gisteron wrote: Well, seeing as nobody said that ideas were chemicals to begin with (feel free to go back and read what was actually said), I find that a rather moot point. Moving on.

Not so fast, we are not moving on because you did say this.

Gisteron wrote: Meanwhile thoughts - and so stands to reason ideas, too - do correspond to chemical conditions in the brain

BAM!

What's the "BAM!" here? Read carefully. I said that ideas correspond to, not are, and chemical conditions (I also used "processes" just a line later in that same post you quote from, and "states" one message later), not chemicals. Pay attention. Most times I choose my words with care, precisely to not be saying such silly things as that thoughts were chemicals. So I feel no obligation defending a position I never made a claim to. That's why I move on.

Gisteron wrote:

Fyxe wrote: ideas dont exist in the tangeable at all. You cant look in a brain, see the chemicals and go, oh thats a bus wreck or a plane with 6 wings or a new kind of sandwitch!

Actually, yes, we can. Not quite with perfect clarity yet, but its getting better...

Really?? Your gonna actually try and tell me that we can look at the chemicals in a persons brain and from that alone figure out what they are thinking about? Please provide evidence of this. I want to see the mapping between a brains chemical state and a 6 winged airplane please.

How about instead I provide evidence for the claim I made. You didn't say that it was about identifying a six-winged plane from chemicals in a persons brain and from that alone, the steps you named were "look in a brain", "see the chemicals", and then draw conclusions. And I said that we wouldn't get perfectly clear maps from either or both of those things, but that it was getting better. So my burden is to cite evidence indicating that examining and/or monitoring a brain can be enough to reconstruct some arbitrarily unclear picture of what is on the subject's mind. That's all I claim, and sure enough I wouldn't claim it if I had nothing to back it up with. Behold, a study, already as old as 2011. Funnily enough, it was on these very TOTJO forums that I came to learn about this research in the first place:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.031

But that's not all! Those images really are rather quite unclear. Though it is a motion picture reconstruction, so hard to say if that's too little. This was state of the art in 2011. Here is another study, where they reconstructed still images from brain activity with much clearer detail than would be expected, if thoughts, experiences, or perceptions did not correspond to any:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006633

So not only is it possible, but progress is being made, too. And with that, I have backed up both claims I made. *bows*

Components of physics do back my theory. Im sorry you don’t understand enough to see this.

I openly layed out what sort of backing there'd have to be. Vague maybe-ish compatibility doesn't cut it. So far that is all you provided. Until your "theory" with twelve realms is indicated any more strongly than the exact same "theory" but with thirteen, physics is no more backing yours than it does any that conflict with it.

NOPE. Show me the questions? I am not inclined to go searching through the garbage yet again for your pleasure. I don’t believe you wrote any questions so please prove that. If you can do that I will answer them but please be exact and not rambly.

It's not about my pleasure, it's about your basic sincerity. You already promised you'd answer them and then proceeded not to. You already went back a page to quote me, but couldn't be bothered looking down a post to see the one you have been debating with me that actually contained the two questions you ignored in favour of a throwaway comment. If your eagerness to write up something quickly prevents you from gathering up the patience to read what is said to you, it's not my responsibility to drag you back by your nose. If you cared, you'd read. And if you don't, this is a waste of both our times.


Maybe, if your laziness persists, Erinis will have enough pity to direct you towards the two questions. She somehow managed to pick one of them out of "the garbage" you call our thread and try and address it in your stead, whilst you carried on quoting from that same post, mischaracterize the very passage you quoted, grasping for an opportunity to call the statement you misrepresented "profoundly ignorant".


It doesn't matter whether you believe I wrote any questions. I did, and everybody can see them, including you, not even burried deeply inside long-winded messages. I can show them to you. I just don't want to. Because I'd rather see you put the minimal amount of effort into having any sort of conversation, like actually reading what your interlocutor says, for a start.

Gisteron wrote: quote]What's the "BAM!" here? Read carefully. I said that ideas correspond to, not are, and chemical conditions (I also used "processes" just a line later in that same post you quote from, and "states" one message later), not chemicals. Pay attention. Most times I choose my words with care, precisely to not be saying such silly things as that thoughts were chemicals. So I feel no obligation defending a position I never made a claim to. That's why I move on.

No you move on because you get defeated on a point but instead of acknowledging it you ignore it. The BAM is just what it means… BAM! Corresponds or processes, it don’t matter, you still said that you could get an image from chemicals in the brain. I looked at your little experiements below and it says nothing about chemicals in the brain. It says activity in the brain and they are even feeding the human the exact picture they want to see. But guess what, all that comes out the other side is a blob not a picture of anything you can tell what it is. Not very impressive. Heck I can do that with some crayons and paper and I don’t even need a big fancy computer.

I want you to prove that you can take a human off the street and open up his head or something and without the human telling anyone what hes thinking have the scientist be able to do his whatever he does and then pull out of the humans head the exact image or idea hes thinking about just from the chemicals there. That’s what you said we could do so that’s what I want to see. So how about that 6 winged plane image? Where is it? Save your bow until you provide exactly what I asked for just like you keep demanding of me with these non existent questions you keep going on about.

Sorry but I cant answer something that does not exist and if you cant even be bothered to point them out to me well I guess that ends that part of the discussion. Hows that for minimal effort bucko? You get what you ask for.

Fyxe wrote: No you move on because you get defeated on a point but instead of acknowledging it you ignore it. The BAM is just what it means… BAM! Corresponds or processes, it don’t matter, you still said that you could get an image from chemicals in the brain.

But it does matter. I say what I say the way I say it because that is (almost always) the way I mean it. You can go on twisting words in my mouth, but at the end of the day, what I said and how I said it was on record, and I went out of my way to explain how and why what I said was different from what you claim I said. You are the one who is ignoring the actual argument in a desperate pursuit of some cheap victory, as if this was any kind of competition. I have made myself clear. If you need to keep lying about it, so be it.

I looked at your little experiements below and it says nothing about chemicals in the brain. It says activity in the brain...

So... pretty much exactly what I claimed, too? You are saying the experiment confirms what I said? Glad we can agree.

But guess what, all that comes out the other side is a blob not a picture of anything you can tell what it is.

So... pretty much exactly what I claimed, too? You are saying the experiments confirm what I said? Great! Glad we can agree.

Not very impressive. Heck I can do that with some crayons and paper and I don’t even need a big fancy computer.

You probably can paint weird pictures, I'm sure of it. The reason they showed the subjects images was so that they could confirm that the computer's output was precisely not just random crayon paintings, but actually had some semblance to what would have been on the subjects' minds. There is no neurological reason this wouldn't work for completely imagined visualizations on the subjects' part, this just happens to be the only sort of experiment where the comparison between the image the subject sees and what the computer reconstructs from their brain activity is at all possible. Something that should not be possible, were thoughts entirely non-physical like you say.

I want you to prove that you can take a human off the street and open up his head or something and without the human telling anyone what hes thinking have the scientist be able to do his whatever he does and then pull out of the humans head the exact image or idea hes thinking about just from the chemicals there. That’s what you said we could do so that’s what I want to see.

That is not what I said, and at this point you know that, too. I have no reason entertaining this line of discussion, because you keep lying after repeated corrections.

So how about that 6 winged plane image? Where is it? Save your bow until you provide exactly what I asked for just like you keep demanding of me with these non existent questions you keep going on about.

I have provided exactly what I claimed, nothing less. Your persistent lying about what I said does not oblige me to anything.

Sorry but I cant answer something that does not exist and if you cant even be bothered to point them out to me well I guess that ends that part of the discussion. Hows that for minimal effort bucko? You get what you ask for.

Well, no, I don't. I especially don't get the answers you promised repeatedly. But I am content nonetheless. I understand now that an honest and decent exchange was never your intent, and that is fair enough. Be well.

One reply to your silly assertion and those strange experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

oh and then there is this

Gisteron wrote: Meanwhile thoughts - and so stands to reason ideas, too - do correspond to chemical conditions in the brain

That is not what I said, and at this point you know that, too. I have no reason entertaining this line of discussion, because you keep lying after repeated corrections.

oh is that similar to how you keep lying that I claimed this was a physics thread even after multiple corrections by me? Karma is a bitch aint it.

Yep. Still "correspond", not "are" and still "chemical conditions", not "chemicals". I worded it like that on purpose. If you want to read it a different way, that's your choice. If you want to claim that I said it a different way, that'd be lying, and prepare to be called out on that.


So since you took the effort to go back to page 13, how about the questions I posed in the message immediately after the one you quote from? You know, the questions you claim I never posed? The ones Erinis tried to answer one of? Oh, what's that? Oh? Oh! Oh, it's almost like your assertion that I never posed them was a lie? *gasp* colour me shocked!

exactly, condition is the state of something and correspond is match or agree with. So you basically said that the state of the chemicals in a brain can be used to agree with the thought being thinked. so if your EXACT words that you carefully chose, you state that chemicals in the brain can be used to see what a person is thinking.

What questions were those exactly? I seem to be having trouble finding them. Can you point them out for me? If not I just dont believe I can come to accept they exist.

Fyxe wrote: exactly, condition is the state of something and correspond is match or agree with. So you basically said that the state of the chemicals in a brain can be used to agree with the thought being thinked. so if your EXACT words that you carefully chose, you state that chemicals in the brain can be used to see what a person is thinking.

Yes. There is a match (not necessarily a perfect one, but a match nonetheless) between what a person thinks - say, the image they were instructed to think of - and the chemical state(s) of their brain. If it were not so, then analyzing someone's brain activity - i.e. chemical (and other) states and changes between them inside their brain - would give us no insight whatsoever into the thoughts they are having. If there was no correspondence, the images would not just look blurry, they would show absolutely no semblance to the images we expect the subjects were thinking of other than by sheer luck. That the computer can however reliably keep reconstructing images with recognizably matching colours and shapes from just the measurements it is fed, means that at least some part of the thinking that is responsible for creating the mental image is tied to the sort of activity of the brain we have tools to measure.

That is all I claimed and that is all the studies show. It doesn't mean that all thinking is entirely physical, it doesn't even mean that all thinking has a physical component. But there is some thinking that clearly has some correlation with physically measurable data, at least to the extent to which anything in nature can be said to "clearly" be the case.

Gisteron wrote: Yes. There is a match (not necessarily a perfect one, but a match nonetheless) between what a person thinks - say, the image they were instructed to think of - and the chemical state(s) of their brain.

See its not so hard to actually admit what you said now is it! And now saying that one cant see an image from the chemicals is good too. Instead you have to feed the person a specific picture and get a specific output. sounds like a computer to me not a revolutionary way to read minds. However the fact still remains that you cant pull an idea of of a persons head, there is no way to evaluate a thought that has never been thought before. this is nontangeable.

Fyxe wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Yes. There is a match (not necessarily a perfect one, but a match nonetheless) between what a person thinks - say, the image they were instructed to think of - and the chemical state(s) of their brain.

See its not so hard to actually admit what you said now is it!

For me it isn't. That's why I kept repeating what I said and how I said it, while you kept trying to twist it.

And now saying that one cant see an image from the chemicals is good too.

Yes, not from "chemicals", only from "chemical states". Exactly as I put it before, while you kept trying to twist that, too.

Instead you have to feed the person a specific picture and get a specific output.

No, that's not what the studies say. In fact, the 2019 study by Shen et al. states quite the opposite:

Shen et al. wrote: Here, we present a method for visual image reconstruction from the brain that can reveal both seen and imagined contents by capitalizing on multiple levels of visual cortical representations. (emphasis added)

Am I to believe that after I gave you the references you asked for, you... didn't even read them? Then what was the point?

However the fact still remains that you cant pull an idea of of a persons head, there is no way to evaluate a thought that has never been thought before. this is nontangeable.

Well... If you call it a fact, I could, too, ask to see some confirmation of this. But I'm willing to grant it to you without a reference all the same. The claim that one could pull out never-before-thought thoughts out of people's minds via technological mind-reading marvels was never one I made. All I maintain is that there is something physical in the brain that corresponds to thoughts, because that is what the evidence appears to indicate. That's the goal post I set myself and that's the one I met. Everything beyond that, for now, is beyond that.

OK! now we are getting somewhere. You cant pull a 6 winged airplane out of a guys head by reading the chemicals and even the images fed in, by looking at them or imagining ones already fed are just blurry blobs that can easily be read as a pattern that does not actually exist objectively. Like that face on mars! is it a face? no just a mountain but people will still tell you its a face.

Well, this would be a concern if the computer just spat out random images out of nowhere and the researchers ooh'd and aah'd at the patterns they saw within. But no. If you know what sort of image the subject saw, you can program a computer to analyze what portion of the output, as a fraction of the total, resembles the input and to what extent. You can generate compare unrelated images or random noise to see what measure of semblance would be completely incidental, and see if the semblance between input and brain scan image are more or less similar than would be accounted for by coincidence. You can measure not just that there is a significant match, but precisely how significant it is. And that's only after getting the computer to recognize image features in the first place, which is far from trivial in its own right. Sure, humans may see patterns where none exist, but computers by default can barely see (reliably, that is, dynamically detect, perhaps better put) even the most obvious of patterns.

This isn't a make stuff up and see how much of it ends up in a journal game, Fyxe. One can actually calculate the confidence with which any statement is fair to make. This stuff isn't just empty hand waving. Read the studies, before you dismiss them based on the title. Read about image processing and statistical analysis, before you proclaim that the methods employed were just some self serving hand waving people make up to feel self-important, or "weird scribbles on a paper" as you'd put it... There is a huge, huge world out there most of us are lucky to get to learn much of anything about, and none of us will die having learned anywhere near enough. Don't stop convinced you have it all figured out when you haven't even begun digging in...