NationStates Jolt Archive

All thoughts are produced by specific, quantifable quantum states of the particles in our bodies (and specifically brains). If you took the speed, location, spin and direction of every particle in your brain and imputed the data into a computer, it would output the thought that you were producing at the time of the "snashopt". So, every thought you have is a physical object, inluding metaphysics, god, and whatever other "non-physical" topics you care to come up with, and all possible thoughts you could have are simple permutations of the number and physical shape of the particles in your brain.

You're mean. This is going to keep me up all night...

Please let me be the first to say:
WTF?:confused:

WAIT!
Hiesenburg(sp?) Uncertainty Principle. Can't know the position and velocity(or possibly momentum, I'm not a physicist) of all the atoms and particles in your brain, thus can't input it into a computer. Don't worry people thoughts aren't real.
*wins thread*

So if I think long enough about Nicole Kidman naked in my bedroom, it becomes a physical reality?

Excuse me while I try this one out.

So if I think long enough about Nicole Kidman naked in my bedroom, it becomes a physical reality?

Excuse me while I try this one out.

Pff, that's childish.

*goes off to constantly think about becoming a god*

So if I think long enough about Nicole Kidman naked in my bedroom, it becomes a physical reality?

Excuse me while I try this one out.
No, you misunderstand me - 'thoughts' do not PRODUCE more matter, they are simply the result of a specific arangement of matter. Thus, they are physical. The conditions for the production of what we call 'thought' (which seems to torture us to no end because of it's seemingly metaphysical properties) is merely a result of a certain quantum state our particles are in. Thus, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. are physical objects.

What about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? How can you know with certainty the position and momentum of a particle at the same instant?

So, every thought you have is a physical object, inluding metaphysics, god, and whatever other "non-physical" topics you care to come up with, and all possible thoughts you could have are simple permutations of the number and physical shape of the particles in your brain.

Did you just use the term "simple"?

Yes, thoughts can be reproduced if you reproduce the physical situation in the brain at the time of thinking, but I don't think that that means that the thoughts themselves are physical objects, especially when you consider how much of an impact non-physical things (such as various forces) have on our thoughts.

No, you misunderstand me - 'thoughts' do not PRODUCE more matter, they are simply the result of a specific arangement of matter. Thus, they are physical. The conditions for the production of what we call 'thought' (which seems to torture us to no end because of it's seemingly metaphysical properties) is merely a result of a certain quantum state our particles are in. Thus, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. are physical objects.
I didn't misunderstand, I just couldn't think of anything to add to the thread besides the absurd. :p

What about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? How can you know with certainty the position and momentum of a particle at the same instant?
Well, I'm not saying we can know the necessary information - we simply do not have the ability to place every particle on the grid of the universe with its appropriate quantum properties. That doesn't mean the information isn't there working.

What about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? How can you know with certainty the position and momentum of a particle at the same instant?

See my post above. Wewt, I outsmarted someone. This is the happiest day of the last 5 hours of my life.

But, if in the future we somehow make the Heisenberg Compensator Matrix (I think that's what it was) of Star Trek: The Next Generation...

*ponders*

All thoughts are produced by specific, quantifable quantum states of the particles in our bodies (and specifically brains). If you took the speed, location, spin and direction of every particle in your brain and imputed the data into a computer, it would output the thought that you were producing at the time of the "snashopt". So, every thought you have is a physical object, inluding metaphysics, god, and whatever other "non-physical" topics you care to come up with, and all possible thoughts you could have are simple permutations of the number and physical shape of the particles in your brain.

Been there, done that, have the scars. You haven't proved anything with that, because your thinking assumes that mental states are nothing more or less than physical brain states. This is not necessarily correct, in fact the intuition is that it probably isn't. If I were to give every person in China a cell phone and hook them up to a network, at least theoretically I could mimic the exact travel of impulses seen in your brain through the network (i.e. person 1, representing neuron 1, sends a signal to person 373,576, representing neuron 373,576, who sends a signal to person. . .). Does that then mean that the network of Chinese people sending cell phone signals to each other is thinking the exact same thought you are? Of course not.

Not quite. Thoughts are not single objects; they are the result of collections of multiple objects that interact both internally and collectively. To say that one particle corresponds to one thought is not accurate - its state is measured to represent aspects of potentially many thoughts at any given time.

Thoughts are the emergent aspect of the system of the brain. The physical aspect of the mind is simply the medium through which they occur. Yes, with a complete snapshot of the brain you can replicate thoughts, but you cannot do so by separating every tiny neurone and analysing them individually. It is only when you consider them as units in a grand machination that you can derive those aspects of brain we call thought.

Trying to do otherwise is rather like trying to work out the behaviour of a piece of metal by focusing on each of the individual atoms within it.

What about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? How can you know with certainty the position and momentum of a particle at the same instant?

You can't know the position and momentum -- it's a one-way street. Given a particular configuration of particles (including spin, momentum, position, etc.) it is theoretically possible to compute the resulting thought. However, given a thought, it is theoretically impossible to compute the particle configuration that produced it.

But, if in the future we somehow make the Heisenberg Compensator Matrix (I think that's what it was) of Star Trek: The Next Generation...

*ponders*

Then we'd all be buggerd when some buddhist monk thinks about nothing and we all cease to exist.

Then we'd all be buggerd when some buddhist monk thinks about nothing and we all cease to exist.

All I'm thinking about is mud, sex and tacos. :)

Then we'd all be buggerd when some buddhist monk thinks about nothing and we all cease to exist.

Oh yeah. Fuck.

All I'm thinking about is mud, sex and tacos. :)

Muddy sex tacos? Dude, that's a new level of disgusting, even for you. :p

You can't know the position and momentum -- it's a one-way street. Given a particular configuration of particles (including spin, momentum, position, etc.) it is theoretically possible to compute the resulting thought. However, given a thought, it is theoretically impossible to compute the particle configuration that produced it.
Fine - but that's irrelevant. There exists a physical particle configuation that produces thought - the configurations are greatly varried, and huge in number - yet infintessimally smaller than the particle configurations the universe as a whole can take on. Thus, (in case you want somethiong else to chew on) humans cannpt physically hold all the knowledge of the universe, since our brains simply do not contain enough particles to do so.

All I'm thinking about is mud, sex and tacos. :)
Better than not existing. Much better.

Muddy sex tacos? Dude, that's a new level of disgusting, even for you. :p

I can top it. :)

Fine - but that's irrelevant. There exists a physical particle configuation that produces thought - the configurations are greatly varried, and huge in number - yet infintessimally smaller than the particle configurations the universe as a whole can take on. Thus, (in case you want somethiong else to chew on) humans cannpt physically hold all the knowledge of the universe, since our brains simply do not contain enough particles to do so.

Of course it's relevant. There may be a physical particle configuration that produces thought. Or there may not, the only way to possibly know would be to measure the particle configuration of someone's brain while they're thinking and plugging the data into a supercomuter. Yet we can't measure the particle configuration so we'll never know, we can only assume.

I can top it. :)

Let's never hook you up to that magic make thoughts real thingy. Unless you promise to only think about sexy wimmins.

Not quite. Thoughts are not single objects; they are the result of collections of multiple objects that interact both internally and collectively. To say that one particle corresponds to one thought is not accurate - its state is measured to represent aspects of potentially many thoughts at any given time..no, I'm not suggesting that one particle=one thought.
the collective quantum states of all the particles in our brain (and maybe some in the rest of the body too) encode within them all the meta-interactions (cellular signals etc.) that occur.

Thoughts are the emergent aspect of the system of the brain. Sorry, I don't quite know what you mean by thatThe physical aspect of the mind is simply the medium through which they occur. Yes, with a complete snapshot of the brain you can replicate thoughts, but you cannot do so by separating every tiny neurone and analysing them individually. It is only when you consider them as units in a grand machination that you can derive those aspects of brain we call thought. Fair enough, but I'm not talking about neurons -that's simply a highly complex arrangement of particles that allows for storage and reccollection of information. I'm making the simple observation that thoughts, like every other object, are the result of a specific and reproducable 9albeit very complex) arrangement of matter.

Of course it's relevant. There may be a physical particle configuration that produces thought. Or there may not, the only way to possibly know would be to measure the particle configuration of someone's brain while they're thinking and plugging the data into a supercomuter. Yet we can't measure the particle configuration so we'll never know, we can only assume.
Well, ok then. But in that case we don't know that ANYTHING is produced by particle configuration either. Not your skin, not radio waves, not any physical phenomenon.

Fine - but that's irrelevant. There exists a physical particle configuation that produces thought - the configurations are greatly varried, and huge in number - yet infintessimally smaller than the particle configurations the universe as a whole can take on. Thus, (in case you want somethiong else to chew on) humans cannpt physically hold all the knowledge of the universe, since our brains simply do not contain enough particles to do so.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. However, I was saying that no matter how advanced our technology, we will never be able to figure out which particle configuration corresponds to which thought. It's kind of like a black box thing. We know that our brain is composed of various particles that dictate what we think, but we can never get sufficient information on those particles because doing so would defy the laws of physics. As for not being able to physically hold all the knowledge of the universe -- yes, that is true, because there is an infinite amount of knowledge that cannot be confined in a finite space with a finite number of particles within that space. However, our capacity for knowledge isn't limited by the amount of particles in our brain. A person with one particle can feel happy, sad, angry, etc., despite having only one particle because location also matters. For example, if you have two numbers: 1 and 0, how many bits of information could you know? It depends on the location of the 1 and 0 and the possible placements. 0, 1, 01, 10, 1 0, 1 0, 0 1, etc., all represent distinct bits of information. Same thing with our brains -- they are not limited by particle capacity.

Well, ok then. But in that case we don't know that ANYTHING is produced by particle configuration either. Not your skin, not radio waves, not any physical phenomenon.
No, we probably don't. :)

As for not being able to physically hold all the knowledge of the universe -- yes, that is true, because there is an infinite amount of knowledge that cannot be confined in a finite space with a finite number of particles within that space. There isn't an infinite amount of knowlege in the universe. It is aa function of the amount of matter in the universe, and all its possible arrangements. There is a very large amount, certainly, but it is not infinite, if you believe (as physicists do, to the best of my knowledge) that there is a finite amount of energy/matter in the universe.

However, our capacity for knowledge isn't limited by the amount of particles in our brain. A person with one particle can feel happy, sad, angry, etc., despite having only one particle because location also matters. For example, if you have two numbers: 1 and 0, how many bits of information could you know? It depends on the location of the 1 and 0 and the possible placements. 0, 1, 01, 10, 1 0, 1 0, 0 1, etc., all represent distinct bits of information. Same thing with our brains -- they are not limited by particle capacity.It is limited by the number of particles. You seem to think I'm claiming that the number of particles=number of "thoughts", which is obviously ridiculous. However, there is a relationship between the amount of objects, and the nuber of ways they can be arranged. If you had 0, 1, and 2, you would have more ways of arranging them than if you had just 0 and 1. With more matter, you gain more possibilities.

no, I'm not suggesting that one particle=one thought.
the collective quantum states of all the particles in our brain (and maybe some in the rest of the body too) encode within them all the meta-interactions (cellular signals etc.) that occur.
But you are suggesting that each particle has a set thought to which it belongs. That is, I assumed, what you meant by calling them physical objects.

Sorry, I don't quite know what you mean by that
My fault. I've been blithering on about concurrent systems for so long I kinda forget how weird it sounds.

Anyway. Systems are collections of bodies that interact. In this degree of interaction, systems often display behaviours that cannot be attributed to any properties of their component parts. For instance, the elasticity of a material; if all you had was a bunch of atoms, their stretchiness doesn't make sense. It takes a more abstracted view, considering exchanges of energy between atoms and networks of such bonds, in order to grasp that.

This difference between component behaviour and group behaviour is called the emergent response. Now this thing we call thought is not a property of any localised particle, nor even the product of a cell. Remove a brain cell from a man and you will not be able to work out a thought. However, it is a product of the system of the brain as a whole. Therefore, it must be an emergent response of the system and not a physical thing in itself.

I'm making the simple observation that thoughts, like every other object, are the result of a specific and reproducable 9albeit very complex) arrangement of matter.
But that does not make them physical objects. That makes them effects. To say that an emergent result is a physical object would imply that the difference between a gold block and a collection of gold atoms is also a physical object.

Been there, done that, have the scars. You haven't proved anything with that, because your thinking assumes that mental states are nothing more or less than physical brain states.This is not necessarily correct, in fact the intuition is that it probably isn't. Why shouldn't I assume just that? You have not given me an alternative. Saying somehting "may not be" is not an argument. If I were to give every person in China a cell phone and hook them up to a network, at least theoretically I could mimic the exact travel of impulses seen in your brain through the network (i.e. person 1, representing neuron 1, sends a signal to person 373,576, representing neuron 373,576, who sends a signal to person. . .). Does that then mean that the network of Chinese people sending cell phone signals to each other is thinking the exact same thought you are? Of course not.I'm not talking about brain impulses at all. that's a very macro-level that can only be innaccurately replicated. Your analogy isn't very relevant.

But that does not make them physical objects. That makes them effects. To say that an emergent result is a physical object would imply that the difference between a gold block and a collection of gold atoms is also a physical object.
No, I think we just misunderstood each other then. I agree with what you've written - it is the collective interaction of particles that produces an output. When I said they are physical objects, all I meant was that thoughts are the result of a physical arrangement of matter, just as movement, or sound, is the result of a particular arrangement. Whether you want to call 'thought' itself "physical" or not is just semantics - it is physically, unmisteriously produced as a result of the physical universalities in our heads' componants that apply to all other matter as well. I feel like I'm repeating myself already, but that was my point - to remove thought from the realm of the meta-physical.

Why shouldn't I assume just that? You have not given me an alternative. Saying somehting "may not be" is not an argument. I'm not talking about brain impulses at all. that's a very macro-level that can only be innaccurately replicated. Your analogy isn't very relevant.

Well, first of all, I would hardly say that my analogy isn't relevent, since to have an understanding of a neural firing is nothing more than to have an understanding of the micro-level quantum states of the particles that make up that neural firing. But no matter, I'll try a different tack.

Suppose for instance, that we input all the quantum-level data about the neural firings of bats into a computer in just the way you suggested. Would you, looking at the output of this computer, thereby know what it's like to see the world through echo location? Of course not, becuase there are phenomenological (another way of saying "what it's like") qualities of echo location that cannot be captured by that computer, and likely couldn't be comprehended by your brain.

There isn't an infinite amount of knowlege in the universe.

Yes there is. What's the 10000th term in the square root of 2? The 100000000000000000000th? The information in the universe isn't restricted to its physical properties.

It is limited by the number of particles.

No, it's limited by the amount of available space and the amount of particles. You can have 10 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100 particles, but you don't have enough possible space to store all that data.

if the thought is energy (which I believe it is) then it is physical, just like sound.

No, you misunderstand me - 'thoughts' do not PRODUCE more matter, they are simply the result of a specific arangement of matter. Thus, they are physical. The conditions for the production of what we call 'thought' (which seems to torture us to no end because of it's seemingly metaphysical properties) is merely a result of a certain quantum state our particles are in. Thus, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. are physical objects.

You seem to have made a bit of a leap there. A thought about x doesnt make x a physical object, it simply makes the thought about x a physical object (assuming this is all true). The existence of thoughts as physical matter doesn't imply that the thing the thoughts reference is physical. Only the thought itself is, and as thus it would be the thought about x is physical, rather than x is physical.

Anyone whose learned a new language on the fly knows that.
"Its that one feeling, you know, like a tyrannical duck forcing swans into a burning bush!"
" ... Malevolence?"
"Yes, exactly!"*



*This hypotetical conversation is conducted in another language, other than English.

Yes there is. What's the 10000th term in the square root of 2? The 100000000000000000000th? The information in the universe isn't restricted to its physical properties..Well, I'm arguing that it is. By information, all I mean is al lthe possible quantum arrangements of matter. That should cover many more possibilities than ever atually occur, and include all the information in the universe. As for your example of the digits in an irrational number, that information is definately stored in many of the quantum states the universe could find itself in: for example, the state in which a computer would calculate it, or the state in which you would guess what the digit is and get it right.

No, it's limited by the amount of available space and the amount of particles. You can have 10 ^ 100 ^ 100 ^ 100 particles, but you don't have enough possible space to store all that data.Well, the amount of space in the universe is increasing, but it is not infinite.

You seem to have made a bit of a leap there. A thought about x doesnt make x a physical object, it simply makes the thought about x a physical object (assuming this is all true). The existence of thoughts as physical matter doesn't imply that the thing the thoughts reference is physical. Only the thought itself is, and as thus it would be the thought about x is physical, rather than x is physical.
Ok, that's fine. God and the Monster were simply the most far-flung examples of thoughts that abviously were not real (independent) forms I could think of. Their physicality is just that of the brains of the many people that ponder about them - thanks for pointing out that unclarity, though I do think it was covered by the fellow that wanted Nicole Kidman in his bedroom.

Whether you want to call 'thought' itself "physical" or not is just semantics - it is physically, unmisteriously produced as a result of the physical universalities in our heads' componants that apply to all other matter as well. I feel like I'm repeating myself already, but that was my point - to remove thought from the realm of the meta-physical.
Unmysterious? The very phenomenon of systemic behaviour is a surreal one, to which we as yet have no real other explanation than "it all works together somehow". I think to dismiss this as unmysterious is to miss one of the biggest mysteries of modern science. How does the atom behave the way it does as a result of simple strings of three quarks orbitted by simple leptons coexisting? Why do the bonds between these atoms completely change their chemical behaviour yet again?

If anything is capable of being called meta-physical, I would say that was it.

Unmysterious? The very phenomenon of systemic behaviour is a surreal one, to which we as yet have no real other explanation than "it all works together somehow". I think to dismiss this as unmysterious is to miss one of the biggest mysteries of modern science. How does the atom behave the way it does as a result of simple strings of three quarks orbitted by simple leptons coexisting? Why do the bonds between these atoms completely change their chemical behaviour yet again?

If anything is capable of being called meta-physical, I would say that was it.Ok, but these are the same "mysteries" that all of the physical world has in common. And certainly not metaphysical - physicists work of these questions every day. To assume that something that is not well understood is somehow 'mysterious' in a meta-physical way is like assuming that your pig has flown away if it's not in the barnyard.
It's not that related, but as an example, the big bang is no longer thought to be an undefined "singularity", but rather an explainable physical event, by leading cosmologists.

Ok, but these are the same "mysteries" that all of the physical world has in common. And certainly not metaphysical - physicists work of these questions every day. To assume that something that is not well understood is somehow 'mysterious' in a meta-physical way is like assuming that your pig has flown away if it's not in the barnyard.
It's not that related, but as an example, the big bang is no longer thought to be an undefined "singularity", but rather an explainable physical event, by leading cosmologists.
But it is meta-physical, in as much as anything else is. Or rather, anything that we describe as metaphysical can also fit into the same sort of category as these common physical world "mysteries". At least, that's what I reckon.

But it is meta-physical, in as much as anything else is. Or rather, anything that we describe as metaphysical can also fit into the same sort of category as these common physical world "mysteries". At least, that's what I reckon.Well, personally, i maintain that there *is* nothing meta-physical. But insofar as you use the term uniformly to denote things we do not know, well, fine. Science meets god at the edges of our knowledge, as they say.

Your powers of necromancy are weak, it has been a mere 6 hours(more or less) since the last post.
http://tinypic.com/dnlzki.jpg

No, I think we just misunderstood each other then. I agree with what you've written - it is the collective interaction of particles that produces an output. When I said they are physical objects, all I meant was that thoughts are the result of a physical arrangement of matter, just as movement, or sound, is the result of a particular arrangement. Whether you want to call 'thought' itself "physical" or not is just semantics - it is physically, unmisteriously produced as a result of the physical universalities in our heads' componants that apply to all other matter as well. I feel like I'm repeating myself already, but that was my point - to remove thought from the realm of the meta-physical.

What is it that I am aware of when I think? You are suggesting that my awareness simply is the physical state of my brain at that time. Now the awareness that derives from this physical state can not depend upon the material itself, as this is changes over time, without my losing awareness, so it can only be due to the relationships that exist between the physical materials. Now as someone else has said, these relationships can be accurately replicated in a model (the connection speeds, the interactions etc.) which should, if your idea is correct result in that model being aware.

By this line of thinking the Internet should be self aware by now, but we have no signs of this being the case, as should the telecommunications systems of the world. It apears that something more than just the relationships between the physical nodes is essential to awareness.

I have no suggestions as to what this might be, but I am not convinced that the mind-brain identity theory holds. There is too much evidence against it in the modern world.

By this line of thinking the Internet should be self aware by now, but we have no signs of this being the case, as should the telecommunications systems of the world. It apears that something more than just the relationships between the physical nodes is essential to awareness.

I have no suggestions as to what this might be, but I am not convinced that the mind-brain identity theory holds. There is too much evidence against it in the modern world.
The particles do change (turnover of materials, etc) but clearly, their behaviour is conserved such that we can store knowledge in a continuous manner.

However, your suggestion that any connected network (telecommunications, internet) should acquire conciousness is ridiculous. Our brains took billions of years to evolve. Why would a haphazardly set up bunch of electromagnetic waves behave in the same manner? The relationships of cells in our heads are highly highly self-regulated and far more complex than we understand. Replicating it on a cell-singnal level is very far from our capability (at least for the whole brain). The quantum approach is equally as impossible practically, but is fundamentally accurate.

I think everyone might be arguing on slightly different terms and about things with some strange assumptions. Granted this is coming from my limited amount of knowledge on the subject at hand.

Perhaps the matter in your brain is consistently at a certain identifiable physical state when you think "God". Is this when you're thinking of god... existing? Thinking of god, scrambling an egg? Are you happy when you think it? There are QUITE a few variables that would change this physical setup of your brain.

Okay, let's assume that the entire setup is consistently identifiable anyway, for whatever reasons. Not all homosapien brains are shaped the same, nor do they function the same, so the same thought (or best extent of that thought) would necessarily be exactly the same physical setup for every brain. Also, you're assuming that we can see everything that is going on and involved with the thought itself and with consciousness for that matter (which is affecting every thought, no doubt).

Also, what you really said, was that since you can identify physical arrangements of the brain, which are formed consistently (hopefully) each corresponding to a certain thought, the thought has some sort of physical existence. I'd love to see this proven Empirically. Even still, don't look at it backwards, because your consciousness thinks of something and thus your brain enables it to, and at the same time reflects that in a physical makeup, does not mean that the physical makeup alone would give you that thought if imposed on you. Its an even bigger stretch to say that putting that physical representation on any other brain than your own would create the same thought. The joke about Nicole Kidman was good though.

So with all of these problems ignored what have you really said? Every thought produces a consistent pattern of physical arrangement. That does not necessarily mean the abstract has achieved physical manifestation IN ANY WAY. I can think Hamburgers Orbiting Jupiter until the day I die, and an arrangement of Hamburgers Orbiting Jupiter has been thought, and that thought has produced a physical arrangement and been enabled to be thought of by the possibility of the arrangement, but Hamburgers have not Orbited Jupiter in any way. This is especially important when applying the absurd idea to God. Now I'm totally open minded to religion but what you've said should NOT be taken as a potential bridge connecting science and divinity any more than anything else should.

As for infinite knowledge in the universe... now I'm not familiar with set theory so I can only speak from a logical standpoint to the best of my ability (which may be laughable) but here is an attempt nonetheless. I guess I have two positions on this. One is that because of human creativity and consciousness, that there are an infinite amount of interperetations and relationships and thoughts to be made and so long as we keep reproducing we will keep thinking, and thus there will be an infinite (unboundless) number of thoughts which can never at any time all be known, including the idea that someone might be wondering the idea of infinity and wondering ideas that we currently can't explain, that may be unexplainable forever, so the thoughts and relationships of such are potentially infinite. So the idea of infinite information is only potential. That one I'm not so sure about, but it sounds nice. The other theory is that since you're merely addressing physical matter and the locations of such, if you think the universe is finite, the knowledge to be drawn from knowing everything you can see in the finite system is already there in the physical sense (with the harder to explain things such as thought being represented physically as we've mentioned.) So the only way the information in the universe could be finite as far as I personally can fathom (which is unimpressive) would be if A) the universe itself phsyically was finite. and B) consciousness was fully explainable and finite and all thoughts drawn from such were finite and finitely explainable.
I can imagine a creationist would have far different things to say about this.

This will only get more complicated if we try to take into account "space-time" as a physical type of knowledge.

Fist of all, welcome to NS (if you haven't already been here in a previous permutation). Make sure to leave you sanity at the door.
I think everyone might be arguing on slightly different terms and about things with some strange assumptions. Granted this is coming from my limited amount of knowledge on the subject at hand.

Perhaps the matter in your brain is consistently at a certain identifiable physical state when you think "God". Is this when you're thinking of god... existing? Thinking of god, scrambling an egg? Are you happy when you think it? There are QUITE a few variables that would change this physical setup of your brain. Definately. No thought you have is probably ever going to be though by you again, exactly. There are reproducable themes in it, but you will not be the same person you were a minute ago ever again - there are many variations available.
Also, what you really said, was that since you can identify physical arrangements of the brain, which are formed consistently (hopefully) each corresponding to a certain thought, the thought has some sort of physical existence. I'd love to see this proven Empirically. Even still, don't look at it backwards, because your consciousness thinks of something and thus your brain enables it to, and at the same time reflects that in a physical makeup, does not mean that the physical makeup alone would give you that thought if imposed on you. Well, the point was that conciousness itself is one thing that is itself enabled/created by physical arrangements.

So with all of these problems ignored what have you really said? Every thought produces a consistent pattern of physical arrangement. No, that every thought *is* produced by a physical arrangement, which may never be reproduced exactly ever again
This is especially important when applying the absurd idea to God. Now I'm totally open minded to religion but what you've said should NOT be taken as a potential bridge connecting science and divinity any more than anything else should.Right.

As for infinite knowledge in the universe... now I'm not familiar with set theory so I can only speak from a logical standpoint to the best of my ability (which may be laughable) but here is an attempt nonetheless. I guess I have two positions on this. One is that because of human creativity and consciousness, that there are an infinite amount of interperetations and relationships and thoughts to be made and so long as we keep reproducing we will keep thinking, and thus there will be an infinite careful of using the word "infinite" interchangably with "really really big". As many kids as we can have, they are still confined to the amount of matter in them, and the amount of space that matter has to jiggle around in. We can't 'transcend' the bits we're made of. Though believe me, there are many more possiblities for thoughts in your head than will ever be actually thought by all of humankind put together. This will only get more complicated if we try to take into account "space-time" as a physical type of knowledge.I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

The particles do change (turnover of materials, etc) but clearly, their behaviour is conserved such that we can store knowledge in a continuous manner.
So we agree that if awareness etc is a result of a purely physical process it has to be based on the interactions between the parts and not on the nature of the parts themselves. i.e. there is nothing special about brain cells that enables them and them only to generate awareness.

However, your suggestion that any connected network (telecommunications, internet) should acquire conciousness is ridiculous.
Why? If you wish to argue that it is a particular configuration of connections that results in consciousness then you will have to justify what is special about that configuration when compared to others. You would also have to show that this configuration that is shared between all conscious beings. It is much more reasonable to assume that the consciousness can derive from a given degree of complexity, rather than from a specific configuration. Yes it did take millions (not billions) of years for our brains to develop this complexity, but the internet has complexity of a similar order. The length of time involved in such development is not a factor per se.

Our brains took billions of years to evolve. Why would a haphazardly set up bunch of electromagnetic waves behave in the same manner? The relationships of cells in our heads are highly highly self-regulated and far more complex than we understand.
It appears that you are arguing that the configuration is important for consciousness to occur. While I could agree that the configuration may well have to have certain features (self damping, positive and negative feedback circuits etc.) I fail to see why A connectd to D via B can result in consciouness when A connected to D via C cannot. That is something you would have to justify to be able to simply discard complexity as the significant factor in favour of configuration.

Replicating it on a cell-singnal level is very far from our capability (at least for the whole brain). The quantum approach is equally as impossible practically, but is fundamentally accurate.
Replicating a brain structure on a cell signal level is beyond even nature's capabilities. No two brains are the same.
All the quantum approach (Penrose) does is to allow us to introduce a non deterministic factor which leaves space for our will to be causaly free.

Thus, (in case you want somethiong else to chew on) humans cannpt physically hold all the knowledge of the universe, since our brains simply do not contain enough particles to do so.
Hmm, I seem to vaguely remember a more interesting proof to that effect in a class on the philosophy of mathematics. Something like, if we could know everything, we already would. That's not making a great deal of sense right now, but at the time it struck me as absolutely brilliant. Perhaps I'll try to look that up again...

You're mean. This is going to keep me up all night...

Right man.....

Edited: More simply put, whatever is encoded and decoded by the brain is physical, but the thought is what it means to us.

If I say, "I had a thought," someone would be perfectly justified in asking, "About what?"

It is what we think about that is the thought, not how we think it.

So we agree that if awareness etc is a result of a purely physical process it has to be based on the interactions between the parts and not on the nature of the parts themselves. i.e. there is nothing special about brain cells that enables them and them only to generate awareness.There is lots special about brain cells. They are highly unique mechanisms, and their interactions are too. Cells themselves do not get replaced,; you neurons are there for life (with a few exceptions). there is nothing unique about the atoms that make them up though (obviously), and it is the materials that the cells are made of that get turned over.
It is much more reasonable to assume that the consciousness can derive from a given degree of complexity, rather than from a specific configuration. Yes it did take millions (not billions) of years for our brains to develop this complexity, but the internet has complexity of a similar order. The length of time involved in such development is not a factor per se. Well living things have been evolving for billions of years, so yeah, but that's irelevant. I think you statement that "consciousness can derive from a given degree of complexity" is fair, however, we don't have much to work off in terms of examples of conciousness that are different from ourselves. therefore, if we were to try and replicate conciousness, it would be by using a human model, not a random connection of computers.

It appears that you are arguing that the configuration is important for consciousness to occur. While I could agree that the configuration may well have to have certain features (self damping, positive and negative feedback circuits etc.) I fail to see why A connectd to D via B can result in consciouness when A connected to D via C cannot. That is something you would have to justify to be able to simply discard complexity as the significant factor in favour of configuration. Well, to me it is pefectly intuitive that configuration is more important than the "complexity" - or in other words, mount of connection, and volume of stuff. Both are clearly necessary, but conciousness is so very specialized a phenomenon, that clearly very specidic configurations and relationships are needed to achieve it - not just a whole bunch of really connected stuff in a jumble. Again, conciousness evolved for a very specific purpose - it was not the result of a haphazard arrangement of wires geared at something else, that just happened to reach a threshold level of 'complexity' as the internet is.

Replicating a brain structure on a cell signal level is beyond even nature's capabilities. No two brains are the same. No, but their mechanisms and ordering are very much the same.
All the quantum approach (Penrose) does is to allow us to introduce a non deterministic factor which leaves space for our will to be causaly free.lost you there, what do you mean by 'determanistic factor' and 'causally free'?

Hmm, I seem to vaguely remember a more interesting proof to that effect in a class on the philosophy of mathematics. Something like, if we could know everything, we already would. That's not making a great deal of sense right now, but at the time it struck me as absolutely brilliant. Perhaps I'll try to look that up again...I would be interested in this if you could find it.

Those who are trying to state whether such things are possible or not for so and so reasons are missing the OP's point.

He is simply saying that thought (and thus abstract thought) has as its cause a physical reality based in quantum/chemical mechanics. Thus "ideas" are real too.

This is pretty much the founding idea of neuroscience.

And thats it.

Those who are trying to state whether such things are possible or not for so and so reasons are missing the OP's point.

He is simply saying that thought (and thus abstract thought) has as its cause a physical reality based in quantum/chemical mechanics. Thus "ideas" are real too.

This is pretty much the founding idea of neuroscience.

And thats it.Pretty much. A very basic observation, and one that I don't find particularly profound, or 'meaningful' in terms of implications and so forth. Yet, an important basis.